|
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2008 04:33 Kaesi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 03:23 Madcatcf wrote:On July 27 2008 02:53 FragKrag wrote:
Who didn't the Mongols rape? =/ Vietnam repeled the Mongols 3 times. I wonder what kind of super weapons we had back then. Hmm... I think it is probably the terrain in Vietnam that was most beneficial for defense. Even centuries later, the US military had trouble in that terrain! Steppe horsemen have a much easier time fighting in places like Russia, China, and E. Europe than they do on the ocean versus Japan and in the jungle versus Vietnam.
W - weapons & tactics
O - Organization
R - Resources
M - Motivation
S - Strategy
Those are the factors that play into military battles. Jominian bean counting like most of this thread is really gets you nowhere.
|
On July 27 2008 03:26 Jyvblamo wrote:
Sorry guys, I consulted my friend, who is majoring in military history and he told me that
Knights > Samurai > Vikings > Persians > Spartans > Legionaries > Aztecs > Cossacks > Mongols > Zulus > Goths > Wehrmacht > Janissaries > Conquistadors > Cowboys > USMC > The Zerg Swarm > Trojans > Hittites > Vandals > Huns > Alans > Avars > Hessians > Redcoats > Incas > Royal Canadian Mounties > Parthians > Saxons > Gauls > Uruk-hai > Zulu > Vietcong > Olmecs > Nubians > Babylonians > Assyrians > Velites > Carthaginians > 1972 Miami Dolphins > The Red Army > COBRA > Picts > Byzantines > Saracens > Maori > Mohawks > Musketeers > Sioux > Phalanxes > Mamelukes > Charioteers > Cataphracts > Luftwaffe > Kamekazi > Hussars > Non-Spartan Hoplites > Diablo's Minions > Longbowmen > Varangians > Minoans > Myrmidons > Argonauts > Normans > Numidians > Hashshashins > Fremen > The Combine > Sardaukar > Stormtroopers > Prussians > Mujahideen > Crusaders > Brotherhood of Nod > Yakuza > The Horde > Immortals > CJ Entus > Apaches > Interahamwe > Austro-Hungarians > Celts > Terracotta Army > Lombards > Mayans > Samnites > Bastarnae > Timurids > Seleucids > GDI > Knights
thats a damned lie
vikings > all
|
A few things I was thinking about going into this:
- Lots of people talking about how Knight armor made them largely invulnerable to most bladed weapons. However, knights inevitably killed other knights with bladed weapons. This was done largely through striking at the weak spots in the armor, at the joints and such. If the knights with their considerably heavier* weapons and armor could manage to strike the weak spots, I'd imagine the samurai could do the same with their katanas. The presence of the knight's superior armor gives the knight greater room for error but I fail to see how it makes them invincible in this situation. It's an advantage, but not an insurmountable one.
*I've seen conflicting information concerning the weight of medieval armor and weaponry hence the side note. From what experience I've had holding medieval weapon replicas and katana replicas or simply reasoning it out by looking at them, I'd say you could confidently claim that the medieval weapons and armor were vastly heavier.
- Why are there so many morons talking about how knight+horse > samurai? Since when do knights get horses and samurai don't? Both are evidence to have been highly proficient in mounted combat. So, mute point here. Tie.
- Further more, claims of either side claiming superiority in unarmed hand to hand combat is since the other side was untrained in such is retarded. Both sides from what I've read were well trained in this as well. The knights in wrestling/grappling and the samurai in various forms of martial arts.
- Variety of weapons? Again, both sides had loads of weapons to choose from neither of which had a vastly superior library. Knights have had all manner of melee weapons such as a staggering variety of swords, shields, lances, maces, flails, etc. Samurai also had a number of different swords, used spears, and were skilled in the use of bows.
- Training differences? Seriously, someone wrote that knights were trained from birth thus had an advantage over samurai? Both were practically born to be warriors from what I understand. Samurai often came from long family lines of samurai if I'm not mistaken (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) and knights also came from long lines of nobility. Again, mute point and tie.
