Vikings against Samurai, trying to settle an argument

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

The people who later became the vikings started as some of the tribes in Gallia. It is not too much of a stretch to see that these tribes took on some martial ideas from the Romans and as they migrated north to use the designs of some of their weapons. By the time the "viking" era came there was plenty of time for the designs to be assimilated and made into its own unique style.

I don't think that we are disagreeing, but rather looking at different parts of the development.

[Martin Wallgren]

Well I think the traderouts and the influences thereby made the Roman empire the main source of many thing during the first 500 years after Christ. It influences religion, artwork, fighting and so on. The ancestors we have where no dumbwits. They borrowed everything they thought where good. Lock at the helmets from Valsgärde and Vendel, quite similar to the designs of late roman gear. There is bogfinds from Nydam in Denmark where you find both germanic seaxes toghther with spathae blades and crossover designs of the furniture of the swords. The blade we call vikingswords are decendnts of the spathae in my view, then how and when the influence whent north I don´t know.

Gallic tribes moved to Scandinavia? Thats news to me. The other way around was the most common theory in school when I was a kid. The Danes/Norse came to Gallia and settled in Normandie and became Normans. And Saxon, Juts and Franks came from Denmark and Nothern Germany to settle in gallicspeaking areas. How come we in Scandinavia don´t speak gaelic languages if our ancestry are in Gaul?

[RayMcCullough]

Celtic tribe migrations started in modern day Turkey then across Europe to the west.

Another thing to note is the Celtic helmets and shields were copied by the Romans. The sword is very similar but the Celtic was longer. It was even worn on the right side by the Celts.

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

I must say here that I used the term "Gallia" inappropriately. I thought that it encompassed a larger area than it did. I used that as a starting point which would contain larger parts of Germany than it actually does.

My point remains that the peoples, and weapons/armour concepts, would have come (more accurately) from Germania(which would have come from Rome, which would have come from the Anatolia. Though it is very concievable that some ideas skipped Rome and headed north before that...) and gone north from there. That is why the Swedish that I know sounds very Germanic, not Gaelic. I apologize for my error. I believe, Martin, that when I use the proper terms, you and I hold to the same theory of language development.

"Another thing to note is the Celtic helmets and shields were copied by the Romans."---Interesting, I have never heard that before.

[Martin Wallgren]

I must say here that I used the term "Gallia" inappropriately. I thought that it encompassed a larger area than it did. I used that as a starting point which would contain larger parts of Germany than it actually does.

My point remains that the peoples, and weapons/armour concepts, would have come (more accurately) from Germania(which would have come from Rome, which would have come from the Anatolia. Though it is very concievable that some ideas skipped Rome and headed north before that...) and gone north from there. That is why the Swedish that I know sounds very Germanic, not Gaelic. I apologize for my error. I believe, Martin, that when I use the proper terms, you and I hold to the same theory of language development.

"Another thing to note is the Celtic helmets and shields were copied by the Romans."---Interesting, I have never heard that before.

Yes we do:)

[LafayetteCCurtis]

The copying of Celtic helmets is quite obvious--the "Montefortino" type of helmet was found on both sides of the Romano-Gallic divide, and it's not impossible to assume that the Romans copied it from the Gauls like the way they copied the Apulo-Corinthian and pilos designs from the Greek colonists or the Samno-attic helmet from the Greek-influenced Samnites. I'm not sure about shields, though, since even the earlier oval version of the scutum does not look very similar to the Gallic shields in my eyes. Mostly because of the curve--the Gallic shields were generally flat.

About the original question: it's a stupid comparison since it doesn't even mention which samurai and which Vikings. The tactics used by the Vikings in their Scandinavian homeland were not identical to those they employed in England and the Isles; neither was it identical to what the Normans used later on in France, England, and the Mediterranean. Japanese armies also underwent a considerable change from an archer-heavy army in the early days to the pike-and-shot force of the 16th-century Sengoku period. Archery never went out of fashion, though, and it was always considered more important than the sword on the massed battlefield before the period of relative peace under the Tokugawa shogunate.

(For that matter, berserkers formed only a very small portion of Nordic hosts if they existed at all).

