User blog comment:BattleGames1/BattleGame1's Season of War Episode 7 - Vikings vs Mongols/@comment-26395956-20170910100008

MD 33's Vote: "The Battle of Conquerors!"

Back-Up Swords: Long Seax vs Ild

No brainer, the Mongol takes the edge. It's a sword vs knife contest, what am I supposed to say? The Ild has a longer reach than the seax, as well as a higher damage. The seax seems to be more versatile, yes, due to its straight design (allowing it to dish out both stabbing and slashing attacks). But the Ild is just way longer and damaging. Plus, it can be used as effective as it is on ground on horseback. The Ild is the more effective back-up weapon.

Swords: Viking Sword vs Turko-Mongol Saber

The viking sword is overall the better weapon than the saber due to its versatility. But in this battle, the mongols have their horses on so in this battle, the Mongols take the edge. The mongols are undoubtedly some of the best horsemen in history. Hell, because of their horses, they managed to conquer nearly all of Asia (correct me if I'm wrong, folk. My history's dwindling). And man, are they terrifying when on horseback with their sabers swingin' through the armor of their enemies. The vikings won't be scared of the mongols, but I assure you, the saber will pierce that lil' chainmail of the vikings. So overall, I give the edge to the mongols due to the saber's effectivity on horseback and the fact that the mongols will definitely use the saber on horseback.

But like what Mr. Wass said, when it comes down to the weapons themselves, the sword of the Vikings is pretty much better because of its versatility. Also, crossguard to protect the raider's hand.

So what's my final opinion on this one? Well, actually it's an EVEN. Why? Well, technically what I said up above are the reasons why. The Turko-Mongol Saber is OK on horseback, but the viking sword is more versatile on foot.

'Heavy Weapon 1: Dane Axe vs Flanged Mace'

The flanged mace is lighter and can inflict moderate blunt trauma. Well... yeah sure it can break bones and twist muscles apart without caring much about the armor, but that's all it can do. The mongols can break the vikings' bones and such with the mace, but it won't stop them. The viking's dane axe on the other hand, only requires them to swing it to the mongols' feeble helmet or armor (don't take this too literally) and it'll result in their bleeding, proceeding to their deaths. Yeah, yeah. It's slow and such. But the dane axe is much more powerful and has a greater killing potential here. So for me, the Vikings take the edge. Though it is indeed correct that it'll be hard for the vikings to take down the mongols with their axes when on horseback. But then, the atgeir exists here for a reason, ja?

Heavy Weapon 2: Atgeir vs Glaive

The atgeir is shorter than the glaive, but the glaive is more effective on ground than on horseback due to its length. Yeah, the Vikings get the edge here. The glaive is a long weapon, yes. But the moment it gets out of its long-ranged comfort zone, the atgeir dominates the glaive. The atgeir can also be used to take the mongols out of their horses and bring the fight on foot. Plus, it is more versatile and powerful, with the viking strength backing it up to enhance the blows of each swings.

Long Range: Viking Spear and Composite Bow vs Lasso and Mongol Bow

Never mind the viking spear and asso, with the mongol bow in hand the Mongols take the edge. The longship can provide the vikings protection against the arrows launched by the skilled Asian archers. But then, their composite bow is worse than the mongol bow in many ways. Not only that it has a lesser range, but vikings are more known as melee combatants than long range marksmen. Even on horseback, the mongols are pretty much doomsday for the vikings with their bow. The vikings will be left without a choice but to return fire with their puny bows. The viking spear functions more as an extra mid-range weapon here and can take down cavalry, but then the mongols' bow overcomes that. The lasso has a similar problem to the viking spear. It's technically useless even though it can inflict fatal damage if it connects.

Armors: Viking Armor vs Mongol Armor

The mongol armor is made for mobility and agility while still retaining a degree of protection. But then, what's the true purpose of armor? To provide protection. And hell the armor of the Vikings give a better amout of protection than the lamellar of the mongols. Clearly, even from the pictures I can see that the armor parts the northmen are wearing are all pretty much steel (except for the shields), compared to the mongols' hardened leather (or something similar to that). The leather lamellar of the mongols are indeed, quite OK in terms of protection. The silk undershirt itself allows the mongol to remove arrows stuck on his body easily. But then, does it matter if you can remove it easily? You're still bleeding and your combat capability is wearing down, anyway. The gambeson the vikings wear is definitely more useful than the silk undershirt because it also provides extra protection against all kinds of damage rather than reducing strictly arrow damage.

For the helms, don't even ask. A wool cap against a metal cap is a no brainer...

X-Factors: The Northern Raiders vs the Eastern Destroyers

Vikings: 87.8

Mongols: 86

Edge: Vikings

WINNER: MONGOLS

What a plot twist that is, eh? Sure, the vikings take most of the edge up above. But the mongols, on their horses, are way too much for the vikings to handle. The viking's strength and weapons can give the mongols a hard time. But these mongols are hardly surprised by the vikings themselves. They're much more experienced as the soldiers that actually forged one of the greatest empires of all time, wrecking enemy soldiers from Asia to Europe on their horses with their bows, and the fact that their tactical prowess is better. The vikings can do all but charge on to the enemy, hoping to kill them. But the mongols are far smarter than that. The longship can provide the vikings protection and ambush, but that's all the longship can do. When it comes to foot combat, the vikings' weapons are indeed, kind of better. But the mongols' weapons are actually sufficient to combat them. The vikings' armor is a gigantic problem for the mongols, but they're also mobile and can hit the vikings at places they don't expect before they can even blink. The vikings have shield. Sure, so what? The shields are still freaking weak and can be whacked away from the vikings' arms when a mongol comes charging on his horse and rams the viking?

The biggest factor in their victory is their bow and arrow. With their reputation as awesome archers, the mongols may not even need to engage the vikings head on and thin out their numbers from a great distance away, allowing them to f*ck up the vikings at close range with their horses immediately. And while the mongols' militarism makes them having the possibility of one of them rebelling, it doesn't matter, these mongols will work together to take down the vikings.