Vikings vs Samurais
then help me with the real underlying question in this thread because i cant decide
Comment has been collapsed.
i love swords over axes
great armor over little guys with a helmet
japan over nordic
my decision is simple
Comment has been collapsed.
But Vikings used swords as well, and on the battlefield Samurai would use spears or bows, not swords. The katana was similar to a longsword in that it was a sidearm, not a main weapon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh.. No one could say for sure as they never fought in history. Have you seen a show called "deadliest warrior"? They did an episode on Vikings vs Samurai but I think that show is bs. A computer simulation can't take skill and training into account.
Comment has been collapsed.
Deadlies warrior is complete BS in general, they don't seem to bother doing much historical research at all
Comment has been collapsed.
Vikings. Vikings. I like japan, katanas, martial arts but seriously, how ninjas are winning? Inconceivable!
First, we're talking vikings. They're pirates and norse berserks of odin. Double awesome.
Second, its a fight.
Real ninjas didn't fought- if and when they fought is when things have gone fubar, and they would die or kill themselves anyway. Ninjas don't fight. Ninjas cowardly (opposite of the bushido) poison, explode and knife to the back.
Vikings also stealthed. Slient drakkar on rivers by night, you wake up axe above you or your town sieged.
Picture this: who you would like more to fight alongside with? And after battle, how would you feast upon your victory?
Also ninjas are from a way, way too much machist society, vikings had shieldmaidens, divorce, menages and what not.
Rationally if anyone puts any tought on it Vikings are more awesome all around. And if you like ninjas because of katanas/ninjatos- if vikings sailed that far they would had pillaged a bunch as well.
But mostly because Vinland saga is better too.
Comment has been collapsed.
also love your profile picture abbys oddysey is really good and i love the art
Comment has been collapsed.
Love their art all around!
Oh, i was too quick to answer lol.
Now samurais... hard to tell. But damn, the vikings would still party better.
Also Vinland saga, go for it!
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah... i am really thinking about going for vinland saga, the volumes are beatiful, and they need to sell or they will stop publishing them in english! but price/content is much better with vagabond :/ well in any case i will end up buying both
Comment has been collapsed.
No one said ninjas, he said samurais. Fully body armored, military tactic using, martial art using samurais.
Comment has been collapsed.
Armor-wise alone the Vikings (Danes) were far better off with chainmail and shields. Samurai wore padded leather or something similar and it didn't cover as much. Now fighting-wise, I am not sure if the katana or axe would be better, but considering they should also both deploy bows and arrows... shields help. :p
The Danes also had spears, did the samurai use the naginata or was that for the fighter monks? I forget.
Anyway I tihink eventually the better armor would allow the Danes to win. I prefer their roudy fighting, feisty ways more so.. I'll go with them. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Traditionally, Vikings have been thought to have opted for leather body armour—or none at all—as it was both more flexible and cheaper. However, there is no archeological evidence to support leather armour.[19] Given that Vikings on a raid tried to avoid pitched battles, it's possible that mail was primarily worn only by the professional warriors going into battle, such as the Great Heathen Army of the mid-9th century in England or at Harald Hardrada's invasion of Northumbria at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066.
Wikipedia disagrees with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well the OP didn't specify if it was on a raid or a battle... :P So in a battle they should still wear something heavier than leather. However we don't know the time period either because later samurai armor became more decent as well (kinda like European breastplates). Anyway, the Vikings still used shields unlike the samurai. I just prefer the Nords more. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
That's true they both were around for long periods of time and no circumstances are given which makes it more difficult to judge. But mail was still pretty expensive and rare for the majority of vikings regardless whether they were raiding or in battle. Wielding a shield has it's advantages and disadvantages, it's not a definitive advantage. I still believe the samurai would have won through superior tactics, but perhaps I just prefer them :p
Comment has been collapsed.
The vikings were actually known for using some (for their time) really advanced tactics. That was why they stood a chance against the European kingdoms of the time, despite on paper being far weaker.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd just like to say I'm not a viking or samurai history expert or anything, I just go on what wikipedia says. But from what I've read vikings mostly used ambush/surprise and berzerker tactics, while samurai used military tactics. And vikings were mostly know for raiding, not so much warfare.
Comment has been collapsed.
