User blog comment:SkullinBones1/Season 1 Finale. Viking vs Samurai Rematch/@comment-35680048-20200112061706

Tybaltcapulet's "DW Rematches are back bitches" Edges:

Polearms: Since when the hell was the Naginata unable to stab? It's able to stab, slash, and cut just fine the last time I checked (especially since it was just used in Kazzy's battle vs the Song.) But even so, the Winged Spear takes this. Its longer length allows it to take down an enemy wiicker and can play keep away with the Samurai, making it harder for them to directly attack. Not much else to say. Edge:Vikings

Ranged Weapons: Yumi all the way. The Yumi in general will always have the better range, power,accuracy, etc. The Javelin isn't exactly the most useful weapon, even against other infantry, but against more mobile horse archers, who all have better ranged weapons and damn good armor? Forget about it.The Javelin is just totally outmatched here.Edge:Samurai

Swords: Yeah there's no way the Sverd's pommel is going to do any significant damage to the O-Yoroi. That's just not happening. Honestly neither of these swords are likely to penetrate the armor of their adversaries. But I'm giving it to the Sverd simply because it can be used in conjunction with a shield, which gives it more versatility in general. The Tachi is a fine sword, but it's rather limited in its uses.Edge:Vikings

Armor: Both sets of armor should do just fine here, but the Samurai wins out here because their armor is simply thicker and more resistant to damage. The solid iron lamellar will always be the more firm option over mail armor, even if it is rather heavy, it should be able to tank most anything thrown at it, while I'm not totally confident in the Gambeson/Byrnie combo, with the help of the shield. I believe the Samurai will be the more durable of the two, while still being quite mobile themselves.Edge:Samurai

Overall/X-Factors: This is one hard battle for both sides. I ultimately believe that the Samurai will win again, but it will be by no means an easy battle. But before I get into the real juicy bits as to why they win, I have some things I want to get out of the way.

I think the Battle of Tours isn't exactly a good comparison to the battle in any way, aside from the fact that Martel used a shield wall. Admittedly he was outnumbered, but everything else was in his favor. First he was able to ambush the Arabs completely, taking them by surprise like he wanted to. Second, the terrain was entirely different, with a large part of his success having to do with the forested area covering his ass from Arab cavalry. And finally there's the fact that the Arab general in this battle, 'Abd-al-Raḥmân made several stupid mistakes including chucking his cavalry into Frankish lines repeatedly,and allowed Martel to outmaneuver him throughout the battle, to the point where his troops had to attack uphill. None of this really applies to this battle, making this a rather bad example to the true effectiveness of a shield wall in open terrain.And finally, the Franks aren't necessarily comparable to the Vikings here, especially under the command of Martel, who they were deeply loyal to and had served for many years.

TBC