1
Why vikings are cooler than knights or kings
HassanPCMR
RenegadeRad
That's a viking. Now tell me, which is more menacing. That, or this next picture.
Click to reveal
Exactly.
Vikings are way cooler. Wanna know why else they are cooler?
Axes!
Now tell me, once again, which is more menacing. That epic axe, or the next picture I put of a sword.
Click to reveal
EXACTLY!
Vikings are cooler than knights. I'll put up a poll to see who is stupid enough to disagree with me.
Btw this is all satire, but still feel free to comment which one you like better, and participate in the poll.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
54
1
I'll go with knights...
1
Someone saying that vikings had no morale and knights do obviously didnt learn about the behaviour of knights (and most other soldiers) during most crusades.
1
You don't need to take my words literally boi
1
Well during the crusades knights (as crusaders) are fighting against saracens.
If this was knight against christian soldier, chances are Knights fight with honor as knights tend to be Christians as well. So expect some restraint.
However if its knight against pagan/muslim/heretic soldiers they can discard morals as knights are fighting against infidels, which are considered the enemies of 'god', and the priests in the crusades encourage it as it also means forgiveness of sins.
(take what i said with a pinch of salt, this is from my perspective.)
If this was knight against christian soldier, chances are Knights fight with honor as knights tend to be Christians as well. So expect some restraint.
However if its knight against pagan/muslim/heretic soldiers they can discard morals as knights are fighting against infidels, which are considered the enemies of 'god', and the priests in the crusades encourage it as it also means forgiveness of sins.
(take what i said with a pinch of salt, this is from my perspective.)
1
Stop with romans and MLG peasants please, stick to the topic.
To be honest, Knights are cool. You have Morale, and you are kind. You are a guardian, a watchful protector and never gives up. You slay dragons and you own the medieval swag. Knights if you have played Dark Souls or Skyrim can use any weapon perfectly. Knights are tough and bold, can be aggressive. Perfection as a whole.
Vikings on the other hand, are more rough and aggressive. They actually rode and captured dragons. Vikings have no morale and just want war, but they are pretty good warriors. They just rush and destroy relentlessly. They are pure metal \m/
Oh on the contrary -
-snip- (I thought this had a little blood )
To be honest, Knights are cool. You have Morale, and you are kind. You are a guardian, a watchful protector and never gives up. You slay dragons and you own the medieval swag. Knights if you have played Dark Souls or Skyrim can use any weapon perfectly. Knights are tough and bold, can be aggressive. Perfection as a whole.
Vikings on the other hand, are more rough and aggressive. They actually rode and captured dragons. Vikings have no morale and just want war, but they are pretty good warriors. They just rush and destroy relentlessly. They are pure metal \m/
Oh on the contrary -
-snip- (I thought this had a little blood )
1
Knights look cool.
But I'm a danish person so I'll just be screaming "Giv mig mine flæskesværd tilbage!?!?!" while holding an axe of lego bricks.
But I'm a danish person so I'll just be screaming "Giv mig mine flæskesværd tilbage!?!?!" while holding an axe of lego bricks.
1
You guys are all wrong. Its the MLG peasant.
He quiksc0pes knights and vikings all day
He quiksc0pes knights and vikings all day
1
And I thought the MLG culture is limited to Modern/ sci-fi shooters, but i guess im wrong...
1
oakley09lol even luminati haz moar votes dan vikins see they sux u -fluffy- skrub
#rekt
Oh my lord, buckie xD
1
loominati
1
lol even luminati haz moar votes dan vikins see they sux u skrub
#rekt
#rekt
1
Dang, does no one realize that the Berserker thing was a reference to an anime which is based on Pen and Paper RPG rules, and that that was his class?
1
I don't like anime :P
Also, I play a lot of RTSs, as I said above.
Also, I play a lot of RTSs, as I said above.
1
I don't like those axe-wielding frieks. Instead, I would have an army of Teutonic Knights (cause teutons were the strongest knights ever ). So yeah... I don't like vikings. Btw, I am also playing a lot of RTSs, mainly AoE2, and I like history
1
The Dark Knight
Yes, it is a knight.
ITS THE GODDAMN BATMAN, PEOPLE.
Yes, it is a knight.