They did conquer a lot of land, so they could not just have raided ;) And it's true that vikings were known for doing surprise attacks and ambushes. Their enemy had to be unprepared for their attack, otherwise they would have ended up losing far too many fighters. But attacking when your enemy does not expect you to attack, and actually being able to consistently pulling it off, that's showing an understanding of military tactics & strategy.
Also, the idea of berzerker tactics, what do they actually mean by that? The idea of the berserker, who enters a state of rage during battle and fights without a care, that one has been questioned by historians. How would they go about getting into their state of rage? How did they survive if they were fighting like madmen?
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't call it a lot of land (compared to other historical conquering) since red is what they started with and green are only the places they raided. So they only conquered part of Great Britain, part of Italy, part of Greenland, Iceland and those Rus' States. And the large majority was accessible through water, so they were clearly good at raiding (and keeping the lands afterwards), but what I meant was more the classic warfare on land. I'm not saying the vikings didn't use any tactics, I'm saying I think the samurai tactics would have been superior if you take away the element of surprise which is a clear advantage to whomever has it.
The word "berzerker" actually comes from the vikings, I didn't know that before :D Well the potential use of drugs and/or alcohol, combined with the culture they grew up in certainly makes it a possibility I assume. But I think it refers mostly to a very aggressive way of attacking, and trying to intimidate their opponents by creating the perception of not feeling pain and psyching each other up. They survived by making their opponents be afraid, though I'm sure they still die if you cut them :D I don't know whether it's true or not I'm just following the predominant theories on wikipedia, though from what I read it seems to fit that they at the very least had a very aggressive and ruthless manner of fighting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, they can't be compared to the Mongols, or the Romans in terms of land conquered, but western Europe had comparatively densely populated land, with established rulers. Iceland and Greenland was just colonized, not conquered. And if you're keeping the land, you're not just raiding :P
And we see historical accounts of this. The so called "Great Heathen Army", which conquered large parts of what is today's England was an organized army. Surprisingly little is known about this army (we don't know its size), just that it was considered to be a large and well organized army.
We also know from accounts of when the vikings besieged Paris that they had a well oiled logistics system and a functioning command system (and yes, they won that siege). It's been estimated that the vikings had a fleet of 100-150 ships carrying men & resources for this battle. That's not a small raiding force, that's a proper army invading one of the largest cities of Western Europe.
From what I've read, based on more recent historical research, it's believed that the stories of the berzerkers were, if not fabrications, at least extremely exagerated. Having a large group of angry men screaming in a language you don't speak come rushing towards you is quite scary, and that could well be where the story comes from. "Berzerkers" most likely existed, but again, from what I've read, they were likely not what we think. "Champions" would be a term you could apply to them, they were the warriors who severed directly under the Jarl and who were considered well trained and motivated.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah I was too lazy to look for a better word than raiding or conquering :p Still seems their biggest strength was their naval fleet and the element of surprise. Since I'm only using wikipedia articles my reading material is rather limited, but it seems you're quite knowledgeable on the subject. I'm sure they used tactics or they wouldn't have been as successful as they were, but I'm not really convinced they had superior fighting style or military tactics over the samurai, but that's just my opinion I'm no expert :D
The berzerkers do seem a bit exaggerated and it would make sense for their cultural to boast about them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on the situation, but in an open field battle with equal amount of units, the Samurai would not stand a chance against Vikings.
Just find an illustration of a viking and a samurai and compare their stature.
Comment has been collapsed.
I Like vikings more but i Said samurais just because vagabond is better imo
Comment has been collapsed.
Vikings, and of course they had armour! They had kite and round shields, helmets, and of course leather, cloth, mail, plate and lamellar armour.
Their helms did not have any horns (extremely few horned helmets have been found, and they were most likely not used in battle), and of course they didn't just use axes - they had spears, swords, knives and bows and arrows.
Comment has been collapsed.
This gif actually gives the answer. The katana is made to cut through meat and bone not armor. Japanese kept using it only because that was the tradition not because it was such a superior weapon. Samurai's armor would not withstand a powerful axe attack while the Viking's would be barely damaged by the Katana's strike. Also Vikings were often armed with spears which can keep the samurai warrior at a safe distance whilst constantly harassing it. Not to mention that the Japanese samurai had no shields .
Comment has been collapsed.
this debate can not stop people, i saw some really good answears for both sides but i want blood in this comments damn it!
Comment has been collapsed.
Samurai's because they have the best wep (Katana) and they had pizza cats.
Comment has been collapsed.
