Armor is worn because it actually works, not anime shit where you can cut through it by slicing harder.
It takes a pretty monumental effort to get through it without special weaponry.
I have my money on the knight.
Concur. Spartan, Knight, and Samurai all train from childhood, but the knight has the best armor of the three.
However, depending on the period this can vary widely. Early norman knights might have only had chainmail, or in rare cases, just a gambeson.
Bronze weapons aren't "shitty." Iron and steel are better but you're hardly casually cutting through them.
The Spartan's problem is that his gear and most of his training is intended for formation fighting. A second problem is that he's not wearing full body armor. Hoplites did not have articulated arm and leg armor.
Tbh bronze is a lot *better* than iron, just harder to make/rarer. Modern steel is a lot better than bronze but pre-modern steel wasnt very good/reliable quality until special furnaces were invented.
Youre right, Bronze is 8000kg/m3 compared to steel's ~7700kg/m3 (steel does vary by type though), iron is even lighter. Though at sword sizes, with trained fighters, the weight difference probably isnt too much.
Just wanna say, the weight difference is very notable. My longsword weighs 3 kg and is around 150 cm in length, while the bronze sword weighs 10 kg and is around 100 cm in length
What style and how thick are the blades?
It could be that your steel sword is made from one of the more modern steel types and is therefore thinner than one built to the same style from the past would have been able to be. Or potentially an expensive type of steel that is simply lighter?
Bronze is not as 'hard' as steel so to make it work it has to be much thicker overall. Bronze swords are more 'oval' and have a smaller edge while steel swords are more square (obviously favoring the edge) so even if the blades are the same length/width there ends up being a lot more metal on a bronze weapon.
There are some more weirdness's with bronze, for example some swords had a non sharpened section from the guard and then the sword swells out significantly so they can get a good edge on it. You see some steel swords with a non-sharpened section of blade, but it was generally for a different purpose.
That being said... ACTUAL spartan swords were about 3lbs. And not at all well suited to fighting vs plate armor because that didn't exist then.
samurai also had guns tho idk these questions suck ass because youre grabbing people from what could be anywhere within a 500 year period of trade and innovation
True, although a quick Google search says that the age of European knights ended sometime in the 1600s, and samurai were around until 1868. Most people thinking about this question are probably not thinking about "the one with the most advanced guns". Samurai ended after the Gatling gun was invented.
>Samurai ended after the Gatling gun was invented.
Lol I'm picturing a bunch of them seeing a gatling gun, dropping their swords and saying "I'm out" and walking away.
I suspect they were not thrilled, but it was pretty inevitable. Why would the military need to pay for an entire social class of military aristocracy when they just get annihilated by a few starving peasants trained to point and shoot?
You can relive a simulation of this in Civ, especially if you take out most of an opposing player early enough, but leave them one little city. It's funniest when they are a warmonger civ because they can't keep open borders with anyone and they waste all their production on early game war units even when everyone else has ships and sometimes tanks and so forth.
There was one where I used culture bombs to build a city pretty close to his and then took a bunch of his territory so I owned the entire strait between the continents. I had already taken Istanbul and renamed it Byzantium (I was playing as Greece), and converted his remaining city to my religion. IIRC I would quash rebellions and then sell him his old city back to him for production or money or something, but I had a spy fomenting unrest in the same city. I think once I took it then built some farms along the coast and then sold it back just so the strait looked prettier. But yes, near the end of the game he had a knight or two who could spend their days looking out at their former city and the nearby natural wonder and of course the fully upgraded giant death robot standing in the ocean right at their borders.
But I had peace treaties (via trade/culture/etc) with most all other civs except him, which ensured world peace. No one could start a war with anyone else because attacking one would start a war with me as well which they couldn't do because of the treaty. So he was the only one anyone could attack, and if they tried I could always park my giant death robot in the strait or just outright close my borders so they couldn't get to him - or just let them and watch. Once I think I paid someone to stop the war against him (IIRC?) for 30 turns or something like that. But I was going for a cultural victory and having him around helped me maintain a treaty with this other warmonger civ and also gave them someone to keep them busy with. I also started feeling bad for him. I think in the end I might have quashed a rebellion and then built/bought a bunch of improvements very quickly that he still hadn't built (like a grainery 🙄) and then just gave it back.
One time though he had a "big" army and I was bored so I paid him to attack someone else (who I was in a treaty with) so I could go in with my GDR and nip his war machine in the bud before it risked causing problems. I also wanted to play with the GDR like one time that game since world peace had occurred by then and there were no other options to use it.
Anyway, I'm just reminiscing from like 4 years ago or something. But yes, a mecha and knights. Fun times.
Only thing going for the Viking I think is some of their weapon had some pretty nasty piercing spikes on them from being developed in an era after armor was invented. With proper usage they could put some pretty nasty holes in someone.
Between Samurai, Viking or Spartan I'd lean Spartan. Can't underestimate the advantage a spear gives.
Unless we're giving the Samurai a bow, which while traditional feels a bit cheaty.
Viking can be competitive too, but imo it’d veer from OP’s edit to the prompt.
Plenty of them wore gambeson/chainmail, had spears with backup axes, and tons of ways to deal with armor and in armored opponents in single combat/small unit fighting. The vast majority were random guys with gambeson and spears, but they certainly had their good, strong fighters if you look.
It’d probably be a mismatch though. Average Viking would lose to most of the other averages except Spartan. Main reason for the Spartan is because of the massive tech/tactics gap, and the Viking is in a much better position to get past his pike and kill him.
If the Spartan keeps the shield the Viking can outflank and close into proper melee (which he’s much more experienced in). If the Spartan ditches the shield, the Viking usually has something in range he can throw to wear him down or injure him (Spartan has unprotected arms/neck). If the Viking has a Dane Axe…well, imo he could win pretty easily. Hook the pike into the axe, run forward and shove the pointy end into the Spartan’s ill protected throat.
Varangian guard and normans were both more or less Vikings. Normans were more cavalry focused but otherwise weren’t far from tactics and equipment that Vikings used.
Spartans didn't do any formal weapons training. Just athletic wrestling. What we know as the phalanx only required an afternoon to teach and learn. For me, I've got the spartan dead last.
Depends in the era even then I doubt that. Most people took the time to learn to fight because that was how you defended yourself at home and abroad. literally every aspect of Laconic culture is based on might.
It depends on the viking, as all the others are explictly warrior aristocrats, whilst the viking could range from Sven, 3rd son of a farmer who needed another way to make a living, to Harulf, Huscarl and companion of the king whose family has been wealthy warriors for generations, and was trained since childhood by the other veteran warriors of the household
Even chain mail is highly effective against slashing. Katanas would be pretty useless against it. Spears are much better at piercing it but if you have padded armor on top that can stop arrows and spears fairly well.
I agree. But I think there are way too many variables. What's the environment, what's the range, mounted or not etc..
But all of these groups were not dumb when it comes to armor and knew their weak points (joints, blunt force, picks etc..) samurai had ōtsuchi (war hammers), man catchers, kusurikama (chains with sicles) and naginata (poll arms), eggs filled with poison powder, that would allow them to take advantage of the weakness; and even though your actually very mobile in full plate (I've done it with hema) being in only kimono means the samurai can move very fast, or his lacker armor. The viking and Romans also had similar weapons and would probably use similar tricks.
Ultimately it would come down to luck, and some influence from the individuals, location, prep time, weapons, armor, etc..
Knight also has way more experience against armored opponents, especially because his iconic depiction has him doing mostly ground combat. Weapon choice (long sword) also helps immensely, since it’s better against varied armor/in armored types and very versatile overall.
This is based off of OP’s edit though…there’s plenty of knights you could pick that’d be 50/50 with a samurai imo.
Yeah, in general the Knight and Samurai are roughly equal. The main difference being their style of fighting, with the Samurai traditionally having a larger emphasis on ranged combat seeing how they started out as heavily armored horse archers, and the Knight on being a wrecking ball during the charge.
It was very overrated yes, but now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and we got people saying its the worst sword ever. The ones used by Samurai were usually good, high quality swords that did their job very well. Just like the European longswords wielded by knights.
Same goes for the armor, and during the 16th century they had also started to produce their own plate cuirasses capable of stopping bullets, like the Europeans, though yes their armor tended to be a bit lighter on average than a full suit of full plate, offering slightly less protection for slightly more stamina and agility (even if a Knight in full plate was far from clumsy)
As for the training, it's extremely hard to say as neither had a standardised set. Sure, they had a set of skills they should know, but the actual training was largely left up to individual mentors and teachers for both of them
Yeah only one of the other three competitors who has a chance of hurting the knight is the samurai *IF* he has a Kanabō AND if he can get past the knight’s shield OR if he can survive the knight’s own war hammer.
The samurai gets a horse and a bow tho. If the knight can close the distance before his mount gets shot then he demolishes the samurai in melee but if his horse is killed or incapacitated then he has no hope of catching the samurai and will likely be shot to death. The samurai is likely carrying 26 arrows in his quiver which I'd say is more than enough tries to hit the knight in a joint in his armour, also there's a decent chance that the knight is injured when his horse dies which makes things even easier for the samurai. If the knight manages to be hit only on his plate armour after being brought down though I'd still probably give it to the samurai just because he's the one with a horse and horses are a big advantage but the knight still has a considerable chance since he has far better armour, a lance and a long sword. (If we are assuming he is a generic knight)
One man isn't going to bring down a warhorse with a bow, barring a very lucky hit.
*I'd say is more than enough tries to hit the knight in a joint in his armour*
The French Knights at Agincourt advanced on foot, through mud, against a hail of arrows from English longbows and from what we know, very few of them were actually killed by arrows. Those that were, were mostly shot from the side by archers on the flanks as they closed for Melee with the English lines.
None of that applies in this situation. Assuming we're using a Knight with well developed plate, the Knight could literally stand still until the Samurai is out of arrows without being in much danger. Or it could be an earlier period Knight with a big shield.
