![[image loading]](http://www.2dvalley.com/gallery/albums/dan-scott/samurai_knight.jpg)
WHO is superior in an all out battle?
WHO is the better fighter?
YOU be the judge.
Poll: Who would win?
(Vote): European Knight
(Vote): Japanese Samurai
Forum Index > General Forum |
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
![]() WHO is superior in an all out battle? WHO is the better fighter? YOU be the judge. Poll: Who would win? (Vote): European Knight (Vote): Japanese Samurai | ||
funkie
Venezuela9374 Posts
![]() | ||
![]()
thedeadhaji
![]()
39489 Posts
A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail (it can however cut my hand, as I've done before), hence the knight wins. | ||
TryThis
Canada1522 Posts
cause that would give him a huge advantage, however in flat sword on sword combat i think the samurai would win, simply because the katana is a far superior weapon then a broad sword would be. | ||
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
| ||
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
| ||
roadrunner_sc
United States1220 Posts
Unless it's Bale as (Dark) Knight then Knight > anything except clown with nasal voice and make-up Or the Samurai = Tom Cruise In which case Anything (except Oprah) > Samurai | ||
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:28 ieatkids5 wrote: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=11145 I saw this thread after posting. Close my thread if you want mods, but I think a poll and the image might make it worth a new thread? But, do as you wish. | ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. | ||
yn01_
Canada149 Posts
| ||
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:34 yn01_ wrote: It should be fine, i mean the other thread is 3 years old. Anyway, I think samurai would win because they are better swordsman. European training is more advanced, their swords are made of better steel, katanas cannot cut through platemail, etc. | ||
HypnoticPoo
Singapore291 Posts
| ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
| ||
JohnColtrane
Australia4813 Posts
| ||
Spenguin
![]()
Australia3316 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. | ||
Ideas
United States8068 Posts
| ||
Spenguin
![]()
Australia3316 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:43 JohnColtrane wrote: what if the knight doesnt wield a sword? maybe he was a halberd or a flail or something instead? ![]() | ||
StarN
United States2587 Posts
| ||
SingletonWilliam
United States664 Posts
| ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() | ||
Archaic
United States4024 Posts
Run, and the euro knight will get tired from the 200000000 kilograms of armor he is wearing. He will take off something, and get stabbed, hence OWNED! | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:37 HypnoticPoo wrote: But katanas can cut through long swords, or any european sword for that matter, go watch mythbusters Uh, no. | ||
Narrator
United States868 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:37 HypnoticPoo wrote: But katanas can cut through long swords, or any european sword for that matter, go watch mythbusters Go read haji's post. I don't think the Japanese samurai's swords were strong enough to pierce the knight's armor during that time. European Knight all the way! | ||
Gingerkid
Albania23 Posts
You are good as dead without a shield.... | ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
there have even been reports that it had trouble cutting through mail armor. | ||
Narrator
United States868 Posts
Knights shall prevail! FOR LORDAERON! | ||
![]()
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:51 DeathTray wrote: If a samurai discovers that the katana can't pierce the armor, all he has to run, as he is a LOT more agile. Run, and the euro knight will get tired from the 200000000 kilograms of armor he is wearing. He will take off something, and get stabbed, hence OWNED! But that assumes that the knight in question is less intelligent than a squirrel. The knight doesn't have to chase the samurai, he can wait for the samurai to come to him. The samurai would be able to see that as a bloody stupid idea, so it will result in a draw. Unless the knight is mounted. (I think samurai didn't use horses, but I don't know) | ||
BaDayOri
Korea (South)469 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:47 StarN wrote: The samurai would kick that white boyz ass. lolool | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
| ||
himurakenshin
Canada1845 Posts
| ||
Narrator
United States868 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:20 FragKrag wrote: Knight obv, he has a horse can go cavalry rush ggggggg Cavalry rush! LOL Well, according to WarCraft III, Knights did have horses. They also had swords but no shield. All in all, GG samurai. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
if the knight won it'd only be because they were bigger and stronger, I really don't see heavy armor and a huge sword being an advantage in a one on one fight. | ||
noname_
455 Posts
The way I encountered this rumor was that there were 9-12 official duels fought between the Portuguese and Samurai. The Portuguese won all except one, which was believed lost on account of 'excessive drunkenness.' According to the story, the dead fellow's superior officer engaged the Samurai in a duel on the following day, and defeated him out of hand. | ||
Narrator
United States868 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:25 noname_ wrote: Show nested quote + The way I encountered this rumor was that there were 9-12 official duels fought between the Portuguese and Samurai. The Portuguese won all except one, which was believed lost on account of 'excessive drunkenness.' According to the story, the dead fellow's superior officer engaged the Samurai in a duel on the following day, and defeated him out of hand. The Portuguese don't count as European knights, but that still seems to be a pretty cool story. What did the Portuguese lineup consist of? | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:25 travis wrote: samurai knew how to fight against armor. They knew how to deal with someone wearing a breastplate and a helmet. Full plate is a totally different story. | ||
ydg
United States690 Posts
Samurai or Elite Samurai? Upgrades? | ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
shields weren't as widespread in japan as it was everywhere else? ![]() and no, a katana will not cut through a shield. if it's a wooden shield, the katana is actually more likely to get caught in the shield. | ||
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:30 Mindcrime wrote: They knew how to deal with someone wearing a breastplate and a helmet. Full plate is a totally different story. well I agree I guess but my point was I doubt they are stupid enough to strike at the armor rather than the joints or leather straps or however that crap worked anyways its a fun question but there are too many variables. needless to say in a large scale battle knights would crush the fuck out of them | ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
Samurai where above a lonely footman and where most familiar with sword play and nothing else Knight usually if rich enough on a horse in full armor with a lance Sorry man+horse=GG | ||
Narrator
United States868 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:35 Spike wrote: how about a katana versus a rapier? Imagine knights wielding katanas while riding on their horses. Insta-nerfed! | ||
DanceCommander