ITS THE GODDAMN BATMAN, PEOPLE.
1
Knights suck compared to Vikings, you say?
Allow you to introduce you to Berserker:
This guy could take your little Viking, op kill him, make him a weapon against the other Vikings, and then be back in time for dinner.
This is him taking over an F-15 and using it as a weapon, as well as enhancing it. Not only that, but Berserker can take anything nearby (like say, a small tree, or a power pole.) and use that as a weapon against you! Even if you're launching swords at him at an incredibly fast speed, nothing goes over his head, because his reflexes are too fast and he would catch it! Literally! He would then turn that against you.
His armor is pretty much one solid piece with moveable parts, and even when he was being impaled and killed by the HOLY LIGHT OF EXCALIBUR ITSELF, Berserker STILL managed to take his helmet piece off, and he was incredibly weak, due to having used a lot of his power.
The only Viking who could probably beat him would be Beowulf, and even than, he would still put up a fight.
Romans still better tho. But then again, Berserker IS a Roman because he is actually Sir Lancelot: A Romano-Brit.
Allow you to introduce you to Berserker:
This guy could take your little Viking, op kill him, make him a weapon against the other Vikings, and then be back in time for dinner.
This is him taking over an F-15 and using it as a weapon, as well as enhancing it. Not only that, but Berserker can take anything nearby (like say, a small tree, or a power pole.) and use that as a weapon against you! Even if you're launching swords at him at an incredibly fast speed, nothing goes over his head, because his reflexes are too fast and he would catch it! Literally! He would then turn that against you.
His armor is pretty much one solid piece with moveable parts, and even when he was being impaled and killed by the HOLY LIGHT OF EXCALIBUR ITSELF, Berserker STILL managed to take his helmet piece off, and he was incredibly weak, due to having used a lot of his power.
The only Viking who could probably beat him would be Beowulf, and even than, he would still put up a fight.
Romans still better tho. But then again, Berserker IS a Roman because he is actually Sir Lancelot: A Romano-Brit.
1
I like knights too. But usually when you talk about beserkers, you mean axe-wielding dudes. So yeah :/
1
What if I told you that the original "Berserker" was a Viking? They basically put one guy to hold a bridge against the entire Saxon army. And he did just that. That's where we get the term from.
1
Yes, I knew that. That's where the term derives from, but this use of a common term derives from my post.
And that story is pretty much the Roman story of Horatius Cocles holding the bridge against the Etruscans.
And that story is pretty much the Roman story of Horatius Cocles holding the bridge against the Etruscans.
1
Romans > everything else
1
SPQR, brotha!
1
Yup.
Roma Aeterna!
Roma Aeterna!
1
And what about Rome, eh?
1
In their time, they were the best. But their lack of adaptation against foes who became used to their tactics and exploitation against said tactics would become their undoing.
Knights can also dismount and fight on foot if they intend to...
Case in Point: The battle of Crecy. During the battle English Knights dismounted from their horses to attack their french counterparts, who are mounted and trying to charge against the English. What makes this possible for the English Knights to win against their French counterparts is that 1) The English Knights are fighting defensively which requires them to dismount and 2) The English Knights are not well known for their use in lances but are well known to fight with Poleaxes when dismounted, which are effective in attacking mounted enemies.
Knights aren't just cavalry, in some situations they are also infantry if they dismount.
NetworkPCEDynitIf you like vikings more than knights than that's cool. Your opinion...
But Knights aren't meant to be menacing (unless you put its evil variant, in which case it is) but rather a symbol of pride and honor.
For instance where would find warriors with a sense of honor (besides samurai.)? Certainly not in vikings. The ideas of chivalry are often associated with knights as during the middle ages, Honor and nobility meant something to those who have sworn to their lord.
Also knights don't just use swords, they can also use maces and flails, smaller blades like daggers and on horseback they use lances. Heck if they want they can use axes as well (vikings also used swords and spears, not just axes. The reason axes were commonly associated with vikings is that they not only function as weapons but also as tools and they are cheaper to produce than swords though not as cheap as spears.)