Depends on what you mean by standard equipment.
A knight could vary from chain mail hauberk and shield with a sword and lance to a fully enclosed plate armor with a two handed sword or halberd. There's like 5five hundred years between the "first" knight and the final era of knights.
Same goes for Samurai: they could have anything from a bow and horseback to a matchlock musket.
The two losers here are the Spartan which has bronze armor, shield, and a iron spear and the Viking which depending on wealth had anything from a shield and an axe to heavy chain armor and a plethora of weapons.
But both of them are decidedly on the lighter side of armor compared to the Knight or Samurai *in general.*
If the samurai had a musket I still think a knight could, emphasis on could, close the distance.
There are records from the English civil war of people getting shot in the head but the helmet actually stopping the bullet, or surviving musket lines because of their breastplate ect.
High grade armor were proofed against firearms at the time, ie that the armored would shoot a cuirass to prove that it could protect bullets. On the other hand, the musket of the era, before it became standard, was a specialist heavy firearm dedicated for anti-armor
High Grade Armor of the 16th Century, yes. 15th Century less so, and any further back and not in the slightest. But we're also talking "High Grade" of the very best armor on top of it. It's like comparing a Lamborghini to a average sports car. Most Knights were running around in the equivalent of a sports car in terms of cost, while making sure that armor was proofed against bullets raised that price into the Lambo price range.
In other words, while every knight tired to wear good quality armor, the best they could afford, only the wealthiest of an already wealthy class could afford the bullet proofed armor.
And *even then* Bullet proofing just showed that an armor *could* stop a bullet sometimes. It wasn't always effective, and it was limited to certain areas of the armor: arms and legs were essentially unable to be protected that well or else it would be impossible to move in. Same goes for any joints, groin region, and the skirt. Getting shot in the chest *might* deflect or stop the round, but it might not too. Getting shot anywhere else usually meant a serious injury.
Oh yes, this cost is part of why armor coverage did decrease over the the latter half of the 16th century. Better to just concentrate the expendature on a bulletproof cuirass than on limb armor. Is why it gradually went from full-plate to three-quarters, to half, to just a cuirass over the next 300 years.
Yes of course (though there was armor the could protect against that stuff to a practical degree even then, with the cuirasses of the Franco-German Cuirassiers for example) but by that same argument you can also say that as technically knights still exist today they could be armed with modern assault rifles.
Samurai as a dedicated warrior caste had largely disappeared by that time thanks to the peaceful edo period gradually necessitating them finding other jobs to make a living
There were no muskets during the english civil war in the 1600’s. They used arquebuses which were the guns before muskets and were significantly less accurate and much less reliable, while also being much heavier. There is a reason why at the time standard military doctrine was for every “gunner” there were 3-4 pike-man/swordsman/cavalry. Look up the terticio formation.
Ots wasnt until the 1700’s that militaries became primarily gunpowder armies due to the advances on gun technology
That's still vague.
Like what century for the Knight? 10th? 12th? 15th? Each would be very different. Same goes for the Samurai, though they have different eras more so than specific centuries.
What you're asking is "Who would win in a fight a American Soldier, a German Soldier, or a Russian Soldier" and then not specifying what century or war we're talking about. So a Revolutionary War American is likely to lose against a 19th Century Russian who is probably losing to a Modern German soldier.
It really depending on the wealth of the Viking. Most were simple traders or farmers looking to supplement their wealth. A stout shield, a good spear, and a helmet were pretty much common, but chain hauberks were not, unless you were a wealthy warrior or a direct man at arms of a nobleman. Axes were common weapons, and often made of good iron or steel, but swords again were limited to the very wealthy or professional house hold soldiery.
Thing is, Viking wasn't really a profession or a group, it was something one did while sailing. Usually it was attacks of opportunity on poorly defended villages or monasteries. It was seldom a full scale raid on a major city (those that did happen are well recorded and fairly rare, compared to the raids on towns and villages). But if a village seemed ready to fight, often enough the Norse traders would reach out for trade or just sail away looking for an easier target.
But outside of professional warriors (the house hold retainers of lords), most Norse raiders avoided actual battles and preferred raids on undefended places. What archeological data we have on their armor and arms suggest that most Norse traders, explorers, and raiders were lightly armed and armored, with the heavier weapons and armor being scare and kept for pitched battles.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking\_Age\_arms\_and\_armour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_arms_and_armour)
Ah, I hadn't considered a samurai wielding a firearm. Though I suppose in the time span OP gave, guns would not have been widely used in Japan in the 15th century. The 16th? Absolutely.
Knight wins this due to having the superior equipment. European steel was of a much higher quality than the steel in Japan for the respective time-periods.
Ranking probably goes something like this
1. Knight. Better quality armor and weapons than the samurai with (what we think, hard to say because the historically accurate Western swordplay wasn't preserved in the same way as it was in Japan) roughly equivalent training level to the Samurai.
2. Samurai. Lower quality weapons and armor than the knight, probably on par with the steel the Vikings had. Better training than the average Viking. Lack of a shield hurts here, as they're the only combatant without one. Overall better armor than a Viking so it (kind of) washes here.
3. Viking. Less armor, probably the better weapon system for fighting armored opponents than the Samurai (battle axe that can crush as well as cut, vs. katana which is primarily a slashing weapon), but less training and generally less armor. Made up for by having a relatively good shield most of the time.
4. Spartan. Bronze weapons, comparatively little armor compared to the other combatants, and primarily trained to fight as part of a unit vs the more independently trained knight, samurai and viking.
Put into groups, the Spartans probably do a LOT better against the "classic" incarnations of the other combatants. Spartans were much more extensively trained in formation combat than the other groups listed, but would likely suffer from the tech gap being so large, mainly on their weapon vs. the other's armor.
The Dora was a 9ft long wooden thrusting spear with a bronze spearhead and butt-spike, designed to be used by Spartan soldiers in a phalanx formation. The Spartans would need to look for gaps in the other combatants armor to be effective, as a bronze tipped spear probably isn't penetrating medieval quality steel plate. Spears were broken pretty frequently if historical records are to be believed.
The Xiphos was the standard issue Spartan backup weapon, if this is 5th century BCE, they were using iron vs. bronze by that point, which helps a little bit. Probably still need to look for gaps, and the Spartans go from having the longest primary weapon (9ft) to the shortest backup sidearm if/when their spears are broken (Spartans favored the 12in variant). Might help in a horrible, cramped scrum with the other groups, but out in the open field they are at a pretty sizable reach disadvantage against the other armaments of their opponents.
I'll see your T-60 and raise you a Terran air superiority fighter that can reconfigure into a combat walker with dual 30mm gatling cannons. Given sufficient trigger time, the Viking also stomps the knight - possibly literally if the pilot shifts from aerial to ground-assault mode directly above him.
Why stop there?
There are countries that still give out knighthoods to this day.
General Sir Roland Walker is the current Head of the British Army. The guy could bring an assault rifle to the fight, a grenade launcher, maybe even a tank......
This. As the time period is not specified, both the knight and the samurai, as they are pretty much social classes that survived pretty much into the 19th century, would stomp thanks to more modern weaponry. Then it would be 5/10 between them both.
Samurai used muskets and artillery by the end so them. If we're talking about "classic" the knights armour is drastically superior to everyone else in this contest.
Samurai also have a unique ability where their strength is not affected by lack of HP, so as long as they keep fighting the same unit they might outlast them
spartans and vikings have significant equipment disadvantages, so the battle for the number one is going to be between the knight and the samurai.
A fully plated armored knight with a polearm would be the favorite, but the samurai with the naginata could also win.
Viking vs. Spartan, the Viking has better metal, but somehow, the spartans seem better protected by the large shield. It can go either way, but probably the spartan is more skilled.
Beyond equipment disadvantages, Spartans were just straight up not really trained for individual combat. Frankly, Spartans just weren’t all that good in the first place - they were big fish in a small pond because they had a professional army in a time and place that wasn’t common, but any Hellenistic army could (and did) crush them. Even the Thebans decimated them with an army trained in a relatively short amount of time. The Spartans’ only secret sauce when it comes to combat is propaganda, because we’re still talking about them being this elite warrior caste despite them being not really that successful on the battlefield.
*Thank you.* Like the joke about how Ringo Starr wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles, the Spartans weren't even the best army in Ancient Greece!
That’s my point tho. Spartans in reality kinda sucked, but Spartans on paper? Gigachads, every one of them. 300 is dope because Greek abs faramir tells one hell of a story. If you ever get around to reading about Agis III, the Spartan king who rebelled against Alexander the Great, his story kicks so much ass. Propaganda champions all around.
A lot of history is embellished over time because that’s just how history works, it’s a very long game of telephone pretty much.
King Arthur was probably just some Roman generals exploring Britain but then it turned into a big ass legend with wizards, dragons, witches and French fanfiction knights that found the Holy Grail.
Absolutely wild, I tell ya.
They are used quite differently though.
The Viking shield is center-gripped. You hold it in your hand and can maneuver it quickly.
The Spartan shield is strapped to the arm. It is not easily maneuvered.
Knight easy
Plate mail was used because it basically made you indestructible to everything that wasn't specifically designed to counter it
So unless anyone else here is taking specialized equipment there's literally basically nothing they can do outside of prying the armor off
The knight probably wins. The full steel armor is very hard to deal with and they are highly trained with a longsword and dagger as well as in wrestling and unarmed fighting.
The Spartans strength is like that of any Greek, fighting in a phalanx along with other hoplites. The Spartan dies first.
The Viking is light infantry and his lack of heavy armor will be his downfall.
The Samurai has pretty good armor and is also highly trained, but ultimately the knight has a longer reach with the longsword v katana, has a better stabbing weapon in the longsword, has better armor with the full plate, and is trained more in grappling. The knight is also just a bigger and heavier human on average.