United States1808 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:35 Spike wrote: how about a katana versus a rapier? Thats an auto win you can thrust a lot faster then you can slice rapier killed armor in Europe cuz if you can get an armor good enough to withstand a bullet most likely it couldn't withstand a stab. And rapier sword play is revolved around footwork basically not sword blocking more or less it would go like this rapier attacks katana block over and over until the katana messes up | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:32 ydg wrote: Is this a Knight, Cavalier, or Paladin? Samurai or Elite Samurai? Upgrades? Japanese are 2/2 Samurai. Franks are 2/2 Knights. Samurai are fucked because they only deal extra damage to special units. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:48 FragKrag wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 14:32 ydg wrote: Is this a Knight, Cavalier, or Paladin? Samurai or Elite Samurai? Upgrades? Japanese are 2/2 Samurai. Franks are 2/2 Knights. Samurai are fucked because they only deal extra damage to special units. I guess we should give it to the French after all their throwing axe (francesca) won them their territory during the dark ages | ||
Instigata
United States546 Posts
| ||
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:51 Spike wrote: just read this. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() That article is very anti-climatic. After a lot of reading, the ending is "we can't really tell because there are just too many variables". Also, if you're thinking armor > all, it's obvious that you're overlooking the fact that that armor also weighs A FUCKTON. The knight would be slower in movement, would get tired faster, and his movements overall would be restricted by the armor. Not to mention that his attack speed would also be reduced. I think that if the fight doesn't end fairly quick, the knight is fucked, because as every dota player knows, in late game, agility > strength. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:01 CubEdIn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 13:51 Spike wrote: just read this. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() That article is very anti-climatic. After a lot of reading, the ending is "we can't really tell because there are just too many variables". Also, if you're thinking armor > all, it's obvious that you're overlooking the fact that that armor also weighs A FUCKTON. The knight would be slower in movement, would get tired faster, and his movements overall would be restricted by the armor. Not to mention that his attack speed would also be reduced. I think that if the fight doesn't end fairly quick, the knight is fucked, because as every dota player knows, in late game, agility > strength. That's only because Agility is hella rigged in Wc3 because it basically adds health. | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:02 FragKrag wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:01 CubEdIn wrote: On July 26 2008 13:51 Spike wrote: just read this. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() That article is very anti-climatic. After a lot of reading, the ending is "we can't really tell because there are just too many variables". Also, if you're thinking armor > all, it's obvious that you're overlooking the fact that that armor also weighs A FUCKTON. The knight would be slower in movement, would get tired faster, and his movements overall would be restricted by the armor. Not to mention that his attack speed would also be reduced. I think that if the fight doesn't end fairly quick, the knight is fucked, because as every dota player knows, in late game, agility > strength. That's only because Agility is hella rigged in Wc3 because it basically adds health. It adds armor, that's damage reduction. And it makes sense because you'd think that someone with oober-agility would be more effective at not taking damage (just watch jet li movies). And also it's usually because DPS > Tanks. All of which perfectly applies here. Come on, how can you NOT vote for the | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:01 CubEdIn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 13:51 Spike wrote: just read this. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() That article is very anti-climatic. After a lot of reading, the ending is "we can't really tell because there are just too many variables". Also, if you're thinking armor > all, it's obvious that you're overlooking the fact that that armor also weighs A FUCKTON. The knight would be slower in movement, would get tired faster, and his movements overall would be restricted by the armor. Not to mention that his attack speed would also be reduced. I think that if the fight doesn't end fairly quick, the knight is fucked, because as every dota player knows, in late game, agility > strength. Tempered steel armor + chain mail or leather under you only weights from 50 pounds to a trained person that weight is nothing. TT Fuck man thats barely a football player gear. It's not like his armor is 5 inches thick and in 1 place its spread thought the body making it much easier to move with. Also wtf is the samurai in your mind wearing nothing? his armor would weight His armor weights about the same if your considering its lamellar typed armor from japan. Yes a samurai would be slightly faster due to him being more exposed on the joins meaning his movement is free.er | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:09 CubEdIn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:02 FragKrag wrote: On July 26 2008 15:01 CubEdIn wrote: On July 26 2008 13:51 Spike wrote: just read this. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() That article is very anti-climatic. After a lot of reading, the ending is "we can't really tell because there are just too many variables". Also, if you're thinking armor > all, it's obvious that you're overlooking the fact that that armor also weighs A FUCKTON. The knight would be slower in movement, would get tired faster, and his movements overall would be restricted by the armor. Not to mention that his attack speed would also be reduced. I think that if the fight doesn't end fairly quick, the knight is fucked, because as every dota player knows, in late game, agility > strength. That's only because Agility is hella rigged in Wc3 because it basically adds health. It adds armor, that's damage reduction. And it makes sense because you'd think that someone with oober-agility would be more effective at not taking damage (just watch jet li movies). And also it's usually because DPS > Tanks. All of which perfectly applies here. Come on, how can you NOT vote for the Yeah, I'm familiar with how imba agility is. No, agility should not add armor, because last time I checked, agility doesn't do much good when you have armor on. It makes no fucking sense. The Knight has a pony~ | ||
MyLostTemple
![]()
United States2921 Posts
| ||