I read some other nonsense that sounds largely uninformed or bias, but I forget at this point. I read through that really long article posted earlier and I agree on his main point: It's an impossible question to answer unless you lock down a lot of variables such as choice of weapons, place, numbers, experience, time periods, etc.
If I were to pitch a situation, I'd probably want to see a duel so it would be 1v1. No horses and only what weapons each warrior could realistically carry with them to said duel. Place would be a wide open patch of solid land with no cover, etc.
In said situation, I'd imagine the knight would come in full plate armor as it would prove the most daunting for the samurai and come with a sword shield combination as it seems like it would be most effective against a more agile opponent and the samurai would have less experience fighting against a shield user as mentioned in that article. Aside from a short sword and shield, perhaps a dagger could also be carried. The samurai would probably want to wear fairly light armor since an armor the samurai ever wore would probably make little difference against the kind of weapons the knight would bring to bare. So if 1 clean strike means death, might as well do all you can to reduce that chance by being as agile as possible. With regards to weapons, I'd imagine the samurai would bring the 2-3 swords that are pretty standard which vary in length from long to dagger length as well as a bow and arrows if the duel is going to start at any greater distance which could be discarded as the knight approached.
Given the above situation, it would be an interesting fight and I don't see it as one sided either way. While the knight may not be as clunky and awkward as movies and stereotypes lead us to believe, I'd imagine the samurai could be considered down right graceful in comparison. Given that the knight's weapons were heavy and powerful enough to destroy his opponents even through platemail, the samurai is most likely dead or dying if he suffers a single blow. Not sure who I'd put my money on, but given the margin for error that the knight's armor grants him I'd perhaps give a slight advantage to the knight. I think it comes down to who gets the first cut in. If the knight gets the first hit, it's over then and there. If the samurai gets a clean shot at a vital joint, the knight may be too incapacitated to effectively protect himself from further strikes and thus result in a slow dismantling of the knight. Oh yeah, and if the knight ends up on the ground for whatever reason, he's pretty screwed I'd imagine.
All that and rant aside, I think it would also be interesting to watch them fight without armor to see who is the better swordsman. The armor slows the knight down, so I'd be interested to see his true prowess with a sword unhindered which is something we don't hear about as much.
Oh yeah, and one last thing. If Mythbusters is to be trusted, the katana will indeed cut through the knight's weapons and the reverse will not happen. So, if the knight's sword gets cut down, then things look a lot better for the samurai obviously.
|
On July 27 2008 05:28 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 04:33 Kaesi wrote:On July 27 2008 03:23 Madcatcf wrote:On July 27 2008 02:53 FragKrag wrote:
Who didn't the Mongols rape? =/ Vietnam repeled the Mongols 3 times. I wonder what kind of super weapons we had back then. Hmm... I think it is probably the terrain in Vietnam that was most beneficial for defense. Even centuries later, the US military had trouble in that terrain! Steppe horsemen have a much easier time fighting in places like Russia, China, and E. Europe than they do on the ocean versus Japan and in the jungle versus Vietnam. W - weapons & tactics O - Organization R - Resources M - Motivation S - Strategy Those are the factors that play into military battles. Jominian bean counting like most of this thread is really gets you nowhere.
Are you seriously trying to downplay the relevance of terrain and situational adaptation in warfare?
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2008 06:43 Funchucks wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 05:28 Jibba wrote:On July 27 2008 04:33 Kaesi wrote:On July 27 2008 03:23 Madcatcf wrote:On July 27 2008 02:53 FragKrag wrote:
Who didn't the Mongols rape? =/ Vietnam repeled the Mongols 3 times. I wonder what kind of super weapons we had back then. Hmm... I think it is probably the terrain in Vietnam that was most beneficial for defense. Even centuries later, the US military had trouble in that terrain! Steppe horsemen have a much easier time fighting in places like Russia, China, and E. Europe than they do on the ocean versus Japan and in the jungle versus Vietnam. W - weapons & tactics O - Organization R - Resources M - Motivation S - Strategy Those are the factors that play into military battles. Jominian bean counting like most of this thread is really gets you nowhere. Are you seriously trying to downplay the relevance of terrain and situational adaptation in warfare?