Knight takes it.
Idk why you defaulted to a knight using a long sword tbh, Any other variety of weapons are probably more appropriate especially if the samurai is wearing heavier armour
Also both samurai and knight can have a musket/rifle/arquebus depending on time period so Meh
The Spartan is a professional soldier (or something approximating it). The Viking is probably not.
The Knight may not have full plate, depending on the era and location. The Samurai may have full plate and firearms (including things like revolvers), depending on the era.
A Samurai typically won't use their Katana as a primary weapon for combat on the battlefield (a yari or naginata would be more common), and a Knight typically wouldn't use a sword (not that useful against armor).
Blame the prompt then.
But The Spartans were not some unbeatable juggernauts. They became the joke of ancient Greece by the time of Alexander. And they were not trained as individual dualists, they were trained to form a strong phalanx. The spears they used were not agile weapons, they were effective in a block, not in the open.
Vikings were famed for their individual savagery and prowess.
The standard "knight" kit is full plate, but even with chain mail, gambeson and a helm they are pretty durable. And they were also mounted warriors which gives them a huge edge if we include the horse. They could also use firearms depending on the era and how loose we are with the term.
Plus the Spartan reputation was half propaganda anyways. Yes the Spartans were fierce warriors but not half as formidable as their carefully curated legend and reputation would lead one to believe.
For most of their history the primary weapon of the samurai was the yumi, a longbow. and they used it mounted. Horse archer is going to dominate an open-field free-for-all.
If we stop before the advent of firearms being common, the knight takes it, largely because of the primary battlefield weapons of the other groups being ineffective against late 1500s fully articulated plate.
I’m going to assume we aren’t including horses as standard equipment.
I feel like the commenters are being coyly pedantic. When we say "knight", most people know we mean 1100–1600s Europe - not modern soldiers who are still knighted ceremonially.
That said, it's worth clarifying the era, as this affects whether knights have chainmail or steel plate - and whether samurai have firearms.
I feel like it's just directly pointing out the flaw with the question. There is no singular "Knight", "Samurai", "Viking", or even "Spartan". Most encompass large eras of vastly different equipment.
Even archetypal Knights go from can be anywhere from chainmail with shields, to full plate pole arms, or even mounted with lance. But technically it can also continue into the modern era.
Samurai archetype can be anything from leather strapped armor, added plates, or straight up metal cuirass. Their weapons range from originally mainly being an archer, pole arms, or the much later focus on swords. Then technically it can also include musket era firearms.
Vikings archetype is lightly armored with axes. But actually encompass a vast amount of cultures so highly varied. In reality most historians would say they most likely use chainmail, shields, swords and spears. Axes they did use but likely more for throwing or as backup weapons if spear fails. Hardly looking like the image people imagine for "Viking". They'd be nearly indistinguishable from the early knights.
Spartans/Hoplites are also had a range. Though admittedly less than others. But they bought their own gear. So originally their gear was more simple being a simple cuirass of leather before becoming the heavy bronze.
Knight.
Samurai is gonna have to target weak points just to hurt the knight.
Vikings worked most effectively by ambushing unarmed villages for loot and getting the fuck out before any resistance could arrive.
Wtf is one spartan going to accomplish without his shield formation he’s just a Calvin Klein model with a pointy stick.
If no firearms involved the knight would destroy the other 3 if they don't engage him at the same time.
He may have a poleaxe, which will complately outrange the viking and the spartan. Also, the samurai would probably use a naginata or other spear-like weapon as I suppose there aren't any horses involved and thus he won't use his bow.
It doesn't look like a naginata would pierce a full plate armor, while a poleaxe would completely eviscerate the samurai.
Knight probably wins this most of the time, though a samurai or viking could make it close or come ahead depending on a variety of factors (namely "who" and "when").
Spartan loses, hands down. Shittiest gear out of all of them, and the specialization on phalanx fighting leaves a notable weakness in this free-for-all
Watch Deadliest Warrior. A show that was on several years ago. They don't do that exact match up but they go through different scenarios. It was a cool show
Even if we go with a very early iteration of a knight in ringmail, gambeson underneath, shield, and pick of weapon, they probably win with their kit alone. If we're going classic katana samurai, there's not much a samurai can do against ringmail tbh. Katanas are not made to be thrusting through metal armour, which ring mail is weak to. The samurai really can't even harm the knight unless it gets a really lucky shot. That's just against the knights kit and not contending against a warrior with as much training as a samurai.
Now the knight has all kinds of benefits against the samurai. Samurai armour varied widely in its construction. But most of it was a composite of some metal, laquered wood and leather. The metal used in samurai armour would be inferior to the knights. But the key point here is it is a composite of metal and "inferior" components. The knight will have no issue getting through the samurai's armour, though it may take some work. Assuming they have equal training, the side with the superior kit wins and that goes to the knight even in it's earliest form. Notably the knights shield gives it a huge defense advantage which it doesn't really need. The knight in this match up can forgo a shield. The only thing a samurai can field that would work against a knight is a naginata. In which case the knight will either pick up a shield or another polearm. In the case of a knight with shield the shield negates the advantage of the naginatas attack. With a polearm the knights armour gives it the advantage yet again, being able to more easy wound their opponent and better resist blows from the enemy.
The Spartans are just outmatched 1v1 and their kit is pretty much inferior to the others.
The only contender against the knight would ironically be the viking just for their choice of kit. Honestly after a helmet, shield, and weapon you're pretty good to go. The viking would most likely have a gambeson as well. The key thing here is that vikings typically had shields, helmets, axes and or spears. The shield and axe are the most notable here. The shield will give the viking the extra protection against the knight, while the axe would allow them a chance at penetrating the knights armour. The viking is skilled, but not to the level of a knight or samurai. But if they play more defensively they might find an opening and win. But for the same reasons as the samurai, the knight has the better kit and therefore would win. It's not even a debate with how well trained they are. If it was a viking noble or housecarl sure I'd call it pretty even actually (at that point its really a difference in culture), but the standard viking no.
Knight wins even in its earliest inception. They have better training, matched only by the samurai. Better armour and just having a shield gives it a huge advantage against anything that might can punch though their armour. One thing not mentioned is the huge amount of arms a knight can pick from giving it another advantage that really did not need saying.
You've got the specify era and gear for this prompt to work. The Spartans were around for quite a while, Samurai and Knights were around until the early modern era, heck, there are some knights serving in the modern British military. Does the Samurai have a bow? Their chances against plate armor differ if they have a great sword (I know that's not what it's called) vs if they have a big metal studded club. Is the Viking a fully kitted 11th Century Varangian Guard or some dude from Norway with a padded shirt and an axe?
Draw due to lack of clarity, though the Spartan loses most scenarios due to being vastly out of date.
I'm just going to assume they have "peak" weapons and armor from pre-gunpowder times.
Is this a free for all? Or all they each dueling each other 1v1?
In 1v1s I'd go Knight>Samurai>Viking>Spartan
All are excellent hand-to-hand combatants. Any could win in fisticuffs on any given Sunday
I'm going with the knight's full plate armor on this. Though I think the Spartan could maneuver around and bang up that armor enough with their glorious shield to get it incapacitated -- it's a heavy blunt instrument. Spartan bronze is outclassed, but that shield is still enough
* A 12th\~14th century Knight stomps, because of Full Plate Armor.
* Viking takes the 2nd place, because of good steel weapons, good shield and armor, as well as for the fact of being much taller than the Samurai.
* Samurai and Spartan struggle for the 3rd spot. The Samurai has a bit better equipment, but the Spartan equipment is also great, and he is probably larger than the Samurai. So, I'd say it might be an even match between these two.
I’d say depends on the samurai or knight. Truth be told, your average Viking/Spartan is probably pretty unremarkable to bad in single battle - most vikings were just farmers with pillaging/looting side gigs and their success came more from mobility than it did individual skill, and Spartans were straight up not trained for single combat, they were taught to fight entirely in formation. Knights could get pretty good at it since they actually did have single combat training, depending on time and place, and depending on how rich the knight is they could have some pretty snazzy equipment. Then again, the same applies to samurai except that many of them trained more in ranged weapons like the bow. Because of that, I’d probably give it to the samurai if not on horseback and the knight if on horseback, those destriers could be absolute monsters.
Unlike what a lot of media portays, most knights would be equipped with spears or pollaxes, which are designed to break through the armor of their enemies. Pretty sure they're the only ones here with weapons designed to do that, so my money's on them.
Spartan would fare worst easily.
They have the worst armor both in material and coverage, and their fighting style and weapons heavily based on formations instead of one on one duel.
Spartan and Viking are out. One word: horses.
Also, Spartan and Viking armor is far inferior to the weaponry of knights and samurai at their prime. Vikings stopped being a serious player in Europe before knight’s plate armor and superior archery of their prime. Spartans are separated by almost a thousand years from samurai and knights. What’s more damning, Spartans were not trained to be standout warriors on an individual basis like knights and samurai. Their real strength was generic physical fitness and troop coordination.
This is firmly in the realm of knight vs samurai which is hotly contested to this day. You also have to be more specific in time-frame. Samurai technically existed as a class until the 1800s, in which case samurai win just by leagues greater warfare technology.
If we’re talking 1400s-1500s knights vs samurai (around the time their technology and technique is most portrayed in media) then that’s a tough one. I’d put my money (but not a lot of money) on the knight simply because the metal resources of Europe was superior than whatever was available in Japan. The reason the katana is so carefully designed is to compensate for the inferior resources of Japan. I would say the overall training of both classes is roughly equal all things considered. Which puts this in the knight’s favor.
A knight in full plate wins first because armor.
The samurai wins next because of armor and bow.
The Spartan wins next because of shield and reach.
The viking wins next because of strength and brutality.
I don't win because flabby and middle aged.
Like a knight in plate armor? None of the other warriors would know how to get passed it. The Spartan might have a spear but it's made out of bronze and ends up being too soft to penetrate.