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:10 IzzyCraft wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:01 CubEdIn wrote: On July 26 2008 13:51 Spike wrote: just read this. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() That article is very anti-climatic. After a lot of reading, the ending is "we can't really tell because there are just too many variables". Also, if you're thinking armor > all, it's obvious that you're overlooking the fact that that armor also weighs A FUCKTON. The knight would be slower in movement, would get tired faster, and his movements overall would be restricted by the armor. Not to mention that his attack speed would also be reduced. I think that if the fight doesn't end fairly quick, the knight is fucked, because as every dota player knows, in late game, agility > strength. Tempered steel armor + chain mail or leather under you only weights from 50 pounds to a trained person that weight is nothing. TT Fuck man thats barely a football player gear. It's not like his armor is 5 inches thick and in 1 place its spread thought the body making it much easier to move with. Also wtf is the samurai in your mind wearing nothing? his armor would weight His armor weights about the same if your considering its lamellar typed armor from japan. Yes a samurai would be slightly faster due to him being more exposed on the joins meaning his movement is free.er 50 pounds is not nothing under continuous fighting, and the samurai's armor would weigh about half that much. It depends of which time you're thinking about (i know cuz i've read that long-ass-article, not that I actually have any idea about history), but basically an "even" fight would be both of them unarmored, dismounted and with no missile weapons. Apparently, the 1400s knight would win over the 1400s samurai, but the 1200s samurai would kick 1200s knight's ass. Or vice-versa. The point is, unless you lay down some serious details as to how the fight occurs and what each one is equiped with, their size and training, etc, you can't really judge the fight. ...but I'm still rooting for the samurai. Knights are just pussies with armor. On July 26 2008 15:12 FragKrag wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:09 CubEdIn wrote: On July 26 2008 15:02 FragKrag wrote: On July 26 2008 15:01 CubEdIn wrote: On July 26 2008 13:51 Spike wrote: just read this. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm someone get back to me and summarize please ![]() That article is very anti-climatic. After a lot of reading, the ending is "we can't really tell because there are just too many variables". Also, if you're thinking armor > all, it's obvious that you're overlooking the fact that that armor also weighs A FUCKTON. The knight would be slower in movement, would get tired faster, and his movements overall would be restricted by the armor. Not to mention that his attack speed would also be reduced. I think that if the fight doesn't end fairly quick, the knight is fucked, because as every dota player knows, in late game, agility > strength. That's only because Agility is hella rigged in Wc3 because it basically adds health. It adds armor, that's damage reduction. And it makes sense because you'd think that someone with oober-agility would be more effective at not taking damage (just watch jet li movies). And also it's usually because DPS > Tanks. All of which perfectly applies here. Come on, how can you NOT vote for the Yeah, I'm familiar with how imba agility is. No, agility should not add armor, because last time I checked, agility doesn't do much good when you have armor on. It makes no fucking sense. The Knight has a pony~ Well there's no other reasonable way they could implement it. If agility gain would give chance of miss, it would be way more imba. So they gave it some form of damage reduction. It's a game it doesn't have to make a lot of sense, it has to be FUN (just look at StarCraft, that game doesn't make any sense at all!). ...Death also has a pony. And a scythe! | ||
![]()
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
| ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
| ||
![]()
thedeadhaji
![]()
39489 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:41 IzzyCraft wrote: Basically imo Knight Samurai where above a lonely footman and where most familiar with sword play and nothing else Knight usually if rich enough on a horse in full armor with a lance Sorry man+horse=GG they had horses as well :O | ||
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. I don't see how this is even a competition. You're more agile with your Colt 45 but the guy with the Uzi is still gonna mow you down. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:20 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. I don't see how this is even a competition. You're more agile with your Colt 45 but the guy with the MG42 is still gonna mow you down. fixed. | ||
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:20 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. I don't see how this is even a competition. You're more agile with your Colt 45 but the guy with the Uzi is still gonna mow you down. I find it hard to believe that someone with a .45 bullet in his head can mow me down. | ||
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:22 CubEdIn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:20 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. I don't see how this is even a competition. You're more agile with your Colt 45 but the guy with the Uzi is still gonna mow you down. I find it hard to believe that someone with a .45 bullet in his head can mow me down. Picky picky, you get the point~ | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:22 CubEdIn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:20 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. I don't see how this is even a competition. You're more agile with your Colt 45 but the guy with the Uzi is still gonna mow you down. I find it hard to believe that someone with a .45 bullet in his head can mow me down. You have to take the armor into account though. I find it hard to believe that someone with a .45 Colt behind a tree is going to be able to shoot me while I'm in a MG nest. | ||
CubEdIn
Romania5359 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:23 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:22 CubEdIn wrote: On July 26 2008 15:20 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. I don't see how this is even a competition. You're more agile with your Colt 45 but the guy with the Uzi is still gonna mow you down. I find it hard to believe that someone with a .45 bullet in his head can mow me down. Picky picky, you get the point~ Ok fine but I'm still rooting for the ninja. | ||
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
KNIFE VS BAT PENIS VS VAGINA IS NEXT? "But the penis thrusts and would win" "But the vagina swallows it, what if it clamped and cut off circulation" etc... | ||
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:24 CubEdIn wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:23 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: On July 26 2008 15:22 CubEdIn wrote: On July 26 2008 15:20 ShaLLoW[baY] wrote: On July 26 2008 13:33 Spike wrote: On July 26 2008 13:26 thedeadhaji wrote: A samurai's sword cannot bust platemail, hence the knight wins. I don't see how this is even a competition. You're more agile with your Colt 45 but the guy with the Uzi is still gonna mow you down. I find it hard to believe that someone with a .45 bullet in his head can mow me down. Picky picky, you get the point~ Ok fine but I'm still rooting for the ninja. Ninja =! Samurai. | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:26 MYM.Testie wrote: DOG VS MAN KNIFE VS BAT PENIS VS VAGINA IS NEXT? "But the penis thrusts and would win" "But the vagina swallows it, what if it clamped and cut off circulation" etc... Hold on, I'm making the thread, although from my experience the penis always wins. | ||
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
![]() | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
ambit!ous1
United States3662 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:01 Instigata wrote: Mongols owned them both. Tsunami saved Japs, Kahn's death and tradition saved Europe. Longrange bow owns. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:31 Djabanete wrote: ![]() Fuck then your gonna tell me a samurai doesn't as faster then the speed of light? and cant jump 100 feet in the air fucking anime lies to me. | ||
doubleupgradeobbies!