When I think of Nordic settlers to my country (U.S.), I think of the state of Minnesota, whose American football team is even called the Vikings. The most famous fictional Minnesota city was St. Olaf, hometown of Rose on "Golden Girls." She was portrayed by Betty White, who is still very active in her 90s, leading me to believe she is immortal and can withstand any samurai attack. Therefore, Vikings win!
Comment has been collapsed.
The vikings were not just raiders, they also participated in larger battles. But one really important thing to note was that they preferred clever tactics over brute force. Why waste blood when you can use your brain instead?
Comment has been collapsed.
very like terrorism. nowdays.
Eh, no not at all. First of all, their goal was not to spread terror and demoralize the population. Their plundering of churches was piracy (and piracy is not terrorism, their goals are different and their methods are different). Their wars for conquest was, well, exactly what it sounds like.
who stays in the shadows the justice or crime?
Eh, by using your logic you've just defined any form of army that preferred to take the enemy by surprised rather than organizing pitched battles as terrorists.
Were the samurai terrorists when they ambushed unprepared armies? If yes, then your definition of vikings as terrorists in battle is consistent, if not, then you're being inconsistent.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you describe also make the Samurai terrorists. So it's terrorists vs. terrorists?
Comment has been collapsed.
And from times they would burn down villages, rape women, plunder and kill indiscriminately. They were also notoriously unreliable, and willing to switch sides. Honor, well, that was nice in writing, but the reality was that they were quite fond of doing dishonourable things, if it served them well. Just look at the Sengoku period and you'll see a lot of this bad behaviour. And then, when society moved on to a point where having samurai was a burden, well, then it was not uncommon to see samurai to be a real thorn in the side of society, as they had no way of sustaining themselves in a lawful way, so a lot of them turned to highway robbery and organized crime.
Oh, and I'm by the way not just talking out my rear here, I have studied history at a university level ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not offended, but you're basic your argument on fiction more than history. It's common misinformation based on popular media. Saying that Vikings were "raiders" is only partially true, much like saying that "samurais was policy and the military from your time." is only partially true. Samurai were also raiders, they could be criminals, and they could conduct acts of terror, and vikings, well, if we use the broader definition of vikings, the way we usually use it to talk about it, rather than the very strict definition (if we do, they were pirates, not terrorists), then vikings had kingdoms, and had organized armies, so rather than terrorists, we should treat them like any other kingdom.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is not correct at all. Well, they conquered land, and settled their own people there, forming their own kingdoms there.
That's conquest, not raiding.
Also, not all land taken by vikings were taken by force. Like Iceland & Greenland.
Raiding is when you send a force to either cause damage to the "enemy", or to steal stuff/people, and then leave.
Raiding is also not terrorism. Terrorism has its own definition.
And if we're going to define conquest as terrorism, well then we're back to samurais being terrorists. Because they sure as heck used military force in attempts to conquer different areas (sometimes successfully, sometimes not).
plus is not like was praised samurai action going to crime(even nowdays) like is to the viking.
Popular media has given people a very skewed view on what both vikings & samurais were. Samurais in popular media are often depicted like knights are, following a strict honor code and all that (obvious) historical fabrication.
And the view on vikings that most people have is based on 19th century historical propaganda. A lot of it is just made up.
Peace loving viking its more fantasy than anything else. just like Skrin, God Of War, Thor etc tec
If we go back to the wider definition again of what a viking was, and not the strict definition, then you should know that most "vikings" did not go out on raids, nor did they participate in wars. That would be a great way of causing severe depopulation. But again we've got historical propaganda from the 19th century giving a very skewed view of what the Norse actually were. The idea that all "vikings" (if we again use the wider definition) were just out pillaging and looting all the time, that's the fantasy part.
Comment has been collapsed.
Saying "I'm a viking" will make people think you're a Nazi :P
for that i will say genghis khan was barbarian too right?
Yes, and much like with the vikings, it would be incredibly unfair to simply brush them off and say that they're barbarians. We're talking about a group of people who were able to form an empire that lasted for over 100 years. They had an advanced culture and a surprisingly well developed system for governing their vast territory. If they were "simple barbarians" they would not have been able to do this. But it was convenient to label them as barbarians for the Europeans, because they were different. Convenient and very simplistic (and unfair).
By labeling the mongols as simple barbarians, it was a lot easier to view them as an "enemy". Sadly this view has resulted in people of today thinking that the Mongols were far more simple than they actually were.