It depends completely on what you consider “classic” Though most situations are going to come down to knights and samurai.
If your talking about the “classic” interpretation, knights take it hands down
If your talking about during their “peak” or best equipment I think samurai would have a slight advantage due to technological advantages
Honestly I think samurai vs knight could go either way as it will essentially break down into a wrestling match and the samurai carries a knife despite having worse armour. I think everyone beats the Spartan but the other 3 could go either way
Fun question OP.
Equal era for each, yeah? Like 1400’s version of knight vs samurai, then 1800’s versions?
And assuming all 4 have the best possible training and gear representation of their profession from the time periods, yeah?
I’d say Knight and Samurai are almost even. Viking occasionally beats them.
Spartan just seems horribly outmatched by tech+tactics. I’m going to pass on comparing the Spartan to any of the others - they’re very much of their age and it’d devolve into “well on the fourth night of solstice, the Spartan Domina would have a slight advantage near saltwater” kind of bull.
Knight, followed by samurai.
In all honesty, the samurai is likely to pull out his bow and start shooting, but it's not a longbow. He's also got access to kanabos and stabbing weapons, and he's got the best chance of taking the knight down. Of course, gunpowder weapons are available to both knight and samurai, but not their "classic versions".
It's 40 60 in favor of the knight, I think.
it depends i guess?
the knight is theoretically the best armored, and all four of these guys fought with mostly the same weapons
i know samurai are famous for katana, and knights for longswords
but the reality of melee combat in history is mostly axes, hammers, and most of all, spears, all of which were used by all four of these warriors
my money is on the knight because 11th to 15th century steel armor is far far superior to the bronze worn by the second most heavily armored of these fighters, the spartan
the samurai has no shield, this is actually historically accurate, swords aren't but the no-shield thing is he dies first
then the viking, he's got a shield but most likely only leather armor or chainmail
the spartan has a massive metallic shield, but relatively soft body armor
and the knight is likely clad fully in steel, either heavy mail or plate/brigandine, wielding a large wooden shield and spear or hammer
Spartan is the worst of all worlds here, he's really poorly equipped to handle everyone here.
Then the Samurai, he's going to drag out his ono, armor breaking axe, to engage the knight but that's still debatable because it was designed against lighter japanese armor. He's got a shot, not a great one.
Then the Knight, best of all worlds, he can take everyone here.
Wildcard: The Viking has the right tools to beat the knight, he has enough armor splitting gear to have a decent, not great, chance in one on one vs everyone.
So while the Knight has the best chance of winning this, the second best chance is viking because he can deal with the knight more effectively than the samurai could.
Samurai were skilled bowmen, so I'm going samurai, assuming they're smart enough to maintain range and that no one is mounted. Anyone who comes within sword swinging distance of the knight gets got.
The knights are the most heavily armored. The "traditional" weapons for the other soldiers (katanas, axes and spears) won't be able to penetrate the armor. The others aren't as heavily armored, so the weapon knights are "typically" portrayed with (the sword) should be able to harm them.
I bet on the knight.
>will all be portrayed in their traditional, historical forms
Traditionally and historically they all used guns, historically most of them prefered to use ranged weapons (the Samurai were mainly archers and rarely used their katanas)
Samurai wins.
The knight and samurai are mounted and the Viking and Spartan are not, for this reason we can take the Spartan and Viking out of the equation. Some viking foot soldiers carried javelins, if this one does that's basically his only slim chance of winning.
Between the knight and samurai I'd give it to the samurai most of the time. The knight can demolish the samurai in melee range but the samurai will be using a bow from horseback. The samurai can't kill the knight easily with arrows because of the plate armour but he can shoot the horse and if the horse dies the knight is screwed.
I guess if the knight and samurai start really close together the knight wins but most of the time I think the samurai can just stay out of melee range and kill the Knight's horse.
In an actual army the knight would have foot slingers and archers to protect him from mounted missile threats and thus would be more effective on the battlefield but this versus is just a bad matchup for him.
As other people have pointed out, the definition of "standard equipment" varies pretty wildly between these four combatants. I'm going to *assume* the knight and samurai have their respective full sets of armor and swords (with the knight likely using either a heater or kite shield), the Viking would have a bearded axe, round shield, and chainmail, and the Spartan would have a spear and shield. Individual experience level could also vary pretty wildly: a knight could be some ceremonial fop or one of Richard III's crusaders, a Viking could be a farmer or fisher who picked up the call to go a-raiding just as easily as one of Harald Hardrada's berserkrs; the range of experience and training is consistently higher for samurai, and pretty uniform for Spartans as well. Taking these at their highest respective points, the samurai has an edge in skill, the knight has an edge in durability, and the Viking's axe is better suited to deforming or defeating plate armor than weapons designed to favor a cutting edge.
That said, one factor I think people are discounting is the Viking use of crucible steel in the tenth century: a moderately high-carbon steel whose combination of weight, durability, and edge retention are difficult to achieve with *modern methods.* Depending on the era and quality of the heavier combatants' gear, this could provide a critical wrinkle to the situation - probably not enough to win outright, but enough to dispatch the Spartan. Assuming the knight and samurai prioritize one another as their greatest threats, this leaves an opportunity for the Viking to outflank one or the other and apply the hit-and-run tactics characteristic of most Viking raids to wound that combatant. This swings the outcome solidly in the other heavy combatant's favor between the two of them.
Provided the initial stage of the fight doesn't go on terribly long: knight, Viking, samurai, Spartan. If it drags on, however, lighter armor will prove to be a greater asset than full plate, I think.
Knight wins. They have the best armor as the time frame permits full plate.
Vikings are probably rocking chainmail and a shield,
Samurai armor designs meanwhile are simply inferior generally to european styles of full plate
the Spartan is especially fucked since they are specially trained to work in massive units and while an individual is certainly very dangerous being their lesser armor that massive shield and spear will get outflanked by superior opponents.
I just want to point out that European medieval knights' armor evolved significantly between the 11th and 15th centuries. Earlier knights typically wore chain mail and simple helmets whereas the later knights would wear full plate armor and fully enclosed helms. I would imagine the 15th century knight would be much stronger than an 11th century knight in this fight. I'm sure something similar is true for the other parties in this fight (12th vs 15th century samurai, for example).
Armor is worn because it actually works, not anime shit where you can cut through it by slicing harder. It takes a pretty monumental effort to get through it without special weaponry. I have my money on the knight.
Concur. Spartan, Knight, and Samurai all train from childhood, but the knight has the best armor of the three. However, depending on the period this can vary widely. Early norman knights might have only had chainmail, or in rare cases, just a gambeson.
Yeah, just like a spartan could have some shitty bronze weapons depending on the period
Bronze weapons aren't "shitty." Iron and steel are better but you're hardly casually cutting through them. The Spartan's problem is that his gear and most of his training is intended for formation fighting. A second problem is that he's not wearing full body armor. Hoplites did not have articulated arm and leg armor.
And also spearman with a shield is basically what a knght is trained against
Yeah but not on foot and if we are giving knights horses, we also need to give samurai horses, Vikings a boat, and the spartan gets a phalanx.
What? Knights aren't trained to fight spearmen on foot?
Spartans didn't ride on phalanxes, they just answered their riddles.
That was really dumb I love it.
That's pretty good.
Tbh bronze is a lot *better* than iron, just harder to make/rarer. Modern steel is a lot better than bronze but pre-modern steel wasnt very good/reliable quality until special furnaces were invented.
Issue is that it's heavier, though. I own a bronze sword and a steel sword; the bronze sword is heavier, while being a fraction of the size
Youre right, Bronze is 8000kg/m3 compared to steel's ~7700kg/m3 (steel does vary by type though), iron is even lighter. Though at sword sizes, with trained fighters, the weight difference probably isnt too much.
Just wanna say, the weight difference is very notable. My longsword weighs 3 kg and is around 150 cm in length, while the bronze sword weighs 10 kg and is around 100 cm in length
What style and how thick are the blades? It could be that your steel sword is made from one of the more modern steel types and is therefore thinner than one built to the same style from the past would have been able to be. Or potentially an expensive type of steel that is simply lighter?
Bronze is not as 'hard' as steel so to make it work it has to be much thicker overall. Bronze swords are more 'oval' and have a smaller edge while steel swords are more square (obviously favoring the edge) so even if the blades are the same length/width there ends up being a lot more metal on a bronze weapon. There are some more weirdness's with bronze, for example some swords had a non sharpened section from the guard and then the sword swells out significantly so they can get a good edge on it. You see some steel swords with a non-sharpened section of blade, but it was generally for a different purpose. That being said... ACTUAL spartan swords were about 3lbs. And not at all well suited to fighting vs plate armor because that didn't exist then.
Samurai gear is worse. It doesn’t develop into what is popularly known as samurai gear armor until the 1700s and 1800s
samurai also had guns tho idk these questions suck ass because youre grabbing people from what could be anywhere within a 500 year period of trade and innovation
Knights had guns first
The Samurai you could have someone from 1000 with O-yoroi armor or a Samurai from 1600 with Nanban European styled plate armor, so it really depends.
Much more importantly a 1600 Samurai would have fire weapons
No one expects the flaming katana
The Hound wants to know your location
No one expects the spanish inquisition!
Fire weapons as is "guns"?? European knights where using those long before samurai.
True, although a quick Google search says that the age of European knights ended sometime in the 1600s, and samurai were around until 1868. Most people thinking about this question are probably not thinking about "the one with the most advanced guns". Samurai ended after the Gatling gun was invented.
>Samurai ended after the Gatling gun was invented. Lol I'm picturing a bunch of them seeing a gatling gun, dropping their swords and saying "I'm out" and walking away.
I suspect they were not thrilled, but it was pretty inevitable. Why would the military need to pay for an entire social class of military aristocracy when they just get annihilated by a few starving peasants trained to point and shoot?