![]()
Australia1187 Posts
Knight wins EZ | ||
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
MeriaDoKk
Chile1726 Posts
![]() | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 16:06 zoLo wrote: Samurais will win just because they've been training ever since they were young. They know the way of the blade better than knights. Lol Knights and samurai are both chosen at youth you have to be rich to be a knight amour and weps aren't cheep it's decided at birth | ||
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 16:16 MeriaDoKk wrote: Watch Kenshin Himura and his "amakakeroriurokiamehi" (or something like that xD) if you wanna know ![]() Kenshin is the most hilarious thing to watch, cuz apparently his blade is dull so he basically beats you up with a pipe? how does that not break bones Also the fact is he slashes with it unless that metal is perfectly smooth you'll still cut people with it. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 16:19 HeavOnEarth wrote: samurai's pulling away with a slight 51%lead woo~ Just shows how many people watch animu and love it haha | ||
KameZerg
Sweden1752 Posts
Still Ninja > Samurai, Knights | ||
We Are Here
Australia1810 Posts
| ||
We Are Here
Australia1810 Posts
| ||
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 16:27 ICanFlyLow wrote: A Samurai's armor is not made for Heavy-style european swords. 2-handed swords rlllyyyy popular at that time. So i have to go with the knight. Still Ninja > Samurai, Knights Really wtf do people think ninja's are they are fucking body guards if you look them up properly usually hired to do yard work etc but be able to defend the feudal lord with what they have. So they don't look like gaurds | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:33 IzzyCraft wrote: We can just base it on size 6 Foot german vs 5 foot japanese Germans weren't 6ft then. Both groups were like 4-5'6" tall. Seriously though, the quality of European metal was better so that helps, but knights in plate mail can realistically only fight for a few minutes before running out of energy. Look at what happened at Agincourt. Make a knight fall in the mud and he dies on his own. Also, there are weak points in plate armor and I suspect samurai would be able to hit those targets, because they do actually train whereas being a knight is about whoever can afford the gear. The real question is who would win- a samurai or a lowly peasant? AHAHHAHHAHAHHAHA EARLY EDO PERIOD TOKUGAWA JOKES ARE SO GOOD + Show Spoiler + ... | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 16:59 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:33 IzzyCraft wrote: We can just base it on size 6 Foot german vs 5 foot japanese Germans weren't 6ft then. Both groups were like 4-5'6" tall. Seriously though, the quality of European metal was better so that helps, but knights in plate mail can realistically only fight for a few minutes before running out of energy. Look at what happened at Agincourt. Make a knight fall in the mud and he dies on his own. Also, there are weak points in plate armor and I suspect samurai would be able to hit those targets, because they do actually train whereas being a knight is about whoever can afford the gear. The real question is who would win- a samurai or a lowly peasant? AHAHHAHHAHAHHAHA EARLY EDO PERIOD TOKUGAWA JOKES ARE SO GOOD + Show Spoiler + ... Lol few minutes so battles where fraught in what 5 mins then they took breaks? doubt that. even 100 pound armor if your smart and conservative in your moments you can keep it up for a good time. Hey if your going hypothetical it's very plausible to get 6ft knight = wealthy = good eating more or less meaning they don't fit into the avg height. | ||
zgl
United States1055 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:01 Instigata wrote: Mongols owned them both. Tsunami saved Japs, Kahn's death and tradition saved Europe. Longrange bow owns. Mage > Mongols > Knights, Samurai | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
On July 26 2008 16:59 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:33 IzzyCraft wrote: We can just base it on size 6 Foot german vs 5 foot japanese Germans weren't 6ft then. Both groups were like 4-5'6" tall. Seriously though, the quality of European metal was better so that helps, but knights in plate mail can realistically only fight for a few minutes before running out of energy. Look at what happened at Agincourt. Make a knight fall in the mud and he dies on his own. Also, there are weak points in plate armor and I suspect samurai would be able to hit those targets, because they do actually train whereas being a knight is about whoever can afford the gear. The real question is who would win- a samurai or a lowly peasant? AHAHHAHHAHAHHAHA EARLY EDO PERIOD TOKUGAWA JOKES ARE SO GOOD + Show Spoiler + ... The elite haven't gotten much taller because their diet has always been good. Henry VIII was 6 foot, Peter the Great was like 6'8. When you're growing up on a diet of meat you grow up big. It's just the malnourished poor who were short. As for tiring, the horse does a lot of the running around. | ||
aseq
Netherlands3972 Posts
The knight, easily. He's a foot taller and his blows are way harder. Put Bruce Lee vs Semmy Schilt in a boxing ring and see whether size matters. Also, people are forgetting samurai do wear (mail) armor, which, together with all their ornaments and useless things sticking out, weighs almost as much as the plate mail. Unless the plate mail suit has weak points, so the samurai can inflict massive damage in 1 blow, the knight is going to take this. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2008 17:09 aseq wrote: "(some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica)" The knight, easily. He's a foot taller and his blows are way harder. Put Bruce Lee vs Semmy Schilt in a boxing ring and see whether size matters. Bruce Lee beat Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Point proven. Kwark, I knew Henry was pretty big but I thought he was a rare exception. No idea Peter the Great was that huge. Being on horse back kills agility even further and then all you have to do is go after the horse's legs. Cavalry works great in mass melee, but 1 on 1 I don't think it'd be much of an advantage. | ||
SaveYourSavior
United States1071 Posts
Most samurais have two swords: a long and short sword. Most wear mail armor. Samurai are not as protected and their swords are pretty ineffective unless they can stick their sword through the knight helmet's visor Monty Python style. Its pretty much a draw in a 1v1 battle except the knight has the slight edge i believe. Samurai have less weight to run around but samurai are not pussies. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
I'm reasonably sure that being on horseback would still be very valuable in a duel simply because you'd be four feet higher up than them. The ability to do sweeping overhand blows at their head has to come in handy. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
