ok /his/ which is cooler, knights or vikings?

Samurai :D

>>2332605
fuck off weeb

>>2332605
this

I want to say ninjas...

File: 5f947583d117717f5999847f4d41c9b3.jpg (66KB, 582x800px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 582x800px

>>2332584
Cataphracts

>>2332584
Samurai and cowboys.

File: tingit peoples.jpg (342KB, 504x373px) Image search: [Google]

342KB, 504x373px

>>2332584
samurai, aztec, and tlingit.

File: 1472000233661.jpg (42KB, 555x624px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 555x624px

>>2332610
do you know where you are -- ???

>>2332584

Pirates

>>2332695
do you?

>>2332610
Reminder that this is an anime website.
>>2332605
Though, Samurai are not anywhere near the level of knights.

can anyone give me a historical answer pls

>>2332723
How do you expect a historical answer on a matter as subjective as "coolness?"

>>2332723
see
>>2332676

>>2332726
which is cooler based on the feats they accomplished

>>2332745
samurai.

A young, fully-equipped knight would kill a young, fully-equipped Viking ten times out of ten.

>>2332754
A young, fully-equipped peasant would kill a young, fully-equipped knight ten times out of ten.

>>2332745
Again, how are you expecting an answer where the metric you're using is still "coolness?" If you were asking for something more along the lines of which was more historically impactful, or which had better equipment, or which had better fighting skills, or which accomplished more, you'd be going somewhere. "Coolness" is not an objective metric so if you keep asking for it, you'll never get an objective answer.

>>2332767
just tell me which one is cooler nerd

>>2332584
Cossacks

>>2332771
Fine, then. Knights. Now what did that accomplish?

>>2332778
why do u think knights r cooler

>>2332784
aesthetics

>>2332766
explain yourself.

>>2332584
Knights.

>t. Knight

>>2332584
>Being 12

File: norman knight.jpg (90KB, 736x972px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 736x972px

>>2332584
Why not both?

>>2332605
Best film at least.

>>2332584
Conquistadors desu senpai

>>2332938
>being 14

>>2333343
>being a nigger

File: a9a48028c6d8404b44f66c6e69340d5a.jpg (17KB, 236x261px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x261px

>>2332894

>>2333347
>being a kike

>>2333349
>A young, fully-equipped peasant would kill a young, fully-equipped knight ten times out of ten.
>Posts picture of a gang of 4 peasants beating the shit out of one knight as "proof".

>>2333351
>being /pol/

>>2333347
>being 14

>>2333372
>being

File: Wotan.jpg (18KB, 236x342px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 236x342px

>>2332584
Vikings, obviously, there is no one more overrated and romanticized.
Haven't you watched TV or seen a Varg Vikernes video?
We Wuz Berserkers n Sheit.

File: hmm.jpg (29KB, 237x300px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 237x300px

>>2333375

2333384
>

Knights.

>>2333383
The continental Celts were better at berserking though.

Jaguar Knights

File: Sverrir_by_Arbo.jpg (800KB, 3046x2128px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 3046x2128px

>>2333239
>norman
>viking
At least post an actual norse knight

>>2332584

Vikings becsme knights after christianization to be frank. They're one and the same in that sense and thus the question is pointless just like OP's dick.

File: 1485809371951.jpg (70KB, 500x671px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x671px

>>2332584
Knights, purely because vikings were just forest niggers who were only good at fighting farmers and monks.

>>2333424

It's because they were gingers. Gingers are known to black out and fly into fits of intense rage when wounded or in pain.

>>2334296
Oh really is that why they conquered most of britain, parts of france and raided all over europe and the near east? Is that why a group of vikings basically founded the first russian kingdom? Is that why the byzantines had to buy them off and even though they won a few battles against them were still impressed enough with their prowess that they created an elite guard unit of scandinavians? I mean I could also mention that the carolingian monarchs of the west francia chose to buy them off rather then fighting them and ultimately wound up giving them land in exchange for religious conversion and nominal loyalty but really I made my fucking point by now.

>>2334273
A knight who does not speak Romance is not a knight at all, but a barbarian.

>>2332584
samurai (horse archer kind not gay kind)

princesses.

are winged hussars a meme /his/

>>2334572
Verily.