Also, did you know that the Mongols liked to wear silk underwear? Sexy, eh?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll split the post into two, for the sake of making it easier to read.
During the 19th century nationalists in the Nordic countries were trying to create their own national "symbol", something that could be used as a symbol for the Nordic countries, which they felt had grown weak due to outside influences. At this time relatively little was actually known about the vikings. There were some christian sources that mentioned them, but they had left rune stones and other things like that behind, but the understanding of the culture of the Nordic countries was rather limited (it still actually is).
So they decided to write new stories about the vikings. This is where the idea of the "noble pirate" who was strong and could fight all the "weaker" countries came in. In this narrative, the viking raids were put front and center, showing how they, through brute force, could overcome the forces of the other nations that existed in Europe at the time. This was contrasted with how seemingly weak the Nordic countries were once they entered the middle ages (and as now they suffered from those terrible "outside influences"). This is where we get those (made up) stories about berserkers chewing mushrooms to go into a rage (the mushrooms that they supposedly chewed actually have the opposite effect on you, but why let facts get in the way of a good propaganda narrative?) The other things that vikings did, like trading, working as mercenaries for other kingdoms and so on, were conveniently ignored, as it would hurt the narrative of the strong and fearless viking who lusted for battle and all that.
And I'm afraid that you've fallen for this 19th century nationalist propaganda ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Either we use the strict definition of "viking", and then we are only talking about the pirates that came out of the Nordic countries, or we use the more expanded definition, that most people use. And then we get the people who were able to conquer large parts of England, and parts of northern France, and who settled in a considerable part of the European side of what is Russia these days.
I'm not only attached to vikings (see my comment about the Mongols above), but you were basing your argument on fabricated history.
still for me just propaganda to get viking loving train from peoplel looking to disrespect any other culture besides the viking.
Eh, I never said that the other cultures were bad, I just said that your view on what the vikings were are based on 19th century nationalist propaganda. Also, you might want to look up what propaganda means ;)
regardless the samurai still represent the policy/justice and the viking the raider/criminal the crime love to make association with viking figure. for your actions
And again, you're not basic this on historical evidence, but just on popular media. Please read some modern (university level, not popular history) history books on the subject of both feudal Japan and the viking age. You'll find that both are a lot more complex and nuanced than you're giving the impression of them being (and might I say interesting, both had really interesting cultures once you start scratching the surface). You'll also find them very different from what you think they are.
Sadly historical fabrication is a huge problem in general. And it's not just a problem with vikings & samurais. Most people have a very poor understanding of what a knight actually was as well. No, they were not the noble saviors of damsels in distress who upheld a strict moral code. That's another fabrication (the chivalric code did exist, much like Bushido, but it was mostly followed when convenient).
Comment has been collapsed.
From what i see you close your mind to just abide what you read not just read analyse what you read, well..
I read and analyze, but I do it with proper history books. And they paint a very different picture than what popular media does. You're the one who has a very simplistic view on two complex cultures, so I would say you're the close minded one, who don't understand how rich these two cultures actually were, but prefer to simplify them to the point where they're just caricatures of their actual selves :P
but for that samurai still the same, represantation about policy and the military(why its just like our police and military
The samurais had a far more complex role in Japanese culture than this. They were like a separate caste, and they had formalized duties (it's important to know that this changed with time, one can't simply say "the samurais were X", because that will not take into account the fact that a samurai in the early feudal times had a very different place in society than one i the later feudal times, and even more so when we step into more modern times, where the samurais lose their place in society, and many of the samurai families are forced out of their homes due to having no way of sustaining themselves. This also resulted in some very important political reforms in the 19th century in Japan).
that thing make me some kind of ignorant?
It means that you really need to get some proper sources :P It's very easy to become misinformed if you just base your information on popular media, and no amount of analyzing will save you from that.
Comment has been collapsed.
/sigh/ And to summarize, you don't know much about history, have a very simplistic and narrow-minded view on it, and don't know how to read sources. Also, you don't know what terrorism actually is.
Terrorism, definition:
the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Comment has been collapsed.