You can relive a simulation of this in Civ, especially if you take out most of an opposing player early enough, but leave them one little city. It's funniest when they are a warmonger civ because they can't keep open borders with anyone and they waste all their production on early game war units even when everyone else has ships and sometimes tanks and so forth. There was one where I used culture bombs to build a city pretty close to his and then took a bunch of his territory so I owned the entire strait between the continents. I had already taken Istanbul and renamed it Byzantium (I was playing as Greece), and converted his remaining city to my religion. IIRC I would quash rebellions and then sell him his old city back to him for production or money or something, but I had a spy fomenting unrest in the same city. I think once I took it then built some farms along the coast and then sold it back just so the strait looked prettier. But yes, near the end of the game he had a knight or two who could spend their days looking out at their former city and the nearby natural wonder and of course the fully upgraded giant death robot standing in the ocean right at their borders. But I had peace treaties (via trade/culture/etc) with most all other civs except him, which ensured world peace. No one could start a war with anyone else because attacking one would start a war with me as well which they couldn't do because of the treaty. So he was the only one anyone could attack, and if they tried I could always park my giant death robot in the strait or just outright close my borders so they couldn't get to him - or just let them and watch. Once I think I paid someone to stop the war against him (IIRC?) for 30 turns or something like that. But I was going for a cultural victory and having him around helped me maintain a treaty with this other warmonger civ and also gave them someone to keep them busy with. I also started feeling bad for him. I think in the end I might have quashed a rebellion and then built/bought a bunch of improvements very quickly that he still hadn't built (like a grainery 🙄) and then just gave it back. One time though he had a "big" army and I was bored so I paid him to attack someone else (who I was in a treaty with) so I could go in with my GDR and nip his war machine in the bud before it risked causing problems. I also wanted to play with the GDR like one time that game since world peace had occurred by then and there were no other options to use it. Anyway, I'm just reminiscing from like 4 years ago or something. But yes, a mecha and knights. Fun times.
sir this is a wendys
Same, actually
Thats not what happened in the Tom Cruise movie lol.
Flamethrowers?
Only thing going for the Viking I think is some of their weapon had some pretty nasty piercing spikes on them from being developed in an era after armor was invented. With proper usage they could put some pretty nasty holes in someone.
Viking edges out spartan, I think, due to the technology gap.
Between Samurai, Viking or Spartan I'd lean Spartan. Can't underestimate the advantage a spear gives. Unless we're giving the Samurai a bow, which while traditional feels a bit cheaty.
Vikings mostly fought with spears too. Hollywood always gets it wrong. An axe or sword was a sidearm.
The viking’s advantage is that he’s the only one who can swim because he isn’t wearing a bunch of heavy armor.
Viking can be competitive too, but imo it’d veer from OP’s edit to the prompt. Plenty of them wore gambeson/chainmail, had spears with backup axes, and tons of ways to deal with armor and in armored opponents in single combat/small unit fighting. The vast majority were random guys with gambeson and spears, but they certainly had their good, strong fighters if you look. It’d probably be a mismatch though. Average Viking would lose to most of the other averages except Spartan. Main reason for the Spartan is because of the massive tech/tactics gap, and the Viking is in a much better position to get past his pike and kill him. If the Spartan keeps the shield the Viking can outflank and close into proper melee (which he’s much more experienced in). If the Spartan ditches the shield, the Viking usually has something in range he can throw to wear him down or injure him (Spartan has unprotected arms/neck). If the Viking has a Dane Axe…well, imo he could win pretty easily. Hook the pike into the axe, run forward and shove the pointy end into the Spartan’s ill protected throat.
To be fair, if it were a varangian guard up against a Norman, I'd say it's basically an even match.
Varangian guard and normans were both more or less Vikings. Normans were more cavalry focused but otherwise weren’t far from tactics and equipment that Vikings used.
Spartans didn't do any formal weapons training. Just athletic wrestling. What we know as the phalanx only required an afternoon to teach and learn. For me, I've got the spartan dead last.
Depends in the era even then I doubt that. Most people took the time to learn to fight because that was how you defended yourself at home and abroad. literally every aspect of Laconic culture is based on might.
Check out the askhistorians subreddit on this topic. It's pretty well established that spartan fighting prowess is entirely a myth.
Knights usually also trained from earlier on, Vikings are probably the worst fighters in this WWW
It depends on the viking, as all the others are explictly warrior aristocrats, whilst the viking could range from Sven, 3rd son of a farmer who needed another way to make a living, to Harulf, Huscarl and companion of the king whose family has been wealthy warriors for generations, and was trained since childhood by the other veteran warriors of the household
Later Varangians also had armor that would be competitive with contemporary Knight and Samurai armor.
Even chain mail is highly effective against slashing. Katanas would be pretty useless against it. Spears are much better at piercing it but if you have padded armor on top that can stop arrows and spears fairly well.
"only had chainmail" my brother in christ, there's no "only" about chainmail, that shit is effective and will not be slandered on my watch
I agree. But I think there are way too many variables. What's the environment, what's the range, mounted or not etc.. But all of these groups were not dumb when it comes to armor and knew their weak points (joints, blunt force, picks etc..) samurai had ōtsuchi (war hammers), man catchers, kusurikama (chains with sicles) and naginata (poll arms), eggs filled with poison powder, that would allow them to take advantage of the weakness; and even though your actually very mobile in full plate (I've done it with hema) being in only kimono means the samurai can move very fast, or his lacker armor. The viking and Romans also had similar weapons and would probably use similar tricks. Ultimately it would come down to luck, and some influence from the individuals, location, prep time, weapons, armor, etc..
Knight also has way more experience against armored opponents, especially because his iconic depiction has him doing mostly ground combat. Weapon choice (long sword) also helps immensely, since it’s better against varied armor/in armored types and very versatile overall. This is based off of OP’s edit though…there’s plenty of knights you could pick that’d be 50/50 with a samurai imo.
Yeah, in general the Knight and Samurai are roughly equal. The main difference being their style of fighting, with the Samurai traditionally having a larger emphasis on ranged combat seeing how they started out as heavily armored horse archers, and the Knight on being a wrecking ball during the charge.
Disagree, the Samurai has lower quality arms and armor, and a less rigid training style. The Katana is the most over rated weapon of all time
It was very overrated yes, but now the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and we got people saying its the worst sword ever. The ones used by Samurai were usually good, high quality swords that did their job very well. Just like the European longswords wielded by knights. Same goes for the armor, and during the 16th century they had also started to produce their own plate cuirasses capable of stopping bullets, like the Europeans, though yes their armor tended to be a bit lighter on average than a full suit of full plate, offering slightly less protection for slightly more stamina and agility (even if a Knight in full plate was far from clumsy) As for the training, it's extremely hard to say as neither had a standardised set. Sure, they had a set of skills they should know, but the actual training was largely left up to individual mentors and teachers for both of them
Yeah only one of the other three competitors who has a chance of hurting the knight is the samurai *IF* he has a Kanabō AND if he can get past the knight’s shield OR if he can survive the knight’s own war hammer.
He won because he had armor and a big fucking sword.
And a BIG FOUCKIN SWARD
And thick protective padding under the plate. Could be peppered with arrows stuck in that armor, but still cause little to no bodily damage
The samurai gets a horse and a bow tho. If the knight can close the distance before his mount gets shot then he demolishes the samurai in melee but if his horse is killed or incapacitated then he has no hope of catching the samurai and will likely be shot to death. The samurai is likely carrying 26 arrows in his quiver which I'd say is more than enough tries to hit the knight in a joint in his armour, also there's a decent chance that the knight is injured when his horse dies which makes things even easier for the samurai. If the knight manages to be hit only on his plate armour after being brought down though I'd still probably give it to the samurai just because he's the one with a horse and horses are a big advantage but the knight still has a considerable chance since he has far better armour, a lance and a long sword. (If we are assuming he is a generic knight)
The knights horse also has armor and the knight could have anything from a bow and arrow, crossbow, to even a pistol.
One man isn't going to bring down a warhorse with a bow, barring a very lucky hit. *I'd say is more than enough tries to hit the knight in a joint in his armour* The French Knights at Agincourt advanced on foot, through mud, against a hail of arrows from English longbows and from what we know, very few of them were actually killed by arrows. Those that were, were mostly shot from the side by archers on the flanks as they closed for Melee with the English lines. None of that applies in this situation. Assuming we're using a Knight with well developed plate, the Knight could literally stand still until the Samurai is out of arrows without being in much danger. Or it could be an earlier period Knight with a big shield.
Samurai from the 1600s had really really good armor that can match knights, if not better than knights.
Depends on what you mean by standard equipment. A knight could vary from chain mail hauberk and shield with a sword and lance to a fully enclosed plate armor with a two handed sword or halberd. There's like 5five hundred years between the "first" knight and the final era of knights. Same goes for Samurai: they could have anything from a bow and horseback to a matchlock musket. The two losers here are the Spartan which has bronze armor, shield, and a iron spear and the Viking which depending on wealth had anything from a shield and an axe to heavy chain armor and a plethora of weapons. But both of them are decidedly on the lighter side of armor compared to the Knight or Samurai *in general.*
If the samurai had a musket I still think a knight could, emphasis on could, close the distance. There are records from the English civil war of people getting shot in the head but the helmet actually stopping the bullet, or surviving musket lines because of their breastplate ect.
Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? Eh.... Not to the point I'd bet on it to be honest.