Finally if there's one thing vikings don't have but knights do, its horses. Unless vikings have some spears with them, knights on horseback would be a really big problem to them. Sure the vikings may try to throw axes or fire bows at the knights on horseback, but the armor the knights wear (compare to the majority of the vikings wearing just their clothes and relying on their shields, only nobles wear chain or, with the first example pic you chose, Lamellar armor.) they are unlikely to be effective against a cavalry charge of armored knights and horses.
I'm not trying to make you change your opinion, i'm just stating the facts that I know so take what i have with a pinch of salt...
This is true however it's difficult to compare the vikings to the medieval chivalric knights, vikings existed in a earlier period. Also knights have 1 issue, so does every type of soldier, they are cavalry, while the vikings were spearmen, axemen, swordmen, archers, slingers... You can't compare 1 type of soldier to an entire army, as in any time of history 500 cavalry wouldn't have defeated 500 spearmen.
I personally love the chivalric knights time, but i don't agree on all your points. I really myself find the vikings to be a more "horde" and undiciplined army than the armies the knights normally were fielded with.
Knights can also dismount and fight on foot if they intend to...
Case in Point: The battle of Crecy. During the battle English Knights dismounted from their horses to attack their french counterparts, who are mounted and trying to charge against the English. What makes this possible for the English Knights to win against their French counterparts is that 1) The English Knights are fighting defensively which requires them to dismount and 2) The English Knights are not well known for their use in lances but are well known to fight with Poleaxes when dismounted, which are effective in attacking mounted enemies.
Knights aren't just cavalry, in some situations they are also infantry if they dismount.
1
1
Depends on where the knights comes from, if they are from england i would be really scared of it, they were known as the best archers, men were required to practice archery from age 10 to 60. so they could just snipe you. lol.
1
Er not really sniping... English Long-bowmen tend to fire in an arc just to hit a target from afar. Unlike a gun, which is just point and pull the trigger, instead you need to arc your shot and pull hard on the bowstring to hit them from afar.
The only exception i would place is when you are using a short bow and not really far (or riding a horse) but not much else.
The only exception i would place is when you are using a short bow and not really far (or riding a horse) but not much else.
1
Vikings could beat up a knight no problem, because they had way less moral obligations.
1
And that's another way to look at it!
though it depends very much on who's the aggressor. Vikings are best suited to being the aggressor.
though it depends very much on who's the aggressor. Vikings are best suited to being the aggressor.
1
Ninja.
1
assassin
1
Altair, specifically.
1
Fantasymasterbastard-length
Yes, Good sword.
1
ur mum lol loominati lol
1
Romans > Knights > Kings
King vs
Knight
Vs
Roman
King vs
Knight
Vs
Roman
1
And, just to make up for the satire I didn't make obvious enough, I'll make a real comparison.
And since you guys got such serious arguments too, I'll also make one.
I can see why many prefer the elegant knight riding to battle on a horse, but I believe the Vikings, who were the first europeans to find the americas, and had ferocious looks, were much more badass with beards and axes.
And since you guys got such serious arguments too, I'll also make one.
I can see why many prefer the elegant knight riding to battle on a horse, but I believe the Vikings, who were the first europeans to find the americas, and had ferocious looks, were much more badass with beards and axes.
1
Really amazing pictures, and by the way, each and everyone of us knew that you were joking when you posted the pictures of the kid and the foam sword XD
1
Yeah, i thought it was obvious (and even made a tiny text at the bottom of the post), but I see people upset that I made unfair comparisons, so I just wanted to clear that up.
1
Btw, if you guys couldn't tell, my post was satire (which is why i did the phony comparisons), but its nice to see your guys arguments!
1
I think knights win this round. 
Wait, wrong knight.
Also, do you guys know why they were called the dark ages?
Because there were so many Knights.
Wait, wrong knight.
Also, do you guys know why they were called the dark ages?
Because there were so many Knights.
1
On a more serious note
Click to reveal
1
Non Biased Comparison:
They have equal representations
Click to reveal
They have equal representations
1
Here is a legit one
As for real life costume
As for real life costume
1
The above ^^^
I mean if you're gonna give a biased comparison, don't make it this obvious. at least make them both adults in legit costumes.
I mean if you're gonna give a biased comparison, don't make it this obvious. at least make them both adults in legit costumes.
