Hmm well we have the ex-history major saying one thing and a historical text itself saying another.
However, the text is written by Ahmad ibn Fadlān ibn al-Abbās ibn Rašīd ibn Hammād who is not considered a historian, but instead a writer. I think a lot of writers like to embellish their works, eh? I can't really consider Vikings having the same height as we do now with our abundance of food, vitamin supplements, and growth hormones.
I am also going to point out the slightly ironic fact that Korgathshire is siding with a Muslim source on this issue, lol ;P.
P.S. A katana can't cut through chain mail, but it's not like any of the knight's weapons can cut through samurai armor either. I mean, their helmet freaking deflected a vertical blow from an axe (and while I consider swords superior, there is no denying that axes are more powerful). This is why I considered it a 50-50. Armor kinda just nullifies the whole fight, and turns it into who will tire faster so that the other person can get a killing blow in.
P.P.S. I agree with one of the posters above that, if they could pick and choose what gear they had from various centuries, the knights would win. However, a standard-equipped knight vs. a standard equipped samurai is a bit harder to decide.
Link
Was just browsing Game riot for WoW stuff but had to post this.
I was a history major in university for 1 year and a half (ended up changing my major cause studying the past is boring) and in some of the medieval classes, I had to do this paper for class about vikings. I remember going deep into searching it and in almost all reliably, good sources, it was said that the whole "Gigantic warrior with a huge axe fighting people naked" is pure crap. A lot of the norse folk were fairly average for the time (and everyone was small, so..), and they used hit-and-run tactics more than anything. Not "roar me crush your skull lol".
As for the fight, I dunno. I watched Rurouni Kenshin OAV too much.