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

It is also neat to note that the Montefortino helmet is similar to some forms of the Scythian helmets that date from around the 7 century BC, whose realm of nomadic traveling went from south of Turkey to the southern steppes of Russia. I think that both the Roman and Gallic people got the ideas from them. But that is just my own thought, I would need much more time and studying to be able to prove it. This is the fun part of history, right??

[Steven Blakely]

Vikings and samuria they cannot be compared it is like apples and oranges. Although i would be interested in the affects of shields on the battle field it all boils down to one simple fact. Who is better trained and who has the best fighters period. Ok well that was 2 things. and your friends can rail on either side about who was better based on how many video games or tv they may have watched. ok maybe that comment was a little out of line. but that is how you end the discussion. and here are a few more reasons why you could not say who would win.

1. Both sides wanted to die in battle. A warrior with no fear is dangerouse.
2. Both had weapons of equall quality. Because the vikings plunder and would take supperior weapons if they could not make them.
3.Armor quality would have been about the same any way.


And the single most imporatant reason why this is pointless is because vikings and samuria never saw one another that i am awaare of. soooo Who Cares!

[Jaron Bernstein]

As amusing as this is, these folks came from vastly different historical, cultural and geographic worlds. All that colors, how, where, why, and for what they would fight about.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

1. Both sides wanted to die in battle. A warrior with no fear is dangerouse.

I have to say that this assumption is totally wrong. They did have a similarity in attitude--but in the sense that neither wanted to die in battle. Both Vikings and samurais preferred to win, stay alive, and then win another fight, and stay alive, and so on. Don't be fooled by the berserkers--some historians don't even think they really exist--or by the Tokugawa spirituality, which was created in a period of peace and had little bearing as to how the samurai fought in the real wars before the Tokugawa era.

[Steven Blakely]

I was under the impression that the only way to get to valhalla was to die in battle. I was also under the impression that to die in battle for the samaria braught great honor to your family. There are also some scientist that believe that the berserkers could have very well exsisted. They have discovered a gene that gives an individual a very high threshhold for pain. Not to metion the term berseker stemned from the word Bear shirt. These warriors would wear the skin of the bear and it would imbue the warrior with the powers of the bear. this idea of totem animals is used throught the world. Not to mention in the life of saint patrick. A story is told of one of his miracles. where 2 fires were built and a beserker was chalnged to walk through both fires. One was set buy the celtic priest and set buy saint patric. a berserker was used because of there great lack of fear and there great strength. now as the story unfolds saint patrick builds a fire so great that the berseker cant walk through it
but the point is berserkers did exist. And my point was it was a useless argument. And all though im sure there were many who did not want to die. My point was many were unafraid to.

[Will Adamson]

Being willing or unafraid to die is quite a bit different than wanting to die.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

Well said, Will. Even so, neither the Vikings nor the Japanese were fearless fighters. We have solid historical Vikings that both the Vikings and the samurai could be and had been routed in battle, and what's that if not evidence that they feel fear just like other men?

[Jason Taylor]

I realize this is probably beating a dead horse, but this is how I answer people when they come up with this kind of question. And since I'm the resident western MA expert in my group of friends, I get asked a lot.

FIrst, I tell them how ANYBODY who made a living killing people in war or duels and stayed alive for a while at it was a powerful fighter, time/place/armament notwithstanding. Techniques across time and culture are usually pretty darn effective, at least if they're the techniques that were actually historically used by said individuals.

Generally, I then also point out specific differences in technology. I.e., the Samurai had better blade technology, perhaps, in that they were able to differentially temper. But no sword could cut through a steel shield more than once, if ever (and that's pretty doubtful in the first place). Also, the Vikings tended to use shields, no? (this isn't my particular area of knowledge). That would make a big difference. And laminated bamboo armor is probably not as good as mail vs. a cutting blade (again, I could be wrong). Etc.

Then I tell them it all comes back to other factors. Particularly, whoever can adapt to the presence of the opponents differing weapons, techniques, and technology better would have the edge. If I can add technical details, all the better.

By this point, they're usually staring at me blankly. Mostly, if they're the kind of uninformed friends you sound like you're talking about, they never ask again.

Jason