don't believe... look up invasion of Korea. | ||
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
![]()
AltaiR_
Korea (South)922 Posts
| ||
besiger
Croatia2452 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 18:20 AltaiR_ wrote: VADER = samurai helm/armor/katana stance, CAN I SAY MORE. but in honesty samurais have rode horses and shot bows too, not all of em are katana footmen, knights have spears, samurais have naginatas and zanbatos which are meant to slay people OFF horses, but frankly i would say samurais have far better experience with 2 handed sword play Cuz Japanese are smart samurai aren't specialized in swordplay but more likely yari and bow SPEAR AND LANCE MAKE THE ARMY NOT SWORDS. Also Japanese horse warfare wasn't as large scale as knight charges also zanbato for serious you go there TT why not say knight have thors hammer and could lift it. Horse spears are 8+ feet takes a special man (stupid or suscidal) to stand up to a changing horse with a small spear. Also as far as riding horses while shooting a bow that Mongolian japan used long bow for a long long time like Europe cuz its easer to maintain. Rain = fucked up recurved bow if you didn't know. | ||
ambit!ous1
United States3662 Posts
| ||
.MistiK
Netherlands347 Posts
On July 26 2008 17:22 Jibba wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 17:09 aseq wrote: "(some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica)" The knight, easily. He's a foot taller and his blows are way harder. Put Bruce Lee vs Semmy Schilt in a boxing ring and see whether size matters. Bruce Lee beat Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Point proven. Kwark, I knew Henry was pretty big but I thought he was a rare exception. No idea Peter the Great was that huge. Being on horse back kills agility even further and then all you have to do is go after the horse's legs. Cavalry works great in mass melee, but 1 on 1 I don't think it'd be much of an advantage. You can't just go for a horse's legs. if you don't keep your sword the knight will slice your head off | ||
![]()
thedeadhaji
![]()
39489 Posts
On July 26 2008 17:04 zgl wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 15:01 Instigata wrote: Mongols owned them both. Tsunami saved Japs, Kahn's death and tradition saved Europe. Longrange bow owns. Mage > Mongols > Knights, Samurai hurricanes to be precise~ but it's their fault for repeatedly attempting invasions during hurricane season during the summer~ ![]() You know "Kamikaze" comes from these exact winds that saved their asses so many times haha. On July 26 2008 18:18 haduken wrote: Umm... you people don't seem to realise that samurai at their prime use bows/arrows and early gun powder weapons + kantanas... and they had a lot of trained support troops etc... don't believe... look up invasion of Korea. that gun was imported from the west during the Nobunaga conquest years, so for comparable time periods the west was always ahead of japan. (iirc there was a time when china was ahead of the west tho) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima | ||
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
On July 26 2008 16:16 MeriaDoKk wrote: Watch Kenshin Himura and his "amakakeroriurokiamehi" (or something like that xD) if you wanna know ![]() "amakakeru ryu no hirameki" Say that 20 times with your mouth full and you'lll start to believe anime samurais could beat anime knights. lol @ the AOE2 reference.. you guys crack me up. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2008 18:33 thedeadhaji wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 17:04 zgl wrote: On July 26 2008 15:01 Instigata wrote: Mongols owned them both. Tsunami saved Japs, Kahn's death and tradition saved Europe. Longrange bow owns. Mage > Mongols > Knights, Samurai hurricanes to be precise~ but it's their fault for repeatedly attempting invasions during hurricane season during the summer~ ![]() You know "Kamikaze" comes from these exact winds that saved their asses so many times haha. Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 18:18 haduken wrote: Umm... you people don't seem to realise that samurai at their prime use bows/arrows and early gun powder weapons + kantanas... and they had a lot of trained support troops etc... don't believe... look up invasion of Korea. that gun was imported from the west during the Nobunaga conquest years, so for comparable time periods the west was always ahead of japan. (iirc there was a time when china was ahead of the west tho) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanegashima It came from the West, but like cars and everything else, when Japan went gun crazy they were making the finest guns on earth. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 26 2008 18:33 dinmsab wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 16:16 MeriaDoKk wrote: Watch Kenshin Himura and his "amakakeroriurokiamehi" (or something like that xD) if you wanna know ![]() "amakakeru ryu no hirameki" Say that 20 times with your mouth full and you'lll start to believe anime samurais could beat anime knights. lol @ the AOE2 reference.. you guys crack me up. No anime knights are super fucking holy or something have wings etc lol its anime all samurai can do is studio shit like slice though rock with a sword (yeah that keeps it sharp) and move faster then light and don't wear armor but it doesn't matter cuz they move faster then light. Anime knight = ANGEL lol imo | ||
triangle
United States3803 Posts
Huns were overpowered though. | ||
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
| ||
![]()
thedeadhaji
![]()
39489 Posts
On July 26 2008 18:33 dinmsab wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 16:16 MeriaDoKk wrote: Watch Kenshin Himura and his "amakakeroriurokiamehi" (or something like that xD) if you wanna know ![]() "amakakeru ryu no hirameki" Say that 20 times with your mouth full and you'lll start to believe anime samurais could beat anime knights. lol @ the AOE2 reference.. you guys crack me up. Tokyotokkyokyokakyoku (Tokyo Patent Authorizatoin Office) is harder. So is Namuginamagomenamatamago (raw weat raw rice raw egg) | ||
zimz
United States510 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:01 Instigata wrote: Mongols owned them both. Tsunami saved Japs, Kahn's death and tradition saved Europe. Longrange bow owns. true that. btw. vietnam pwned the mongol invasion 3 times. | ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
