The setting is on a open field, no forests, no cover other than high grass.
All of the warriors are in their latest forms, but no gunpowder weapons allowed.
ARMOR:
Vikings have chain mail, helmets, leather bracers, and wood shields.
Spartans have bronze breastplates, shinguards, bracers, and helmets, with the shields.
Knights are decked out in full plate, but no shield.
Samurai are also decked in full plate, not the early bamboo armor.
Romans have steel scale breastplates with bracers and shinguards with Roman shields.
WEAPONS:
Vikings both get Ulfberht swords, viking bows, and one viking spear.
Spartans get 4 javelins and 2 hoplite swords.
Knights both get Scottish Claymores, morningstars, one halberd, and one crossbow.
Samurai get 2 yumis, 2 katanas, one naginata, and one kanabo.
Romans get 2 gladius and 4 pila.
The soldiers can use whatever tactics their people used in history, they cannot do anything out of character.
Who would win?
>one crossbow
Knights
The legions wrecked in pitched, orderly, battles
The Knights might give a good show though.
>>314052
>crossbows
Knights win because they instantly turn it into a 2v1 5 minutes into the match.
>vikings
lel.
>>314081
>knights get full plate
>no blunts on enemy team
Ayy lmao
>>314052
>full plate
Knights instantly won.
Full plate armor only appeared in the XVth Century and turned knights into walking tanks.
It would be far more interesting if theses were XII-XIIIth Century knights with only mail and a coat of plates on their body.
a literal >>>/tg/ thread
>spartans get javelins and swords
Why? They were better with long spears, otherwise those huge shields are useless. Haven't you ever heard of a phalanx?
This is so fucking dumb. Like arguing what would win a ww2 tank or a modern tank.
A knight in full plate would win so easy they'd be wondering why the peasants were equipped so poorly.
>>314108
This, medieval europeans were so fucking superior it's ridiculous.
>>314052
Knights > Romans > Vikings > Samurai > Spartans, for this boring confrontation
Mostly just because of the rules regarding armor.
>>314155
Ah hello, let me educate you on the part of full plate armour.
A person in full plate can do the following things in full plate
>Sprint at full speed
>Do cartwheels
>Fall over and get back up
>Run for more than a mile
>Shit one every fucking peasant?
>>314155
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
Are those individual engagements like
Knights vs Samurai
Then
Knights vs Legionnaire
Or do they all charge in together ?
If it's the former , I'm going to assume we're talking about Templar Knights.
In that case the Knights will top this,especially given the crossbow. Roman Legion isn't that formidable without their entire unit and 2 will almost certainly lose
Vikings lack the technique to beat the Knights
Samurai weapons won't cut through Knight full plate armor
Spartans might put up a fight but I know very little about them
>>314197
>Full plate
>Templar
Need to look up the chronology of armour and the templar order for a bit anon
>>314197
Its all of them going at it at once.
>>314244
Yes I didn't read the full OP before starting to write my post.
>>314052
>>314258
Then no one can say.
There's too many factions and hence possibilities to make heads or tails of this.
The Romans, Samurais and Spartans may decide to attack the Knights all at once or maybe just kill each other and leave the Knights standing all alone without having to fight.
The Vikings may just zerg rush while the others were busy fighting each other
For discussions sake it's better to assume that each faction fights one other faction.
But even so ,going by likelihoods I'd give it to the Legionnaires. Being organised is very important in the scenario you've mentioned and this is where legions expertise lies.
>>314289
>this is where legions expertise lies.
Yes and this isn't a legion this is two guys.
>>314052
Knights by far due to superior armor and weapons. If you gave the knights a crossbow you should have given the samurai an arquebus.
>>314280
I don't see any pikes mentioned in the OP anon
>>314334
I just wanted to show unorthodox fighting style, without armor.
>>314316
And that's why I'm expecting the Legionnaires to come out as Victor.
You can expect the Legionnaires to be the most organised fighting force among the ones mentioned and which is paramount in a situation like this where there are 4 other factions to watch out for.
>>314052
>Deadliest Warrior: The Post
What about apaches, navy seals, and vampires
someone please crunch the numbers
>>314052
Samurai are confused as to why they're not fighting from horseback with bows, and get slaughtered.
Knights have a massive edge over everyone else, and probably win.
Vikings were only really good in their context of almost everyone else being shit. Maybe the Romans can recruit them as auxiliaries?
Legionaries and Spartans would be better in a larger group, and probably just end up getting hands chopped off.
>>314366
Don't forget having napoleon and washington personally fight it out
>>314385
You laugh but Napoleon would slap the shit out of Washington.
He wasn't a very competent military officer and his area of expertise is just burning Red Indian villages
Skill asessment:
Knight can mean a lot of things, generally it's a professional warrior of european origin. Probably he has trained in wrestling and swordfighting. He's of nobility so he was given fighting advice by his father. Knight's fighting skill is pretty high.
Vikings are tribal raiders. Skill varies wildly, mostly dependant upon how experienced the viking is. Probably of lower skill than the knight, but not to be understimated. He comes from a farmer background.
Legionnaires are professional warriors like the knights. However they were not raised warriors, they came from civility. They are not nobles. They are used to relying on superior tactics and show of force, more than individual bravery in combat.