No, terrain is a characteristic of tactics and resources, while situational adaptation would likely go under tactics and organization. I'm saying the US and French militaries had a lot of trouble in Vietnam for more reasons than just terrain and weather.
|
How about Knight vs Samurai vs Peasant with a crossbow?
|
Samurai obviously. I doubt knights train in both hand-to-hand combat and swordsmanship as much as samurai, or are as skilled with a bow and arrow (many samurai were). The difference could be in which era samurai is in question, whether it was from the armored or armorless samurai times. Let's say armored to be fair - samurai would win no contest.
|
On July 27 2008 06:38 Phyre wrote:
- Lots of people talking about how Knight armor made them largely invulnerable to most bladed weapons. However, knights inevitably killed other knights with bladed weapons. This was done largely through striking at the weak spots in the armor, at the joints and such. If the knights with their considerably heavier* weapons and armor could manage to strike the weak spots, I'd imagine the samurai could do the same with their katanas. The presence of the knight's superior armor gives the knight greater room for error but I fail to see how it makes them invincible in this situation. It's an advantage, but not an insurmountable one.
From what I've read, knights usually ended up closing in and using daggers to stab each other through the joints in armor. I don't think they were really able to regularly dispatch opponents in full armor with large/heavy weapons, so I doubt that the samurai could pull it off either.
|
3 Lions
United States3705 Posts
knight gets the chicks, so he wins
|
The pre-firearm swordplay of knights are underrated. Katana swordplay gets a lot more exposure in the media and sports. Thats why it is overrated. The prefencing European styles have not carried over in tradition and sports in modern times. So it has no chance to strike us with awe as the way of the samurai does. The skills of the knights are not alive anymore. Thats why it is underrated.
|
On July 27 2008 06:38 Phyre wrote:
A few things I was thinking about going into this:
- Lots of people talking about how Knight armor made them largely invulnerable to most bladed weapons. However, knights inevitably killed other knights with bladed weapons. This was done largely through striking at the weak spots in the armor, at the joints and such. If the knights with their considerably heavier* weapons and armor could manage to strike the weak spots, I'd imagine the samurai could do the same with their katanas. The presence of the knight's superior armor gives the knight greater room for error but I fail to see how it makes them invincible in this situation. It's an advantage, but not an insurmountable one.
The katana is adept at cutting and not piercing due to it's curved nature, that's why Knights don't use curved weapons because it's easier to get through armour with a bastard sword.
It's a pretty large advantage if your sword is designed to cut and your opponent's armour makes him almost impossible to cut.
Also the Knights shields were often purposely not lined with metal so that if they successfully blocked a blow their opponents sword could get stuck in the wood.
The reason I think the advantage is insurmountable is that Samurai had no experience fighting this type of foe.
On July 27 2008 06:38 Phyre wrote:
A few things I was thinking about going into this:
*I've seen conflicting information concerning the weight of medieval armor and weaponry hence the side note. From what experience I've had holding medieval weapon replicas and katana replicas or simply reasoning it out by looking at them, I'd say you could confidently claim that the medieval weapons and armor were vastly heavier.
This is total myth. The armor used by the Knights was more advanced, but certainly not heavier.