Some knights were trained from the day they could walk. Could do backflips and shit. Fighting on foot would only happen in siege situations. Them he would switch to a lighter sword or mace with shield. They wouldn't just let themselves get worn down. So I think its a draw. Unless someone breaks his sword. Other knight were fat and lazy and old. They were never bothered to train because they were rich as fuck or their county was boring as fuck and never saw any action. And let their bodyguards do all the fighting. Length The average length of the European man was little over 5 feet. Nobility was taller but not by much. Charles the Great. Godfried of Boulion and other famous knights were freakishly large for that time. They were exceptions. If you have been to medievel castles you will notice that every door and staircase is cramped. Im 6'4 and almost crawled. Battle What armies are we talking about. Archers. Pikemen. men at arms. Conscript peasants with pichforks. I don't see a samuraui army surviving a frontal attack from knights in open dry terrain (some armies had horses with armour as well). Then we have archers and pikemen employed by both. It all comes down to gear. Terrain/setting. Wich era. The individual samurai/knight If the knight is wearing odd socks or not etc. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
On July 26 2008 19:58 KaasZerg wrote: Length The average length of the European man was little over 5 feet. Nobility was taller but not by much. Charles the Great. Godfried of Boulion and other famous knights were freakishly large for that time. They were exceptions. If you have been to medievel castles you will notice that every door and staircase is cramped. Im 6'4 and almost crawled. Unless you want to argue that the medieval nobility were malnourished you're going to have to explain why they'd be any shorter than the people of today. The peasants were malnourished and overworked from a young age which gives a low average height but average doesn't apply to the nobility. | ||
aseq
Netherlands3972 Posts
Oh and Jibba, Japan may have produced good guns later on, idk much about that, but in 1600 europe were still way ahead in gun production and gun quality. | ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
If you take the best from both sides you get a 6foot European Knight, extremely skilled with a bastard sword and shield in very good and maneuverable armour, against a 5,5 Samurai with less armor, less battle experience and a shorter sword. The Knight is going to steamroll him. Then if we extrapolate and start talking about groups of combatants it gets even worse for the Samurai. They are just gonna get pushed into a corner and slashed to pieces. | ||
XCetron
5225 Posts
| ||
-Sleet-
Poland84 Posts
![]() | ||
opsayo
591 Posts
Samurai would need adrenal glands to outdo the armor bonus of a Knight. Extrapolating from The Last Samurai, even one white dude became the epitome of a master Samurai after little training. Clearly, white dudes are better at swordplay than any asian. ![]() | ||
suxN
Finland1167 Posts
| ||
JudgeMathis
Cuba1286 Posts
| ||
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 26 2008 20:10 aseq wrote: I thought we were talking 1v1 here, on foot, both only yielding their main weapon, so sword/shield vs 1 katana or katana and shoto (or possibly 2 katana). I still think the knight would bulldoze the samurai. Oh and Jibba, Japan may have produced good guns later on, idk much about that, but in 1600 europe were still way ahead in gun production and gun quality. Japan banned guns in the 1600s, but they were producing like crazy before then. | ||
ChkChk.Boom
United States140 Posts
| ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Samurai have fought opponents on horseback before, they can easily take down the Knight who would be down and have to lift his visor I'm sure the Samurai could out fight a Knight on the ground. Knights were weighed down by chain mail etc. They were not very good without some sort of a shock value. | ||
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
what you really should consider is that samurai and knight's weapons and armours are designed for different kinds of warfare. not to mention that in the days of cold weapons... Asian typically had far larger number of men in the armies. | ||
indecision
Germany818 Posts
![]() Sucks when your enemy runs away to wear you out though :/ | ||
LuMiX
China5757 Posts
| ||
LuckyOne
266 Posts
,best thing samurai could do is go behind the knight make him fall then when he is on the ground find an opening. but then again the samurai got a heavy armor too so he wont be 2x as fast. to everyone saying samurai can just run away and wear out the knight. the knight can just sit on his ass and wait. | ||
WhatisProtoss
Korea (South)2325 Posts
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. | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
Samurai fought the mongols, using Chinese and Korean troops. Samurai had to adapt. Those soldiers used shields, catapults and explosives, for example. When Hideyoshi invaded Korea the only thing the Koreans had going for them was their composite bow. Samurai were superior in all other respects. Knights get butchered by simple men with pole arms. Their horses are disabled by arrow fire. Crossbow can penetrate plate while bows can't? So what exact tech levels are we talking about? What time period? Katana isn't going to do anything to plate. Are they allowed to adjust? Or are they forced to use their stereotypical weapons? | ||
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
tyanvit
185 Posts
Even though Knight's plating is advanced and harder. Samurai just needs to get close. After he gets close -- he can pierce the knight with the agile katana easily. | ||
Eskii
Canada544 Posts
| ||
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
![]() | ||
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 26 2008 23:43 haduken wrote: lol this thread has degenerate into asian backing samurai and whiteys for knights. im asian and i back knights! | ||
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
In Arena DM the Knight would probably win because he's pretty safe and doesn't have to move a lot. Though the Samurai might just make use of physics and let him run against a wall. In SD I've got no idea. Probably a draw. Whoever starts crying first loses. In UMS the one with mapping skills wins which would be the Samurai because Knights are dumb as fuck after years of living inside a box. In FFA... you pick. There's quite a lot of game types, I don't know where to stop! Take map imbalances into consideration as well... x_X | ||
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
Better armor - only a little heavier, but in this case negligable since it's a duel and not a marathon. Deflecting platemail, ring mail, padding for blunt trauma. better training - not just fencing and swordplay, but even good old fashioned grappling and pummeling. more diverse arsenal - hammer, shield, dagger (when grappling and going for the slits in the armor), longsword, broadsword, all depending on scenario. Take the good old longsword, only weighs like 30% more than the katana (1.3 kg), you can grip down on it (on the blade) if in close quarters, you can use it as a hammer, sharp pointed for piercing etc. It's not primarily used for slashing. bigger and stronger. In just about all categories the samurai loses out, but the most important one is size and strength, especially since they are both armored. Bigger and stronger usually wins. | ||
stenole
Norway868 Posts