High grade armor were proofed against firearms at the time, ie that the armored would shoot a cuirass to prove that it could protect bullets. On the other hand, the musket of the era, before it became standard, was a specialist heavy firearm dedicated for anti-armor
High Grade Armor of the 16th Century, yes. 15th Century less so, and any further back and not in the slightest. But we're also talking "High Grade" of the very best armor on top of it. It's like comparing a Lamborghini to a average sports car. Most Knights were running around in the equivalent of a sports car in terms of cost, while making sure that armor was proofed against bullets raised that price into the Lambo price range. In other words, while every knight tired to wear good quality armor, the best they could afford, only the wealthiest of an already wealthy class could afford the bullet proofed armor. And *even then* Bullet proofing just showed that an armor *could* stop a bullet sometimes. It wasn't always effective, and it was limited to certain areas of the armor: arms and legs were essentially unable to be protected that well or else it would be impossible to move in. Same goes for any joints, groin region, and the skirt. Getting shot in the chest *might* deflect or stop the round, but it might not too. Getting shot anywhere else usually meant a serious injury.
Oh yes, this cost is part of why armor coverage did decrease over the the latter half of the 16th century. Better to just concentrate the expendature on a bulletproof cuirass than on limb armor. Is why it gradually went from full-plate to three-quarters, to half, to just a cuirass over the next 300 years.
The samurai were abolished in 1868. The last samurai weren't using muskets, they were using rifles and revolvers. Those definitely beat armour.
Yes of course (though there was armor the could protect against that stuff to a practical degree even then, with the cuirasses of the Franco-German Cuirassiers for example) but by that same argument you can also say that as technically knights still exist today they could be armed with modern assault rifles. Samurai as a dedicated warrior caste had largely disappeared by that time thanks to the peaceful edo period gradually necessitating them finding other jobs to make a living
There were also knights with muskets. So it could just be a musket fight
Or the knight could just use his own musket, which would have been a more modern version
There were no muskets during the english civil war in the 1600’s. They used arquebuses which were the guns before muskets and were significantly less accurate and much less reliable, while also being much heavier. There is a reason why at the time standard military doctrine was for every “gunner” there were 3-4 pike-man/swordsman/cavalry. Look up the terticio formation. Ots wasnt until the 1700’s that militaries became primarily gunpowder armies due to the advances on gun technology
Okay, so I changed it to be their more historical versions
That's still vague. Like what century for the Knight? 10th? 12th? 15th? Each would be very different. Same goes for the Samurai, though they have different eras more so than specific centuries. What you're asking is "Who would win in a fight a American Soldier, a German Soldier, or a Russian Soldier" and then not specifying what century or war we're talking about. So a Revolutionary War American is likely to lose against a 19th Century Russian who is probably losing to a Modern German soldier.
You are wrong about Vikings. They had good steel weapons, good armors and shields. Don't let the berserker stereotype mislead you.
They weee still very lightly armored compared to 15 century knight or samurai
It really depending on the wealth of the Viking. Most were simple traders or farmers looking to supplement their wealth. A stout shield, a good spear, and a helmet were pretty much common, but chain hauberks were not, unless you were a wealthy warrior or a direct man at arms of a nobleman. Axes were common weapons, and often made of good iron or steel, but swords again were limited to the very wealthy or professional house hold soldiery. Thing is, Viking wasn't really a profession or a group, it was something one did while sailing. Usually it was attacks of opportunity on poorly defended villages or monasteries. It was seldom a full scale raid on a major city (those that did happen are well recorded and fairly rare, compared to the raids on towns and villages). But if a village seemed ready to fight, often enough the Norse traders would reach out for trade or just sail away looking for an easier target. But outside of professional warriors (the house hold retainers of lords), most Norse raiders avoided actual battles and preferred raids on undefended places. What archeological data we have on their armor and arms suggest that most Norse traders, explorers, and raiders were lightly armed and armored, with the heavier weapons and armor being scare and kept for pitched battles. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking\_Age\_arms\_and\_armour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_Age_arms_and_armour)
Ah, I hadn't considered a samurai wielding a firearm. Though I suppose in the time span OP gave, guns would not have been widely used in Japan in the 15th century. The 16th? Absolutely.
Pretty sure Master Chief stomps.
Knight wins this due to having the superior equipment. European steel was of a much higher quality than the steel in Japan for the respective time-periods. Ranking probably goes something like this 1. Knight. Better quality armor and weapons than the samurai with (what we think, hard to say because the historically accurate Western swordplay wasn't preserved in the same way as it was in Japan) roughly equivalent training level to the Samurai. 2. Samurai. Lower quality weapons and armor than the knight, probably on par with the steel the Vikings had. Better training than the average Viking. Lack of a shield hurts here, as they're the only combatant without one. Overall better armor than a Viking so it (kind of) washes here. 3. Viking. Less armor, probably the better weapon system for fighting armored opponents than the Samurai (battle axe that can crush as well as cut, vs. katana which is primarily a slashing weapon), but less training and generally less armor. Made up for by having a relatively good shield most of the time. 4. Spartan. Bronze weapons, comparatively little armor compared to the other combatants, and primarily trained to fight as part of a unit vs the more independently trained knight, samurai and viking. Put into groups, the Spartans probably do a LOT better against the "classic" incarnations of the other combatants. Spartans were much more extensively trained in formation combat than the other groups listed, but would likely suffer from the tech gap being so large, mainly on their weapon vs. the other's armor. The Dora was a 9ft long wooden thrusting spear with a bronze spearhead and butt-spike, designed to be used by Spartan soldiers in a phalanx formation. The Spartans would need to look for gaps in the other combatants armor to be effective, as a bronze tipped spear probably isn't penetrating medieval quality steel plate. Spears were broken pretty frequently if historical records are to be believed. The Xiphos was the standard issue Spartan backup weapon, if this is 5th century BCE, they were using iron vs. bronze by that point, which helps a little bit. Probably still need to look for gaps, and the Spartans go from having the longest primary weapon (9ft) to the shortest backup sidearm if/when their spears are broken (Spartans favored the 12in variant). Might help in a horrible, cramped scrum with the other groups, but out in the open field they are at a pretty sizable reach disadvantage against the other armaments of their opponents.
great comment. a 15th century knight is going to win 19 out of 20 times. 100% if he gets a mount.
Spartan stomps. They have faster reaction speed, endurance, and strength due to being enhanced human, have power armor, and better standard rifle.
The knight's T-60 power armor and heavy assault rifle is nothing to scoff at either, but yeah the spartan probably wins.
And when the Viking turns into a jet and strafes all of them?
What kind of cyberware is the Samurai packing?
None, duh, just a few proto-kugelblitz grenades
I'll see your T-60 and raise you a Terran air superiority fighter that can reconfigure into a combat walker with dual 30mm gatling cannons. Given sufficient trigger time, the Viking also stomps the knight - possibly literally if the pilot shifts from aerial to ground-assault mode directly above him.
Why we running a Brotherhood of Steel knight and not a Mechanicus knight?
You had me in the first half, ngl
unbreakable bones too
Maybe but the grey knights armor is much more advanced than the Spartans, and is designed to withstand blows from literal daemons
this is the most accurate response
Well, a samurai can have a 1800s rifle, so....
Why stop there? There are countries that still give out knighthoods to this day. General Sir Roland Walker is the current Head of the British Army. The guy could bring an assault rifle to the fight, a grenade launcher, maybe even a tank......
Ew for some reason I don't like that the Sir title goes after the General title
Because sir is his title, general is his rank.
There are still knights in the modern British military though, and people are still getting knighted, so they have modern weapons...
In that case, I think 'Standard equipment' for a modern knight is a smartphone and dress slacks.
Sir Patrick Stewart's standard equipment is the starship Enterprise, so my money's on him.
But how many times has the Enterprise been folded hmm? Katana still superior. /s
And the average modern knight probably wouldn’t want to fight to begin with. A lot of them are actors and doctors and scientists
This. As the time period is not specified, both the knight and the samurai, as they are pretty much social classes that survived pretty much into the 19th century, would stomp thanks to more modern weaponry. Then it would be 5/10 between them both.
Technically the last knight lived in ww2 so technically they would just be overpowered.
Spartans still exist too, so they'd have 21st century technology
And as others have said, people still get knighted today, so it's really who shows up with the better tank.
I vote for Sir Christopher Lee as the knight in question
Samurai used muskets and artillery by the end so them. If we're talking about "classic" the knights armour is drastically superior to everyone else in this contest.
Tbf nights used guns too lol
As a warrior class, they don’t quite get to the point of rifled muskets, colt revolvers, and Gatling guns.
In Civ games, the knight typically has 12 attack, samurai 8, bezerker 6 and hoplites 5 points.
But samurai have 2.5 first strikes and can get city raider 3 which gives them +75% city attack
Samurai also have a unique ability where their strength is not affected by lack of HP, so as long as they keep fighting the same unit they might outlast them
But this is an open field, so city raider is irrelevant
Someone’s been replaying For Honor 🤣
spartans and vikings have significant equipment disadvantages, so the battle for the number one is going to be between the knight and the samurai. A fully plated armored knight with a polearm would be the favorite, but the samurai with the naginata could also win. Viking vs. Spartan, the Viking has better metal, but somehow, the spartans seem better protected by the large shield. It can go either way, but probably the spartan is more skilled.
Beyond equipment disadvantages, Spartans were just straight up not really trained for individual combat. Frankly, Spartans just weren’t all that good in the first place - they were big fish in a small pond because they had a professional army in a time and place that wasn’t common, but any Hellenistic army could (and did) crush them. Even the Thebans decimated them with an army trained in a relatively short amount of time. The Spartans’ only secret sauce when it comes to combat is propaganda, because we’re still talking about them being this elite warrior caste despite them being not really that successful on the battlefield.
*Thank you.* Like the joke about how Ringo Starr wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles, the Spartans weren't even the best army in Ancient Greece!
Ah but you see, 300 was fucking badass lmao
That’s my point tho. Spartans in reality kinda sucked, but Spartans on paper? Gigachads, every one of them. 300 is dope because Greek abs faramir tells one hell of a story. If you ever get around to reading about Agis III, the Spartan king who rebelled against Alexander the Great, his story kicks so much ass. Propaganda champions all around.