The weapons were also about the same weight.
|
i found something interesting on full plate
+ Show Spoiler +Plate armour is virtually sword-proof. It also protects the wearer well against spear or pike thrusts and provides decent defence against blunt trauma. The evolution of plate armour also triggered developments in the design of offensive weapons. While this armour was effective against cuts or blows, their weak points could be exploited by long tapered swords or other weapons designed for the purpose, such as poleaxes and halberds. The effect of arrows and bolts is still a point of contention in regards to plate armour. Some argue that longbows and/or crossbows could regularly pierce plate armour and some contend that they could do so only rarely. The various flutings on the armour are not only decorations, but they reinforce the plate against bending under blunt impact and can cause any strike by a thrusting weapon that grazes the armour, rather than hit squarely, to glance off the surface of the plate and be less likely to slide into a more vulnerable joint. In armoured techniques taught in the German school of swordsmanship, the attacker concentrates on these "weak spots", resulting in a fighting style very different from unarmoured sword-fighting. Because of this weakness most warriors wore a mail shirt (haubergeon or hauberk) beneath their plate armour (or coat-of-plates). Later, full mail shirts were replaced with mail patches, called goussets, sewn onto a gambeson or arming jacket. Further protection for plate armour was the use of small round plates called besagews that covered the armpit area and couters and poleyns with "wings" to protect the inside of the joint. The evolution of the 14th century plate armour also triggered the development of various polearms. They were designed to deliver a strong impact and concentrate energy on a small area and cause damage through the plate. Maces and the hammer-heads of pollaxes (poleaxes) were used to inflict blunt trauma through armour.
long tapered swords to hit weak spots no cutting edge
+ Show Spoiler +
seems like samurai wouldnt have those weapon designed to counter full plate since
they didnt fight against them irl
|
On July 27 2008 07:09 T-P-S wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 06:38 Phyre wrote:
- Lots of people talking about how Knight armor made them largely invulnerable to most bladed weapons. However, knights inevitably killed other knights with bladed weapons. This was done largely through striking at the weak spots in the armor, at the joints and such. If the knights with their considerably heavier* weapons and armor could manage to strike the weak spots, I'd imagine the samurai could do the same with their katanas. The presence of the knight's superior armor gives the knight greater room for error but I fail to see how it makes them invincible in this situation. It's an advantage, but not an insurmountable one. From what I've read, knights usually ended up closing in and using daggers to stab each other through the joints in armor. I don't think they were really able to regularly dispatch opponents in full armor with large/heavy weapons, so I doubt that the samurai could pull it off either.
Well, the samurai isn't using a large/heavy weapon. They have daggers too. If the knight can do it, I assume a samurai could manage to pull that off as well. Both are trained in close quarters combat, I'm sure both can effectively stab at joints. Granted, it would be more difficult given the knight is still swinging a sword at the samurai. Again, not impossible. Advantage to the knight, but not impossible.
On July 27 2008 08:11 Klive5ive wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 06:38 Phyre wrote:
A few things I was thinking about going into this:
- Lots of people talking about how Knight armor made them largely invulnerable to most bladed weapons. However, knights inevitably killed other knights with bladed weapons. This was done largely through striking at the weak spots in the armor, at the joints and such. If the knights with their considerably heavier* weapons and armor could manage to strike the weak spots, I'd imagine the samurai could do the same with their katanas. The presence of the knight's superior armor gives the knight greater room for error but I fail to see how it makes them invincible in this situation. It's an advantage, but not an insurmountable one.
The katana is adept at cutting and not piercing due to it's curved nature, that's why Knights don't use curved weapons because it's easier to get through armour with a bastard sword. It's a pretty large advantage if your sword is designed to cut and your opponent's armour makes him almost impossible to cut. Also the Knights shields were often purposely not lined with metal so that if they successfully blocked a blow their opponents sword could get stuck in the wood. The reason I think the advantage is insurmountable is that Samurai had no experience fighting this type of foe. Show nested quote +On July 27 2008 06:38 Phyre wrote:
A few things I was thinking about going into this:
*I've seen conflicting information concerning the weight of medieval armor and weaponry hence the side note. From what experience I've had holding medieval weapon replicas and katana replicas or simply reasoning it out by looking at them, I'd say you could confidently claim that the medieval weapons and armor were vastly heavier.
This is total myth. The armor used by the Knights was more advanced, but certainly not heavier. The weapons were also about the same weight.
Just did a bit more reading and thus far I've found you're half right.