Do they get horses? Do they get similar era weaponry? Where does the battle take place? Do they know what kind of opponent they are facing and get time to prepare? Are they in an enclosed area and if so how small? Are these seasoned fighters or aristocratic men? What state of mind are they in as the enter the fight? I think the knight would be best served coming into battle with light leather/chain armor, a small buckler shield, a sword he can comfortably wield with one hand and a crossbow. Heavy plate armor in a 1v1 fight is asking to be brawled into submission and stabbed. | ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
Don't underestimate skilled shielduse. Weapons get stuck in shield. Weapons get blunt or break on shields. Shields are also offensive. *Bash* It can knock the weapon out of the oponents hands. | ||
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
On July 27 2008 00:35 KaasZerg wrote: The knight is a slow big retard with no stamina or balance, who walks into walls yes. Don't underestimate skilled shielduse. Weapons get stuck in shield. Weapons get blunt or break on shields. Shields are also offensive. *Bash* It can knock the weapon out of the oponents hands. Oh gawd. I so want to see you wearing a real knight's armor and then swing the shield in all glory. I'd take the bet your face hits the ground first. | ||
ramen247
United States1256 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 27 2008 00:43 ramen247 wrote: the samurai has better morale. thus, the knight would lose. Not really. Everyone with power turns into a crummy political asshole. | ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
On July 27 2008 00:41 ForAdun wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 00:35 KaasZerg wrote: The knight is a slow big retard with no stamina or balance, who walks into walls yes. Don't underestimate skilled shielduse. Weapons get stuck in shield. Weapons get blunt or break on shields. Shields are also offensive. *Bash* It can knock the weapon out of the oponents hands. Oh gawd. I so want to see you wearing a real knight's armor and then swing the shield in all glory. I'd take the bet your face hits the ground first. I probably will. Lol. You wouldn't wan't me in your army I'm horrible. | ||
besiger
Croatia2452 Posts
On July 27 2008 00:02 Luhh wrote: Knight of course. No contest. Better armor - only a little heavier, but in this case negligable since it's a duel and not a marathon. Deflecting platemail, ring mail, padding for blunt trauma. better training - not just fencing and swordplay, but even good old fashioned grappling and pummeling. more diverse arsenal - hammer, shield, dagger (when grappling and going for the slits in the armor), longsword, broadsword, all depending on scenario. Take the good old longsword, only weighs like 30% more than the katana (1.3 kg), you can grip down on it (on the blade) if in close quarters, you can use it as a hammer, sharp pointed for piercing etc. It's not primarily used for slashing. bigger and stronger. In just about all categories the samurai loses out, but the most important one is size and strength, especially since they are both armored. Bigger and stronger usually wins. one thing i would bet on is that a samurai could take a knight in hand to hand combat, Jujutsu evolved among the samurai of feudal Japan as a method for dispatching an armed and armored opponent in situations where the use of weapons was impractical or forbidden, and i think that beats someone trying to punch you to death. also regardless of what you may have seen in movies the samurai dont fight just with the katana, they also had the wakizashi blade and the tanto, wich are a smaller sword and a dagger, they also knew how to fight with a naginata and a yari, and practiced kyujutsu (bow skill) and skill with a longbow was very important to them, and they didnt have just one type of armor. so no, the samurai does not lose in every category | ||
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
Actually their swords were so delicate they broke if the other guy was wearing armor. And not even metal-based armor like european knights, but mongols leathers kinda stuff. However having europeans travel all the way to japan back then would not yield them good results, heck going towards the middle east was hard enough. | ||
RowdierBob
Australia12843 Posts
It's like comparing tanks now versus 50 years ago. I suspect the Asian vote will carry the Samurai though. I guess their ideals are more "romantic". | ||
sqwert
United States781 Posts
| ||
KOFgokuon
United States14892 Posts
| ||
Loverman
Romania266 Posts
| ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
The samurai initially only came into combat with the Mongols, a documentary on the BBC showed that they were beaten badly in combat. The samurai didn't have any real combat experience til the 16th century clashes with China. Meanwhile Knights were engaged all over Europe. Take for example the Hundred Years' War. Cannons, firearms, the mighty longbow; all sorts of tactics were employed. The samurai would have been no match for English Longbowman let alone the Knights. | ||
Ceril
Sweden1343 Posts
Rapier combat is more sophisticated then most. An evolution springing from gunnery making armor more of a burden then protection, with less armor rapiercombat flourished as a counter to old mainly slashing weapons still employed. | ||
ydg
United States690 Posts
The Frankish Knight always triumphs over the Japanese Samurai. Perhaps it is because the Knight has 120 HP while the Samurai only has 60. Or it could be because the Samurai has a base attack of 8, while the Knight has a base attack of 10. Or that the Samurai has a base armor of 1, while the Knight has one of 2. | ||
_PulSe_
United States541 Posts
In the hundred years war the longbow was the knights most feared opponent as it was so powerful that if it hit anywhere at all fragile it was going straight through the armor and ring mail. Also the knights mobility was practically zero. They were walking tanks meant for soaking up damage and just plowing through however if they fell over they were wearing 80+ lbs of gear the they could not get back up. Samurai on the other hand prided themselves in how they could be extremely mobile in the their armor and much more so on horseback. I believe in a a 1v1 duel the knight would have an advantage however i believe in a battle the samurai would win because of the strategic advantage of an extremely mobile infantry. Duel= knight>samurai Battle=Samurai>knight | ||
Ozarugold
2716 Posts
Didn't vote, but I'd have to say Knights because all the pro-Knights seem more convincing than the pro-Samurai. | ||
ydg
United States690 Posts