Vikings, if we use the strict definition, were pirates, not terrorists. It changes a lot. And you're still simplifying two advanced cultures and important parts of them into something that's caricatures. You really should read some proper history books, and you really need to get at least a basic understanding of the historical periods you're talking about.... And Samurais had a far more complex role in Japanese society than you seem to realize, and it varies widely depending on the time period. You can't make that simplification that you're making, it just makes your entire statement wrong when you make such incredible broad simplifications.
terrorism its exactly what the viking did use of unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
Authorized by who becomes the question then? They were authorized by their petty kings. They had official political backing. And their goals were not political, they were driven by the wish to become more wealthy. They were of course not authorized by the people they raided, but then again, I'm sure the soldiers during the Crusades were not authorized to be in the "holy land" by the local lords. Where the crusaders terrorists? They were driven by political goals, so that makes them bigger terrorists than the vikings. Were the samurais who tried to invade Korea terrorists? They were driven by political goals, so that makes them more terrorists than the vikings. Of course no-one in their right mind would actually call them terrorists... And we don't call pirates terrorists either. Because pirates have different goals than terrorists.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depends on time period and situation. Also, is it a one on one fight or an army vs an army? Because that changes a lot
The vikings did generally prefer to avoid straight up fights against other armies, and were known for using clever strategies to take the enemy by surprise. They were able to go up against larger foes with more advanced weapons & armour, and still win. They were not simple savages, which is very much unlike how media likes to depict them. They did lack numbers though, and if they ended up in an awkward situation, where they could not dictate the place & time of the battle, they were in trouble. Resources could be an issue, and it's not known how common armour actually was among the vikings. We know that they had helmets & mail, but how common was it? Was it reserved for the people at the very top, or was it somewhat common among all vikings? Also, what weapons did they actually use? The metal parts of swords & axes tend to survive, but what about bows? We know that they had bows, but we don't know how common it was. Nor do we know how common spears were (most depictions show vikings with swords or axes, but it's believed that spears were, like in most other cultures, the most common). We quite simply don't know enough about the vikings to know exactly how well they would do in terms of equipment.
The samurai were trained solider (until they were not, but I guess we're talking about the period where they were more relevant). Individually they would be quite scary opponents, but they have two issues:
-The leadership was spotty at best. During the time of feudal Japan they had some impressive leaders, like Oda Nobunaga, but there also seem to have been shockingly common for the people at the top to be willing to sacrifice their soldiers in vain.
-Material was a concern. Japan did not have good access to quality metal, and this meant that a lot of their weapons were of worse quality compared to their European counterparts, and they were also using outdated methods for producing swords. That's not to say that everything they made were bad, a good smith could of course create good things, but they were at a disadvantage (the view of the master smiths of Japan is a bit skewed by media romanticizing the Japanese master smiths).
The time period is also important when talking about equipment, as later era Japanese armours tended to be a lot stronger than early era ones. If we have a viking vs a samurai and the viking has a standard chainmail and the samurai has an earlier type of armour, then the viking will have an advantage in terms of protection, while later on, the samurai would fare much better, to the point where the viking would really struggle to get through the armor.
But I would argue that the average renaissance knight would beat both. They had access to weapons that were well suited for dealing with armour, the samurai were lacking in this regard, and the vikings would be worse equipped.
But let's simplify things here. Let it be a one on one fight, and let both combatants be naked. What weapons would they use? Well, the Samurai would use either a spear or a bow, but let's give him a spear, for the sake of simplicity (and for there to not just be an archery contest). What weapon would the viking use? That's a far harder question to answer, due to the archaeological evidence being a bit more spotty. If we give the viking a spear as well, then we would likely have advantage samurai, due to their spears most likely being a bit longer. If we give him a sword/axe & shield, then it would come down a bit more to skill, but still advantage samurai. Reach is a big part of any fight. If we give the viking a Dane axe, then the samurai would have a bigger advantage, as the viking would lack protection and the Dane axes having poor reach. So with that in mind, I would say that the Samurai would win in a one on one fight, if both combatants were naked.
Comment has been collapsed.
About your last pharagraph... Samurais probably wouldn't use "spears", since they are samurais. Samurais weren't peasants, they were something like "japanese knights". They had access to better weapons and armor than the ashigaru or peasants. A samurai would use a katana, a naginata (which is a kind of spear), a bow, or maybe another weapon. Also, remember that samurais didn't use shields, and vikings did (even if they were wooden shields). A samurai katana wouldn't have any problem trying to pierce trough a bad quality wooden shield, but someone using a spear... That's a bit more difficult, I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're wrong here. The two "main" weapons in Japanese warfare was the spear, and the bow. Samurais did carry katana, but it was not a main battlefield weapon, it was a side arm. The reason why most samurai used spears is simple, reach is king. If I have a spear and you have a katana, or a longsword, then I have a huge advantage over you. The idea that Samurais would run around on the battlefield with just a katana is fiction (and it's a result of how we romanticize samurais). That was not how warfare worked in Japan.