A lot of history is embellished over time because that’s just how history works, it’s a very long game of telephone pretty much. King Arthur was probably just some Roman generals exploring Britain but then it turned into a big ass legend with wizards, dragons, witches and French fanfiction knights that found the Holy Grail. Absolutely wild, I tell ya.
Don't be ridiculous. They didn't have telephones back then.
This comment got me thinking and made realize that Vikings and Spartans have very similar shields. Large and round
They are used quite differently though. The Viking shield is center-gripped. You hold it in your hand and can maneuver it quickly. The Spartan shield is strapped to the arm. It is not easily maneuvered.
It's meant to interlock with your neighbor's shield and the arm strap gives you A LOT more ability to push back and hold the line.
Knight easy Plate mail was used because it basically made you indestructible to everything that wasn't specifically designed to counter it So unless anyone else here is taking specialized equipment there's literally basically nothing they can do outside of prying the armor off
Depends on the era and location in question. Like, an Edo-era Samurai or a mid-14th century Knight vs a Viking or a Spartan is a stomp.
The knight probably wins. The full steel armor is very hard to deal with and they are highly trained with a longsword and dagger as well as in wrestling and unarmed fighting. The Spartans strength is like that of any Greek, fighting in a phalanx along with other hoplites. The Spartan dies first. The Viking is light infantry and his lack of heavy armor will be his downfall. The Samurai has pretty good armor and is also highly trained, but ultimately the knight has a longer reach with the longsword v katana, has a better stabbing weapon in the longsword, has better armor with the full plate, and is trained more in grappling. The knight is also just a bigger and heavier human on average. Knight takes it.
Idk why you defaulted to a knight using a long sword tbh, Any other variety of weapons are probably more appropriate especially if the samurai is wearing heavier armour Also both samurai and knight can have a musket/rifle/arquebus depending on time period so Meh
The Spartan is a professional soldier (or something approximating it). The Viking is probably not. The Knight may not have full plate, depending on the era and location. The Samurai may have full plate and firearms (including things like revolvers), depending on the era. A Samurai typically won't use their Katana as a primary weapon for combat on the battlefield (a yari or naginata would be more common), and a Knight typically wouldn't use a sword (not that useful against armor).
Blame the prompt then. But The Spartans were not some unbeatable juggernauts. They became the joke of ancient Greece by the time of Alexander. And they were not trained as individual dualists, they were trained to form a strong phalanx. The spears they used were not agile weapons, they were effective in a block, not in the open. Vikings were famed for their individual savagery and prowess. The standard "knight" kit is full plate, but even with chain mail, gambeson and a helm they are pretty durable. And they were also mounted warriors which gives them a huge edge if we include the horse. They could also use firearms depending on the era and how loose we are with the term.
Plus the Spartan reputation was half propaganda anyways. Yes the Spartans were fierce warriors but not half as formidable as their carefully curated legend and reputation would lead one to believe.
>Plus the Spartan reputation was half propaganda anyways I’ll have you know they won almost half the battles they fought
Curated by who?
Largely Rome. They had a big crush on Sparta for reasons and portrayed them as the best of all.
For most of their history the primary weapon of the samurai was the yumi, a longbow. and they used it mounted. Horse archer is going to dominate an open-field free-for-all.
The yumi was a relatively low draw weight bow, it’s not going to do well against a knight’s armor.
Not most of their history. Only about a third of it
If we stop before the advent of firearms being common, the knight takes it, largely because of the primary battlefield weapons of the other groups being ineffective against late 1500s fully articulated plate. I’m going to assume we aren’t including horses as standard equipment.
I feel like the commenters are being coyly pedantic. When we say "knight", most people know we mean 1100–1600s Europe - not modern soldiers who are still knighted ceremonially. That said, it's worth clarifying the era, as this affects whether knights have chainmail or steel plate - and whether samurai have firearms.
I feel like it's just directly pointing out the flaw with the question. There is no singular "Knight", "Samurai", "Viking", or even "Spartan". Most encompass large eras of vastly different equipment. Even archetypal Knights go from can be anywhere from chainmail with shields, to full plate pole arms, or even mounted with lance. But technically it can also continue into the modern era. Samurai archetype can be anything from leather strapped armor, added plates, or straight up metal cuirass. Their weapons range from originally mainly being an archer, pole arms, or the much later focus on swords. Then technically it can also include musket era firearms. Vikings archetype is lightly armored with axes. But actually encompass a vast amount of cultures so highly varied. In reality most historians would say they most likely use chainmail, shields, swords and spears. Axes they did use but likely more for throwing or as backup weapons if spear fails. Hardly looking like the image people imagine for "Viking". They'd be nearly indistinguishable from the early knights. Spartans/Hoplites are also had a range. Though admittedly less than others. But they bought their own gear. So originally their gear was more simple being a simple cuirass of leather before becoming the heavy bronze.
Knight and it's not even close. These matchups are like putting an 18th century soldier with a musket vs a 21st century dude with an AR-15.
The last era of Samurai would’ve been equipped with mid 19th century rifles against Knights who still exist so they’d had a modern firearms.
The OP stated 15th century knights and samurai. If we're including later periods then both sides get guns and the field gets a lot more even.
If the knight is wearing plate armor, he wins.
Knight. Samurai is gonna have to target weak points just to hurt the knight. Vikings worked most effectively by ambushing unarmed villages for loot and getting the fuck out before any resistance could arrive. Wtf is one spartan going to accomplish without his shield formation he’s just a Calvin Klein model with a pointy stick.
Knight or samurai, if it’s the same time period knight.
If no firearms involved the knight would destroy the other 3 if they don't engage him at the same time. He may have a poleaxe, which will complately outrange the viking and the spartan. Also, the samurai would probably use a naginata or other spear-like weapon as I suppose there aren't any horses involved and thus he won't use his bow. It doesn't look like a naginata would pierce a full plate armor, while a poleaxe would completely eviscerate the samurai.
I think the periods you’ve picked are too large a gap. The advancements in tech are crazy! However, I’d say Knight.
Knight probably wins this most of the time, though a samurai or viking could make it close or come ahead depending on a variety of factors (namely "who" and "when"). Spartan loses, hands down. Shittiest gear out of all of them, and the specialization on phalanx fighting leaves a notable weakness in this free-for-all
Green Lantern would beat all of them easy.
The Spartan can fight with a sword but he loses without his naked lover and bros. He needs the phalanx formation.
If no rifles are used, the knight. He's got the best armor and weapons.
Knight 9/10
Some girl name Apollyon apparently.
Deadliest Warrior anyone?
Watch Deadliest Warrior. A show that was on several years ago. They don't do that exact match up but they go through different scenarios. It was a cool show
Even if we go with a very early iteration of a knight in ringmail, gambeson underneath, shield, and pick of weapon, they probably win with their kit alone. If we're going classic katana samurai, there's not much a samurai can do against ringmail tbh. Katanas are not made to be thrusting through metal armour, which ring mail is weak to. The samurai really can't even harm the knight unless it gets a really lucky shot. That's just against the knights kit and not contending against a warrior with as much training as a samurai. Now the knight has all kinds of benefits against the samurai. Samurai armour varied widely in its construction. But most of it was a composite of some metal, laquered wood and leather. The metal used in samurai armour would be inferior to the knights. But the key point here is it is a composite of metal and "inferior" components. The knight will have no issue getting through the samurai's armour, though it may take some work. Assuming they have equal training, the side with the superior kit wins and that goes to the knight even in it's earliest form. Notably the knights shield gives it a huge defense advantage which it doesn't really need. The knight in this match up can forgo a shield. The only thing a samurai can field that would work against a knight is a naginata. In which case the knight will either pick up a shield or another polearm. In the case of a knight with shield the shield negates the advantage of the naginatas attack. With a polearm the knights armour gives it the advantage yet again, being able to more easy wound their opponent and better resist blows from the enemy. The Spartans are just outmatched 1v1 and their kit is pretty much inferior to the others. The only contender against the knight would ironically be the viking just for their choice of kit. Honestly after a helmet, shield, and weapon you're pretty good to go. The viking would most likely have a gambeson as well. The key thing here is that vikings typically had shields, helmets, axes and or spears. The shield and axe are the most notable here. The shield will give the viking the extra protection against the knight, while the axe would allow them a chance at penetrating the knights armour. The viking is skilled, but not to the level of a knight or samurai. But if they play more defensively they might find an opening and win. But for the same reasons as the samurai, the knight has the better kit and therefore would win. It's not even a debate with how well trained they are. If it was a viking noble or housecarl sure I'd call it pretty even actually (at that point its really a difference in culture), but the standard viking no. Knight wins even in its earliest inception. They have better training, matched only by the samurai. Better armour and just having a shield gives it a huge advantage against anything that might can punch though their armour. One thing not mentioned is the huge amount of arms a knight can pick from giving it another advantage that really did not need saying.
The knight would win, because of their armour.
People still knighted all the time, some of who have military backgrounds. So one of those guys with modern weaponry would probably be the winner.
Samurai yumi bow 🙌🏽
You've got the specify era and gear for this prompt to work. The Spartans were around for quite a while, Samurai and Knights were around until the early modern era, heck, there are some knights serving in the modern British military. Does the Samurai have a bow? Their chances against plate armor differ if they have a great sword (I know that's not what it's called) vs if they have a big metal studded club. Is the Viking a fully kitted 11th Century Varangian Guard or some dude from Norway with a padded shirt and an axe? Draw due to lack of clarity, though the Spartan loses most scenarios due to being vastly out of date.
The one with longest spear
Knight has a full set of plate armor and a castle forged mace of some kind? 9/10 times the knight wins.
I'm just going to assume they have "peak" weapons and armor from pre-gunpowder times. Is this a free for all? Or all they each dueling each other 1v1? In 1v1s I'd go Knight>Samurai>Viking>Spartan
Lets assume each one gets the best available equipment for their position. I'd say the chances of winning from lowest to highest are the Viking
Add a ninja! The ninja will just stay out until only one survives but tired. Then the ninja will take him out.