The katana is just fine for thrusting/stabbing attacks, it's consistently mentioned as one of the strengths of the design that it is good at both stabbing and slashing. That said, it's good at stabbing not against armor. So, naturally the samurai will have to stab at the joints. It's not designed to pierce that kind of armor as you said.
The weight thing is largely a myth as far as I can tell. Most of what I've found says swords like Claymores and Bastard/Long swords weight in anywhere between 2-5 pounds while a katana weighs in at 2 pounds or less. Given trained warriors, the difference is probably negligible.
The knight's armor looks to average around 70 pounds. If the samurai in question chooses to wear light or no armor since it probably won't make much of a difference, then 70 lbs seems like it should make for quite the discrepancy in agility.
|
This poll rocks because it has a picture.. that extremely resembles the wc3 background
|
On July 27 2008 08:30 LuckyOne wrote:i found something interesting on full plate + Show Spoiler +Plate armour is virtually sword-proof. It also protects the wearer well against spear or pike thrusts and provides decent defence against blunt trauma. The evolution of plate armour also triggered developments in the design of offensive weapons. While this armour was effective against cuts or blows, their weak points could be exploited by long tapered swords or other weapons designed for the purpose, such as poleaxes and halberds. The effect of arrows and bolts is still a point of contention in regards to plate armour. Some argue that longbows and/or crossbows could regularly pierce plate armour and some contend that they could do so only rarely. The various flutings on the armour are not only decorations, but they reinforce the plate against bending under blunt impact and can cause any strike by a thrusting weapon that grazes the armour, rather than hit squarely, to glance off the surface of the plate and be less likely to slide into a more vulnerable joint. In armoured techniques taught in the German school of swordsmanship, the attacker concentrates on these "weak spots", resulting in a fighting style very different from unarmoured sword-fighting. Because of this weakness most warriors wore a mail shirt (haubergeon or hauberk) beneath their plate armour (or coat-of-plates). Later, full mail shirts were replaced with mail patches, called goussets, sewn onto a gambeson or arming jacket. Further protection for plate armour was the use of small round plates called besagews that covered the armpit area and couters and poleyns with "wings" to protect the inside of the joint. The evolution of the 14th century plate armour also triggered the development of various polearms. They were designed to deliver a strong impact and concentrate energy on a small area and cause damage through the plate. Maces and the hammer-heads of pollaxes (poleaxes) were used to inflict blunt trauma through armour. long tapered swords to pierce armour no cutting edge + Show Spoiler +seems like samurai wouldnt have those weapon designed to counter full plate since they didnt fight against them irl
Interesting read. I'm trying to find more sources about how knights managed to kill each other via other means than blunt trauma. A teacher of mine told us that hammer/mace weapons became preferred in knight vs knight combat for the very reason that piercing armor was so difficult. But this "going for the weak joints" was mentioned many times in this thread hence I figure it's a possibility to beat plate with a sword. If that is proven false and plate really is sword proof, then I'd concede that knight > samurai in that case.
|
Why go for the weak joints when you can just smash a mace right in the helm of a knight. No matter how strong the helm is that should have some effect. I find it hard to believe that the most effective tactic is to thrust a sword in the tiny joint of a moving knight.
|
I don't think the samurai's sword can actually affect the knight's fully gaurded armor oO;; But on the other hand the samurai has more flesh revealings, so its easier to target.
|
The samurai can just snipe the knight with a bow from a distance. Welcome to the end of the era of knights (again).
|
Cmon guys, i'm tired of this discussion, it's clear by now that the knights have the edge. And this is not because of skill, you japanese manga-freaks don't have to worry, it's because of tech. Plate mail is a big deal and makes more of a difference than top-level skill some samurai may have had.
Madcatcf, samurai didn't have maces as far as i know, only wc3 and wow has, so your point isn't really valid.
|
rofl @ 1972 miami dolphins comment thrown in there randomly
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Panzerstecher.jpg/100px-Panzerstecher.jpg)
