The Instigator
DrAcula
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dNA
Con (against)
Winning
24 Points

Samurai>Viking

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/14/2007 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,535 times Debate No: 444
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

DrAcula

Pro

You know those short little Japanese guys with the swords and stuff that you can't see? Well, I believe that they beat the large, oafish, thug-like Norsemen that use claymores and what not.

My reasoning:

Samurai are better tacticians. Rather than run around and raze villages, their operations were precise. They employed use of more technical weapons, such as bows and short swords.

Samurai would win in battle, because of their speed and precision.

Samurai are respectful of everything, and honor themselves through sacrifice. Vikings raze n' rape.

Adrian Peterson is to small to wield a broadsword.

And: The last samurai>pathfinder.

Samurai movies are better than viking movies.

Plus, Seven Samurai inspired one of the greatest westerns of all time "The Magnificent Seven"
dNA

Con

The samurai are definitely not greater than the vikings.

These "thug-like" Norsemen you speak of conquered and explored far more than any samurai could ever hope to achieve. England, Ireland, Scotland, parts of Russia, Greenland, and even North America were visited by the Scandinavians.

Are Samurai really better tacticians? Perhaps so. They lived in a time where combat strategies had been more perfected, but I think given the time discrepency, the combat effectiveness ratio is right about even. The vikings were excellent in combat for their time, great raiders, and often victorious with their invasions.

If a samurai were to fight a viking in a one on one fight, I'm sure the samurai would win. That fight would never happen though, since vikings always come in groups. The samurai would be surrounded from all sides and with nowhere to run he would be overwhelmed.

"Vikings raze n' rape." This is a common view that most people have of the traditional vikings. However, in comparison to the other barbarous things that went on during their time, they were a very tame people. The majority of vikings weren't even warriors, but rather traders (albeit all men were required to own weapons, so even they would put up a fight were a samurai to try to attack them during a bartering session).

Adrian Peterson is a football player for a team called the "Vikings" and not a true viking so I think the point about him not being able to weild a broadsword is moot.

The fact that The Last Samurai is better than Pathfinder can be attributed to the scripts, directors, actors, etc. but not so much the actual cultures they are portraying. I'm sure if Akira Kurosawa decided to make a Viking movie it'd be pretty dang awesome.
Debate Round No. 1
DrAcula

Pro

Adrian Peterson was a small joke. Moving on to my actual argument.

Samurai are faster. They are more tactical, and would win in a open battle, and probably a close quarters one. They wouldn't allow themselves to be surrounded, because one would most likely not be traveling alone, and they would realize if they were about to be surrounded.

On the subject of The Last Samurai, yeah, another joke, but it also show just how smart they were. They could create a strategy like that *cyber snap*.

That's the big factor, is that Samurai strategies (Sun Tzu's were like this) go on through time, where the Vikings were good at one time in history, but aren't really good for anything now.
dNA

Con

If a samurai army were to clash with a viking army, the samurai may very likely win, but as stated before, they were from different time periods and this has to be compensated for. If they had equal technology (katana crafting was definitely superior to the axes and daggers employed by the vikings) and equal battle tactics research (the samurai had hundreds of years more to perfect their combat strategies), then the vikings would definitely come out on top. They were not bound by a ridiculous "code of honor" and would do whatever it takes to win.

And, I must point out, you've made a huge blunder here. Sun Tzu was a Chinaman born over 700 years before samurai came into power in Japan and is completely unrelated to samurai. Yes, there were other good works written by samurai (The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi comes to mind) but I think that all in all, if you look at what it boils down to, the vikings were more effective and influential in their time period than the samurai were in theirs.

Thanks for the good debate, DrAcula, even though it looks like you've unfortunately closed your account.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Los_Altos_JW 9 years ago
Los_Altos_JW
A Katana could probably cut through a viking axe...haha
interesting debate
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by sagarous 9 years ago
sagarous
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by olivemike81 9 years ago
olivemike81
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Fenrir 9 years ago
Fenrir
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by lilbugleboy09 9 years ago
lilbugleboy09
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dNA 9 years ago
dNA
DrAculadNATied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03