EPTKnight vs. Samurai - Page 14
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
opsayo
591 Posts
| ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 28 2008 01:19 opsayo wrote: I doubt it, a katana is sharper than a big heavy sword. Eh alot of us believe knight using shield and sword is a definite win although a knight with a claymore might be interesting lol a sword like that is ment for bashing a skull in not really cutting. | ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On July 27 2008 11:50 shinigami wrote: In any martial art, it's proven that no amount of technique beats pure raw manly strength. i was seriously reading your post until i run in that statement. You've obviously no idea of what you're talking about. Any guy with decent martial arts training will own the shit out of a "pure raw manly strenght". | ||
|
ZidaneTribal
United States2800 Posts
| ||
|
opsayo
591 Posts
In this case the samurai wins because it is statistically shown that the Japanese live the longest of any race. I don't see how you can vote knight. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On July 28 2008 03:03 opsayo wrote: I think the speed of the samurai and clunkiness of the knight leads it to be a draw. The samurai is no match for the full plate mail's butt plate and the knight has no counter to adrenal glands. In this case the samurai wins because it is statistically shown that the Japanese live the longest of any race. I don't see how you can vote knight. Well the abilities of the katana and the Samurai in general are often exaggerated beyond the point of absurdity. In addition, the "clunkiness" of the knight has also been exaggerated in movies. I got to take the curators tour of a Medieval armory up in Massachusetts, and got to witness first hand a demonstration of a man in a suit of historically accurate plate mail. (I don't remember the specifics of time period/origin) He was surprisingly agile. Obviously his movement was affected by wearing a large suit of metal armor, but I was absolutely astounded at how much movement and quickness he was allowed in what I would have assumed would be a lumbering hulk. Other things they had at the armory were Japanese Samurai armor, and weapons from both sides. Of those we were allowed to handle, (all the actual old stuff was wayyy off limits, but we were allowed to pick up recreations), the Japanese stuff wasn't all that light. The chest piece of armor was surprisingly heavy. And a large European sword wasn't really noticeably heavier than the Katana. Now obviously, since both weapons and armors were available, the topic came up. The curator gave a somewhat disappointing answer. "There are just too many variables, and such a conflict has never really taken place, or if it had, was never recorded." He did add however that there were records of skirmishes between unarmored Portuguese soldiers and Samurai, but somewhat after the medieval period. Such skirmishes often ended in death for both, as the Portuguese soldier armed with a rapier was able to land numerous strikes before the Samurai could land a killing blow. The Samurai would later die from his injuries. However at the end of the day, I voted for the knight. The assembled suits of armor very well indicated the size difference. The knights seemed to stand well over 6 feet tall, while many of the samurai armor suits were shorter than me, (5'5). When I consider all of the factors, (and keep in mind I'm no historical expert), I end up thinking that the knight would win hands down. | ||
|
eazo
United States530 Posts
| ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
The problem with your theory is that Knights with their heavy armor use up their endurance much quicker than the Samurai which means that Knights are only stronger when there's not much room to move around e.g. in a direct confrontation of two armies. One Samurai will win vs one Knight because he can keep provoking the Knight until he collapses. As long as the Samurai won't fall for a surprise attack he will win in the end. If the Knight is smart enough he won't move too much which should result in a draw because then he's not a real danger. Or the one who falls asleep first loses. And yes, I'm serious :o | ||
|
ReapersSorrows
China40 Posts
| ||
|
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
| ||
|
noname_
456 Posts
On July 28 2008 03:55 Haemonculus wrote: Now obviously, since both weapons and armors were available, the topic came up. The curator gave a somewhat disappointing answer. "There are just too many variables, and such a conflict has never really taken place, or if it had, was never recorded." He did add however that there were records of skirmishes between unarmored Portuguese soldiers and Samurai, but somewhat after the medieval period. Such skirmishes often ended in death for both, as the Portuguese soldier armed with a rapier was able to land numerous strikes before the Samurai could land a killing blow. The Samurai would later die from his injuries. Think on this. Any more questions? | ||
|
Spike
United States1392 Posts
On July 28 2008 04:39 KissBlade wrote: Personally I voted Samurais cause they're cooler =P facts be damned, i don't understand why so many people think samurai's are cooler. knights are cooler just by looks alone. | ||
|
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 28 2008 03:55 Haemonculus wrote: Now obviously, since both weapons and armors were available, the topic came up. The curator gave a somewhat disappointing answer. "There are just too many variables, and such a conflict has never really taken place, or if it had, was never recorded." He did add however that there were records of skirmishes between unarmored Portuguese soldiers and Samurai, but somewhat after the medieval period. Such skirmishes often ended in death for both, as the Portuguese soldier armed with a rapier was able to land numerous strikes before the Samurai could land a killing blow. The Samurai would later die from his injuries. George Silver would have a thing or two to say about that. In his Paradoxes of Defence, he argued that the rapier was a fool's weapon, bloodthirsty and murderous, offering insufficent protection, and likely to result in the death of both combatants. He believed it was more practical and honorable to carry a proper cut-and-thrust sword of ordinary length (a "short sword" as he called it) which could serve in war as well for personal defence (rapiers tended to be overly long, and it was widely agreed that the rapier was a civilian weapon, good for duelling but inferior on the battlefield). http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/paradoxes.html Interesting read. You get the impression, though, that he was going a bit overboard. He was particularly opposed the growing popularity of duelling, so you can imagine he wasn't a fan of the concept of civilian weapons. | ||