Spartans are trained from birth to be warriors. They were raised for one purpose only, to fight and win. They do not fuck around.
Samurai, i don't really know. Haven't researched them at all desu.
Based on individual fighter skill i say the Spartans would win.
Putting romans to fight knights with a crossbow is really unfair desu
>>314368
this t.b.h.
Knights would wreck the shit out of everyone else even without giving them such overpowered weapons.
Mongol cavalry > everyone
The only thing that can defeat mongol cavalry is pike n' shot.
>>314861
Did Mongol cavalry ever face Western knights?
>>314872
Yes, during the shit going on in Poland.
Alot of different Knight Orders were sent there to try contain the Horde but kinda failed, since they lost a number of battles.
>>314721
Samurai were much the same as Spartans but with a little bit of noble flair.
They were raised from birth to be warriors worthy of protecting their daimyo and claiming heads on the battlefield. Trained in martial arts, swordfighting, riding, archery, and spear and polearms. The nobility factor kinda comes in that they were all expected to be literate, well read, versed in tactics and strategy, and to a smaller extent governing and politics (usually only very high ranking samurai)
Main weapons tended to be Yari (spear), Yumi (Bow), or the Naginata (glaive) and the Katana as a side arm. They do have a tenbo which is a massive studded club but the thing is ridiculous.
Their greatest disadvantage would be their lack of shields and inability to deal with plate or shields. They also favor maneuverability over protection so they're simply more lightly armored than the rest.
Still their martial skill is very high and they are bred to do anything to win. Nothing isn't fair. Run, throw dirt, ambush, etc. Whatever you have to do to claim your enemy's head.
They'd fall right in between Knights and Vikings. Where they do hold the advantage is that Samurai fought individually where as Spartans and Legionaires gained most of their strength through formation. In a one on one or small groups they aren't incapable but their prowess is significantly reduced.
At the end of the day, the Knights most likely wins. Spartans in second place. Samurai in third. Legionaires and Vikings are interchangeable.
>>314395
Not according to deadliest warrior when they had washington win
Damn, I forgot the name of the battle and the the city state but the Spartans got beat in a small battle where 2 guys of one city spared a lone spartan survivor.
The spartan survivor went back and said that since they did not kill him and they walked away, it was their loss/cowardice/draw ... I can't remember and google isn't helping me.
>>314052
vikings get rekt immediately off the bat because they're best at surprise attacks and killing peasants, not actually fighting professional soldiers.
romans get rekt immediately after because they're best at mass combat and they're usually not very skilled (though professional and disciplined) soldiers.
spartans probably get rekt afterward because their fighting style is poorly suited to small-scale combat, they might beat the romans out of sheer martial skill but they dont have the means to breach the knights or samurai armor
samurai then fall because knights have plate armor, 7 times out of 10 the knights can render samurai weapons useless, and the knight weapons are very very VERY effective against samurai, every single one of them.
knights win
>>314155
I hope you realize a knight in full plate wasnt carrying any more weight then a modern day soldier does now, plus it was well articulated and distributed.
>>314052
>Roman
>Latest Form
I pay the morph cost and turn the Roman Legionnaire face up. They are now Catapracts. They come with horses, chainmail, composite bow, a sword and a lance.
Fite me.
>>314366
After long deliberation and number inputs. The superior knife skills of the apache are unbeatable. Indians win again.
>>314052
Knights win.
But if it wasn't for their armor and their crossbow, then it's Spartans.
Romans are only good in numbers with their tactics.
>>314139
of course they were retard. being in a later period of human history and all.
>>316459
>charge into the mosh pit
>kill one or two people
>die after being ripped from your horse and clubbed while on the ground
>>314872
Yeah. In Georgia, Russia and Poland.
The Mongols literally herded and slaughtered them like sheep.
>>314861
My friends would like to have a word with you
>>317457
They had gunpowder weapons.
Without gunpowder, mongols defeat everything.
They have a bow smaller than an english lowgbow with double the ffective range, its fucking ridiculous
>>314360
Organisation, strategy, discipline, etc matter in a battle. This situation, though, is almost like a duel. Only individual weapons, physical strength and fighting abilities matter. There is no need for organisation to just tell your buddy "let's stand back to back".
>>318366
How is this a duel if all the five factions are attacking each other at once.
A duel would be when one faction fights one faction wouldn't it
>>314052
Knights, obviously.
>>314052
The equipment list is retarded.
But my money is on the Knights.
>>318029
>Without gunpowder, mongols defeat everything
The Chinese had WAY more advanced firearms than the Mamluk arquebuses (not to mention fucking grenades) and still got their asses handed to them.
>>318029
>They have a bow smaller than an english lowgbow with double the ffective range, its fucking ridiculous
And they, like you, were incapable of writing.
>>319611
Eh? Not that anon but the mongols did develop a writing system under Genghis Khan. Not before that, granted, but that's because they were fucking nomads. They still kicked ten kinds of ass at war, though.
>>319634
>the mongols did develop a writing system under Genghis Khan
They didnt develop a system. They straight up lifted the uigher one.
>>319602
>way more
No, they didn't. The mongol invasion of China started in the 1200's, firearms advanced a shit ton in 200 years.
>>319665
By that standard you could say that the Japanese straight up lifted the Chinese one. Or that all post-Roman societies in Western Europe straight up lifted the Roman one.