File: ca7c74a48888924feb05f6cd2b3a0154.jpg (124KB, 736x1104px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 736x1104px

>>2332605
This

File: japanese_samurai_armor_2010_64.jpg (103KB, 755x1250px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 755x1250px

>>2334610
They were stylish manlets

>>2334273
u iggorant

>>2332584
you are going to have to define what do you mean by viking. Normies and retards tend to call "viking" anything that is even slightly north European. And you have to define "viking" without using the word "viking".

>>2334809
muh dick

File: german-nobles-1550-d8848e.jpg (74KB, 422x540px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 422x540px

>>2332584
Nobility

>>2332584
Vikings became knights
checkmate

The vikings! They were true warriors and explorers! Knights were just rich landlords that went to war from time to time. Also... Vikings weren't christian -> Nordic polytheism is the best! Vikings rule!

ok /his/ which is cooler, 11th century knights or 13th century knights?

Húskarl/Hirðmaðr > Væringr > Berserkr > Leiðangr(norse militia) > Jómsvíkingr >>>>>> Skjaldmær >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Víkingr

Looking at this question from a societal perspective, I would have to go with vikings. assuming we mean Scandinavians prior to the 14th to 15th century. Norse mythology and exploration is something I find extremely fascinating, simply for the sheer scope of it.

However if we're talking aesthetic appeal or wartime accomplishment and battlefield dominance, it's knights all the way. I find plate armours to be far better looking, with a larger and more aesthetically unique variety of weapons to boot. As well, the sheer dominance of a knight on the field of battle pales in comparison to very little. Certainly, the vikings were accomplished warriors in their own right. but they pale in comparison to the unstoppable force of a man on horseback in full plate armour with anything ranging from lances and spears to pollaxs, halberds, flails and more. The fact that the vikings experienced about 200-300 years of success compared to knights coming about at the same time and lasting until the 17th century speaks bounds to this.

>>2333349
You see, the problem here is that those axes are going to be about as effective at killing that fully armoured knight as wrapping your dick in a napkin to fuck a chainsaw. Not saying they couldn't do it, but fighting a fully armoured knight with no armour or explicitly anti-armour weapons yourself is typically something of a losing battle. Otherwise knights and... well, everyone really, would have been using swords and axes rather than everything else imaginable as main battlefield weapons in lieu of using them as backups or for personal defence.

>>2334324
The vikings were venerable explorers, there is no doubt in that, but for the greater majority of their existence they were little more than maritime traders and occasionally coastal raiders. Outside of areas where no significant, natural opposition existed they were vastly incapable of holding territories.

>>2332584
Depends

>>2333355
>>2335287
>What is a tongue in cheek shitpost.

>>2332584
Who is the chimp on the photo?

>>2335328
>Pan paniscus

>>2335347
>Pan paniscus
Holy shit haha, just noticed my mistake. Wanted to type chick, dunno how I typed chimp. Still funny tho.

File: 1310429820535.jpg (13KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 300x300px

>>2333384

>>2332605
fuggn ebin X-DDD

>>2334307
kek

>>2332584
Fucking Vikings are you kidding me. Knights were lazy ass landlords who sometimes fought their neighbors for more land. Vikings had most of the British isles while the Celts were still shitting in the dirt; on top of that, the Vikings also traded with Africa, and technically discovered the new world years before anyone else. However, putting a crusader/Viking would be a different story.

File: ss_0e8b30dc1158b5ea40e85cfb87eda95347069055.jpg (666KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

666KB, 1920x1080px

>>2332701
This

>>2332745
vikings were only good against unarmed farmers, knights actually won against other warriors

>>2334324
>raiding
>a feat of military strenght

oh yes those fierce monks and peasant women surely were tough to beat

>>2334572
They were undefeated for 100 years so no.

>>2332690
This is surreal as fuck
10/10

File: dsfadf.jpg (58KB, 600x334px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x334px

please

>>2332690
I'm convinced the guy who designed armors was high on something.

>>2332584
Knights of course. Vikings were savages that killed innocent peasants and monks.

File: 21-10.jpg (339KB, 913x1171px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 913x1171px

Knights reign supreme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Prinitza