The idea that spears are really really good was a conclusion that most cultures came to. Hence why we so rarely see swords being main battlefield weapons, even though a lot of soldiers did have swords as backup weapons. The Romans are a bit of an exception here, and this has to do with the massive shields they used. In a 1 on 1 fight with two equally skilled fighters, I would never put my money on the guy with a katana or a longsword, if the other guy has a spear. Sadly fiction has made a lot of people think that swords were common main battlefield weapons, both in Europe & in Japan.
even if they were wooden shields
Most shields were wooden. Wooden or hide. Only really small shields were made out of metal, for the simple reason that a metal shield would be quite heavy. Often the shield would have a reinforced center and possibly edge made out of metal, to protect the hand of the user, and to make it harder to find a weak spot. But the idea that you can easily cleave through a wooden shield with a sword, that I'm afraid is fantasy. Wooden shields were used because they worked really well. Had they not worked, they would not have been used.
The idea that the katana was this super sharp weapon that could cut through most things is, once again, fiction. That's not to say that it was a bad kind of sword, but it was still a sword, and a rather fat one at that, and it had to follow the laws of physics. An axe, with its center of mass near the top, would give you a deeper cut (and it could not easily just cut through a viking shield...), but axes had other disadvantages (being more cumbersome to use being one of them, they also did not offer any hand protection)..
The reason why shields were uncommon in Japan during the time of the Samurai is actually quite interesting. Saying that samurai did not use shields is not correct though, there are depictions of samurai using "Chinese shields", that is round shields. Though mostly they used 2-handed weapons, which is believed to be because that was the way warfare developed when horses were introduced in Japanese warfare. Horses and archery became central, and here carrying a shield would be cumbersome (before this Japanese soldiers would use shields regularly). So due to this most development was focused on 2-handed weapons. Samurais did use pavise-like shields though, and when storming castles, they could have large siege shields. It was just the smaller hand-held shields that were unpopular, and even then, they never quite died out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also, a lot of samurai were basically peasants. Just because they were samurai did not mean they were rich or even well off. For a really short read on how a real samurai family lived, read Fukuzawa Yukichi's autobiography.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing beats Northlander if you want to read about Vikings.
But I'll admit I far prefer (US) comics to mangas.
Comment has been collapsed.
Northlanders is Vertigo, so I don't see your point. There is life beyond Marvel and DC (even if Vertigo is a DC imprint): Image, Dark Horse, Boom, Oni...
Comment has been collapsed.
I never liked US comics because they never end. If, by chance, they decide to kill a character, they just bring him back some months later. Like they did with Wolverine not long ago... Oh, and happy cakeday!
Comment has been collapsed.
same and also to really understand something you have to read everysingle comic because every superhero is related to the others and stuff
Comment has been collapsed.
Someone else with good taste in graphic novels, didn't realize anyone else had recommended Northlanders yet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I conquered the world playing as Oda Nobunaga in Civ5, so...
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe that if they were inexperienced, the samurai would win. Being, most likely, more experienced in sparing and training.
Experienced fighters, my moneys on the vikings larger stature and reach.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't decide, I love'em both.
Option 1: You choose Samurai. Vikings would slice and chop you up with their axes and other sharp items, and samurai would have sushi for dinner.
Option 2: You choose Vikings. Samurai would be very offended and of course you wouldn't have a chance in the battle of honor. Vikings would have some fresh meat to roast for dinner.
Option 3: You choose both. Your mom spanks you silly for spending too much money and reading will be the last thing on your mind.
Option 4: You go do something else and leave hard decisions for some other time.
Hope this helped a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
i will probably choose both but not at the same time :P i am thinking about doing vinland saga (viking) first because it isnt selling well and they may stop publishing them in english
Comment has been collapsed.
who would win if they fight against each other?
this question is basically me trying to decide wich manga to buy, either Vinland saga first 3 beatifull hardcover volumes or vagabonds first 3 viz bigs but either way vote whatever you think and try to say why :D
Comment has been collapsed.