|
mel_ee
2448 Posts
On July 28 2008 04:46 Spike wrote: facts be damned, i don't understand why so many people think samurai's are cooler. knights are cooler just by looks alone. i must agree. Samurai arent Ninjas so Knights are so badass. | ||
|
Muey
Finland149 Posts
On July 26 2008 23:36 WhatisProtoss wrote: A samurai sword is far stronger and sharper than a knight's weapons. So, unless the knight runs the samurai over with superior length, the samurai can just keep hacking away until the knight is left with stubs of weapons. No. European steel has always been of comparedly superior quality to that of Japan, which due to the scarity and poor quality of the local iron never really had the resources to comparedly compete. Moreover, while the Katana is a very good and efficient sword, it is a curved blade designed explictly for sweeping cutting motions, generally to be used against unarmored targets. For this reason the blade is designed to be extremely sharp, but yet flexible enough to not easily break. To achive this, (and because of the above mentioned iron problem), the Katana is generally made with a harder iron type for the blade part that can be easily sharpened very well, while the backend is of a softer type to give the blade some much needed flexibilty. It is a sharp and fast blade for what it is made for, but you're going to ruin it very fast into an unusable condition if you're trying to do something stupid that it wasn't designed to do - like trying to whack an european knight longsword that most likely is of heavier build quality, or trying to break through platemail by slashing (a hopelessly futile idea no matter the sword). Sure, you can try thrusting with the Katana too, but because of the curvature it will be harder to aim at the specific weakspots, on top of you risking to snap the blade in two due to the nature of the sword's construction. If you're going to purely look at the equipment available, a Knight will almost always have superior equipment at his disposal compared to a Samurai, and usually of superior quality too, depending on the exact time period in history. Edit: Funchucks already stated what I said a million times better & more detailed. Read what he wrote, /thread over  . | ||
|
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 28 2008 05:37 Muey wrote: No. European steel has always been of comparedly superior quality to that of Japan, which due to the scarity and poor quality of the local iron never really had the resources to comparedly compete. Moreover, while the Katana is a very good and efficient sword, it is a curved blade designed explictly for sweeping cutting motions, generally to be used against unarmored targets. For this reason the blade is designed to be extremely sharp, but yet flexible enough to not easily break. To achive this, (and because of the above mentioned iron problem), the Katana is generally made with a harder iron type for the blade part that can be easily sharpened very well, while the backend is of a softer type to give the blade some much needed flexibilty. It is a sharp and fast blade for what it is made for, but you're going to ruin it very fast into an unusable condition if you're trying to do something stupid that it wasn't designed to do - like trying to whack an european knight longsword that most likely is of heavier build quality, or trying to break through platemail by slashing (a hopelessly futile idea no matter the sword). Sure, you can try thrusting with the Katana too, but because of the curvature it will be harder to aim at the specific weakspots, on top of you risking to snap the blade in two due to the nature of the sword's construction. If you're going to purely look at the equipment available, a Knight will almost always have superior equipment at his disposal compared to a Samurai, and usually of superior quality too, depending on the exact time period in history. Yeah pretty much that on spot, wanna know something You know that like nice look katana have with the tip being shiner and whiter then the non balded area. Its cuz thats where the good iron or steel if the bs was lucky enough to get some was while the backing was iron or some sorta added leather for strength to the slash stabbing is more or less worthless with that sword. Katana are tip heavy making them really hard to stab straight but helping slashing movements. Knight armor was if quality made form tempered steel great quality you only need a very thin amount for even arrow shots to you when curved right etc its light weight also. The only reason why knight's armor went out of style is cuz it takes blacksmiths alot to figure out how to make it bulletproof, in fact when guns where still weak a blacksmith would take a pistol and shoot the armor usually and it was a mark or bulletproof or "proof it can take a bullet" but when the muskets etc came out armor just made you a target cuz the bullets would just rip right though it and you hell if your gonna get hit might as well be able to move faster and see better. | ||
|
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
Portuguese rapiers probably needed to be pretty swift to thrust fast enough, if they carried any armor, they would probably be slowed down and shitted on because the rapier is just not strong enough to fight a katana. It's a trade-off; big armor makes you harder to take down, but more likely to take hits. It worked for phalanxes and cavalry because cavalry would have mobility and phalanxes were walking tanks. However, archers WOULD NOT use heavy armor because they would need to relocate pretty fast. Stop saying armor > no armor, because it's pretty much situational. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
Blow yourself. You can't use "unarmored Europeans once fought Japanese and it was a tie" to say that an armored one would obviously lose. Different armor, sword, style, etc. | ||
|
ez(styles)
United States15 Posts
| ||
|
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
| ||