1
*cough* *cough*
U JELLY M8
U JELLY M8
1
I hope you realize the comparison is not balanced. You are comparing a child dressed up as a viking and his foam sword with a picture of an actual viking and his frickin battle axe. Maybe something like this would be more fair to the comparison.
1
my Father is a viking
1
thonk
1
Very interesting how you showed a fancy axe and a kid's foam saber (NOT A SWORD) as a comparison.
Its kindof obvious which you prefer.
By the way, knights did not use just swords. They could also use axes or maces or warhammers, though axes were not usual for knights.
Vikings are very cool in their own way, but we're talking about completely different eras here.
Vikings were a thing from the 6-700's to somewhere around the first millenium AD.
Knights like the ones with full plate and whatnot did not become a thing until somewhere around 1300. Before that they were a lot more like vikings in terms of battle attire, wearing mostly mail with steel helmets, greaves and bracers, using shields and, yes, swords. Which vikings also used, by the way. Except that usually, a knight would be riding a horse, so a bastard-length sword would be more useful than a top-heavy axe (which would cause them to topple off it)
EDIT: yes I know the other person also posted most of the above, but idc
Its kindof obvious which you prefer.
By the way, knights did not use just swords. They could also use axes or maces or warhammers, though axes were not usual for knights.
Vikings are very cool in their own way, but we're talking about completely different eras here.
Vikings were a thing from the 6-700's to somewhere around the first millenium AD.
Knights like the ones with full plate and whatnot did not become a thing until somewhere around 1300. Before that they were a lot more like vikings in terms of battle attire, wearing mostly mail with steel helmets, greaves and bracers, using shields and, yes, swords. Which vikings also used, by the way. Except that usually, a knight would be riding a horse, so a bastard-length sword would be more useful than a top-heavy axe (which would cause them to topple off it)
EDIT: yes I know the other person also posted most of the above, but idc
1
If you like vikings more than knights than that's cool. Your opinion...
But Knights aren't meant to be menacing (unless you put its evil variant, in which case it is) but rather a symbol of pride and honor.
For instance where would find warriors with a sense of honor (besides samurai.)? Certainly not in vikings. The ideas of chivalry are often associated with knights as during the middle ages, Honor and nobility meant something to those who have sworn to their lord.
Also knights don't just use swords, they can also use maces and flails, smaller blades like daggers and on horseback they use lances. Heck if they want they can use axes as well (vikings also used swords and spears, not just axes. The reason axes were commonly associated with vikings is that they not only function as weapons but also as tools and they are cheaper to produce than swords though not as cheap as spears.)
Finally if there's one thing vikings don't have but knights do, its horses. Unless vikings have some spears with them, knights on horseback would be a really big problem to them. Sure the vikings may try to throw axes or fire bows at the knights on horseback, but the armor the knights wear (compare to the majority of the vikings wearing just their clothes and relying on their shields, only nobles wear chain or, with the first example pic you chose, Lamellar armor.) they are unlikely to be effective against a cavalry charge of armored knights and horses.
I'm not trying to make you change your opinion, i'm just stating the facts that I know so take what i have with a pinch of salt...
But Knights aren't meant to be menacing (unless you put its evil variant, in which case it is) but rather a symbol of pride and honor.
For instance where would find warriors with a sense of honor (besides samurai.)? Certainly not in vikings. The ideas of chivalry are often associated with knights as during the middle ages, Honor and nobility meant something to those who have sworn to their lord.
Also knights don't just use swords, they can also use maces and flails, smaller blades like daggers and on horseback they use lances. Heck if they want they can use axes as well (vikings also used swords and spears, not just axes. The reason axes were commonly associated with vikings is that they not only function as weapons but also as tools and they are cheaper to produce than swords though not as cheap as spears.)
Finally if there's one thing vikings don't have but knights do, its horses. Unless vikings have some spears with them, knights on horseback would be a really big problem to them. Sure the vikings may try to throw axes or fire bows at the knights on horseback, but the armor the knights wear (compare to the majority of the vikings wearing just their clothes and relying on their shields, only nobles wear chain or, with the first example pic you chose, Lamellar armor.) they are unlikely to be effective against a cavalry charge of armored knights and horses.
I'm not trying to make you change your opinion, i'm just stating the facts that I know so take what i have with a pinch of salt...
view more replies ( 2 )
view more replies ( 2 )