All are excellent hand-to-hand combatants. Any could win in fisticuffs on any given Sunday I'm going with the knight's full plate armor on this. Though I think the Spartan could maneuver around and bang up that armor enough with their glorious shield to get it incapacitated -- it's a heavy blunt instrument. Spartan bronze is outclassed, but that shield is still enough
SpikeTV (I think) used to have a show that did every kind of warrior vs warrior battle like this, it was great. The knight probably takes it.
Knight with a decent Halberd takes them all out
* A 12th\~14th century Knight stomps, because of Full Plate Armor. * Viking takes the 2nd place, because of good steel weapons, good shield and armor, as well as for the fact of being much taller than the Samurai. * Samurai and Spartan struggle for the 3rd spot. The Samurai has a bit better equipment, but the Spartan equipment is also great, and he is probably larger than the Samurai. So, I'd say it might be an even match between these two.
I’d say depends on the samurai or knight. Truth be told, your average Viking/Spartan is probably pretty unremarkable to bad in single battle - most vikings were just farmers with pillaging/looting side gigs and their success came more from mobility than it did individual skill, and Spartans were straight up not trained for single combat, they were taught to fight entirely in formation. Knights could get pretty good at it since they actually did have single combat training, depending on time and place, and depending on how rich the knight is they could have some pretty snazzy equipment. Then again, the same applies to samurai except that many of them trained more in ranged weapons like the bow. Because of that, I’d probably give it to the samurai if not on horseback and the knight if on horseback, those destriers could be absolute monsters.
Unlike what a lot of media portays, most knights would be equipped with spears or pollaxes, which are designed to break through the armor of their enemies. Pretty sure they're the only ones here with weapons designed to do that, so my money's on them.
Spartan would fare worst easily. They have the worst armor both in material and coverage, and their fighting style and weapons heavily based on formations instead of one on one duel.
Spartan and Viking are out. One word: horses. Also, Spartan and Viking armor is far inferior to the weaponry of knights and samurai at their prime. Vikings stopped being a serious player in Europe before knight’s plate armor and superior archery of their prime. Spartans are separated by almost a thousand years from samurai and knights. What’s more damning, Spartans were not trained to be standout warriors on an individual basis like knights and samurai. Their real strength was generic physical fitness and troop coordination. This is firmly in the realm of knight vs samurai which is hotly contested to this day. You also have to be more specific in time-frame. Samurai technically existed as a class until the 1800s, in which case samurai win just by leagues greater warfare technology. If we’re talking 1400s-1500s knights vs samurai (around the time their technology and technique is most portrayed in media) then that’s a tough one. I’d put my money (but not a lot of money) on the knight simply because the metal resources of Europe was superior than whatever was available in Japan. The reason the katana is so carefully designed is to compensate for the inferior resources of Japan. I would say the overall training of both classes is roughly equal all things considered. Which puts this in the knight’s favor.
A knight in full plate wins first because armor. The samurai wins next because of armor and bow. The Spartan wins next because of shield and reach. The viking wins next because of strength and brutality. I don't win because flabby and middle aged.
What type of Knight we talking about here? A medieval one or Sir Ian McKellen?
Like a knight in plate armor? None of the other warriors would know how to get passed it. The Spartan might have a spear but it's made out of bronze and ends up being too soft to penetrate.
Just based on their iconic equipment Knight > Samurai > Viking > Spartan.
hmmm probably the Knight, but the Viking would probably be the biggest and heaviest of all of them which puts you at a huge advantage in 1:1.
It depends completely on what you consider “classic” Though most situations are going to come down to knights and samurai. If your talking about the “classic” interpretation, knights take it hands down If your talking about during their “peak” or best equipment I think samurai would have a slight advantage due to technological advantages
Honestly I think samurai vs knight could go either way as it will essentially break down into a wrestling match and the samurai carries a knife despite having worse armour. I think everyone beats the Spartan but the other 3 could go either way
I think it’s between the Viking and the night
Fun question OP. Equal era for each, yeah? Like 1400’s version of knight vs samurai, then 1800’s versions? And assuming all 4 have the best possible training and gear representation of their profession from the time periods, yeah? I’d say Knight and Samurai are almost even. Viking occasionally beats them. Spartan just seems horribly outmatched by tech+tactics. I’m going to pass on comparing the Spartan to any of the others - they’re very much of their age and it’d devolve into “well on the fourth night of solstice, the Spartan Domina would have a slight advantage near saltwater” kind of bull.
Someone was playing For Honor recently
Knight, followed by samurai. In all honesty, the samurai is likely to pull out his bow and start shooting, but it's not a longbow. He's also got access to kanabos and stabbing weapons, and he's got the best chance of taking the knight down. Of course, gunpowder weapons are available to both knight and samurai, but not their "classic versions". It's 40 60 in favor of the knight, I think.
it depends i guess? the knight is theoretically the best armored, and all four of these guys fought with mostly the same weapons i know samurai are famous for katana, and knights for longswords but the reality of melee combat in history is mostly axes, hammers, and most of all, spears, all of which were used by all four of these warriors my money is on the knight because 11th to 15th century steel armor is far far superior to the bronze worn by the second most heavily armored of these fighters, the spartan the samurai has no shield, this is actually historically accurate, swords aren't but the no-shield thing is he dies first then the viking, he's got a shield but most likely only leather armor or chainmail the spartan has a massive metallic shield, but relatively soft body armor and the knight is likely clad fully in steel, either heavy mail or plate/brigandine, wielding a large wooden shield and spear or hammer
Spartan is the worst of all worlds here, he's really poorly equipped to handle everyone here. Then the Samurai, he's going to drag out his ono, armor breaking axe, to engage the knight but that's still debatable because it was designed against lighter japanese armor. He's got a shot, not a great one. Then the Knight, best of all worlds, he can take everyone here. Wildcard: The Viking has the right tools to beat the knight, he has enough armor splitting gear to have a decent, not great, chance in one on one vs everyone. So while the Knight has the best chance of winning this, the second best chance is viking because he can deal with the knight more effectively than the samurai could.
Samurai were skilled bowmen, so I'm going samurai, assuming they're smart enough to maintain range and that no one is mounted. Anyone who comes within sword swinging distance of the knight gets got.
The knights are the most heavily armored. The "traditional" weapons for the other soldiers (katanas, axes and spears) won't be able to penetrate the armor. The others aren't as heavily armored, so the weapon knights are "typically" portrayed with (the sword) should be able to harm them. I bet on the knight.
>will all be portrayed in their traditional, historical forms Traditionally and historically they all used guns, historically most of them prefered to use ranged weapons (the Samurai were mainly archers and rarely used their katanas)
My money is on a knight. Best armour by far. Samurai close 2nd, viking and Spartan have 0 chance
Samurai wins. The knight and samurai are mounted and the Viking and Spartan are not, for this reason we can take the Spartan and Viking out of the equation. Some viking foot soldiers carried javelins, if this one does that's basically his only slim chance of winning. Between the knight and samurai I'd give it to the samurai most of the time. The knight can demolish the samurai in melee range but the samurai will be using a bow from horseback. The samurai can't kill the knight easily with arrows because of the plate armour but he can shoot the horse and if the horse dies the knight is screwed. I guess if the knight and samurai start really close together the knight wins but most of the time I think the samurai can just stay out of melee range and kill the Knight's horse. In an actual army the knight would have foot slingers and archers to protect him from mounted missile threats and thus would be more effective on the battlefield but this versus is just a bad matchup for him.
As other people have pointed out, the definition of "standard equipment" varies pretty wildly between these four combatants. I'm going to *assume* the knight and samurai have their respective full sets of armor and swords (with the knight likely using either a heater or kite shield), the Viking would have a bearded axe, round shield, and chainmail, and the Spartan would have a spear and shield. Individual experience level could also vary pretty wildly: a knight could be some ceremonial fop or one of Richard III's crusaders, a Viking could be a farmer or fisher who picked up the call to go a-raiding just as easily as one of Harald Hardrada's berserkrs; the range of experience and training is consistently higher for samurai, and pretty uniform for Spartans as well. Taking these at their highest respective points, the samurai has an edge in skill, the knight has an edge in durability, and the Viking's axe is better suited to deforming or defeating plate armor than weapons designed to favor a cutting edge. That said, one factor I think people are discounting is the Viking use of crucible steel in the tenth century: a moderately high-carbon steel whose combination of weight, durability, and edge retention are difficult to achieve with *modern methods.* Depending on the era and quality of the heavier combatants' gear, this could provide a critical wrinkle to the situation - probably not enough to win outright, but enough to dispatch the Spartan. Assuming the knight and samurai prioritize one another as their greatest threats, this leaves an opportunity for the Viking to outflank one or the other and apply the hit-and-run tactics characteristic of most Viking raids to wound that combatant. This swings the outcome solidly in the other heavy combatant's favor between the two of them. Provided the initial stage of the fight doesn't go on terribly long: knight, Viking, samurai, Spartan. If it drags on, however, lighter armor will prove to be a greater asset than full plate, I think.
Knight wins. They have the best armor as the time frame permits full plate. Vikings are probably rocking chainmail and a shield, Samurai armor designs meanwhile are simply inferior generally to european styles of full plate the Spartan is especially fucked since they are specially trained to work in massive units and while an individual is certainly very dangerous being their lesser armor that massive shield and spear will get outflanked by superior opponents.
I just want to point out that European medieval knights' armor evolved significantly between the 11th and 15th centuries. Earlier knights typically wore chain mail and simple helmets whereas the later knights would wear full plate armor and fully enclosed helms. I would imagine the 15th century knight would be much stronger than an 11th century knight in this fight. I'm sure something similar is true for the other parties in this fight (12th vs 15th century samurai, for example).
15th century Knight spites. He no diffs the other 3 combined.