all the samurais died. *tries elite samurai* okay 2 knights died but all the samurai did too on a 2v1 (elite samurai vs knight), both samurais lived. 4v2, all 4 lived. 5v2, one samurai died. 2v2, one knight lived. 3v2, two samurai lived. I supposed the samurai's strength lies in numbers, since they cost less. Nevermind, when they aren't elite, the knights always win, except in the 5v2, where three survive. | ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On July 27 2008 01:56 _PulSe_ wrote: You guys forget about the samurai's extensive training with longbows and the fact that they would have had stirrups by that time frame. In the hundred years war the longbow was the knights most feared opponent as it was so powerful that if it hit anywhere at all fragile it was going straight through the armor and ring mail. Also the knights mobility was practically zero. They were walking tanks meant for soaking up damage and just plowing through however if they fell over they were wearing 80+ lbs of gear the they could not get back up. Samurai on the other hand prided themselves in how they could be extremely mobile in the their armor and much more so on horseback. I believe in a a 1v1 duel the knight would have an advantage however i believe in a battle the samurai would win because of the strategic advantage of an extremely mobile infantry. Duel= knight>samurai Battle=Samurai>knight "Samurai on the other hand prided themselves in how they could be extremely mobile in the their armor and much more so on horseback." You are ill-informed if you believe that. The Samurai armor was just as heavy and Knights were extremely adept on Horseback. Knights were also much better practiced at Calvary charges, highly trained with the deadly lance. Furthermore, if you wish to consider battles you have to assume the Knights would bring peasant archers with them. That negates their need to be proficient with bows, and gives them more time to train on horseback and in duels. Then you have Knights > Samurai in close quarters and in mounted horseback charges. English/Welsh Longbowman > Samurai bowman at range. European combat was more advanced. | ||
OhThatDang
United States4685 Posts
| ||
ydg
United States690 Posts
| ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
| ||
OhThatDang
United States4685 Posts
On July 27 2008 02:22 ydg wrote: The janissaries also used guns. hahahaha oh yeahhhhhh! rofl whoops forget my post :D and ughh its not just the asians who vote for samurai well maybe it is maybe its a coincidence that im asian myself but i just think that samurai would win so sue me | ||
SayaSP
Laos5494 Posts
| ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
The German, French and English nobleman destroyed them when they met at Rhodes. Siege of Rhodes Although the Knights had to retreat eventually they lost only 2,000 men to the Turks 64,000! That's an ass-wooping even the Spartans would be proud of. I don't know where this myth that Knights aren't trained comes from, it's completely unfounded. Knights are the nobles, chosen for their prowess in battle. Equipped in very expensive armor, highly trained in many weapons and experienced in battle. They are not mal-nurished peasants. | ||
Hippopotamus
1914 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
On July 27 2008 02:42 Klive5ive wrote: The Janissaries were not even close to as good as Knights. The German, French and English nobleman destroyed them when they met at Rhodes. Siege of Rhodes Although the Knights had to retreat eventually they lost only 2,000 men to the Turks 64,000! That's an ass-wooping even the Spartans would be proud of. I don't know where this myth that Knights aren't trained comes from, it's completely unfounded. Knights are the nobles, chosen for their prowess in battle. Equipped in very expensive armor, highly trained in many weapons and experienced in battle. They are not mal-nurished peasants. That said, the Mongols raped the Holy Roman Empire so bad it's not even funny. But because they only wanted to chill out in Hungary western Europe was left pretty much uninvaded. They sweep their way across Eurasia, arrive in Eastern Europe and annihilate the European great power of the day but then don't actually conquer anything. It's one of the great counterfactuals. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
| ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
On July 27 2008 02:51 Kwark wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 02:42 Klive5ive wrote: The Janissaries were not even close to as good as Knights. The German, French and English nobleman destroyed them when they met at Rhodes. Siege of Rhodes Although the Knights had to retreat eventually they lost only 2,000 men to the Turks 64,000! That's an ass-wooping even the Spartans would be proud of. I don't know where this myth that Knights aren't trained comes from, it's completely unfounded. Knights are the nobles, chosen for their prowess in battle. Equipped in very expensive armor, highly trained in many weapons and experienced in battle. They are not mal-nurished peasants. That said, the Mongols raped the Holy Roman Empire so bad it's not even funny. But because they only wanted to chill out in Hungary western Europe was left pretty much uninvaded. They sweep their way across Eurasia, arrive in Eastern Europe and annihilate the European great power of the day but then don't actually conquer anything. It's one of the great counterfactuals. You're talking nonsense. What do you mean "the Mongols". The Mongol empire ended at the end of the 14th Century when the Ming Dynasty was overthrown. I was making a point about a siege in 1522?! If you meant the Ottoman Empire they did indeed invade Western Europe, the reason they didn't attack Eastern Europe is because we were their military allies! When they captured Nice in 1543 from the Holy Roman Empire they were fighting alongside the French forces of Francis I. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:09 Klive5ive wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 02:51 Kwark wrote: On July 27 2008 02:42 Klive5ive wrote: The Janissaries were not even close to as good as Knights. The German, French and English nobleman destroyed them when they met at Rhodes. Siege of Rhodes Although the Knights had to retreat eventually they lost only 2,000 men to the Turks 64,000! That's an ass-wooping even the Spartans would be proud of. I don't know where this myth that Knights aren't trained comes from, it's completely unfounded. Knights are the nobles, chosen for their prowess in battle. Equipped in very expensive armor, highly trained in many weapons and experienced in battle. They are not mal-nurished peasants. That said, the Mongols raped the Holy Roman Empire so bad it's not even funny. But because they only wanted to chill out in Hungary western Europe was left pretty much uninvaded. They sweep their way across Eurasia, arrive in Eastern Europe and annihilate the European great power of the day but then don't actually conquer anything. It's one of the great counterfactuals. You're talking nonsense. What do you mean "the Mongols". The Mongol empire ended at the end of the 14th Century when the Ming Dynasty was overthrown. I was making a point about a siege in 1522?! If you meant the Ottoman Empire they did indeed invade Western Europe, the reason they didn't attack Eastern Europe is because we were their military allies! When they captured Nice in 1543 from the Holy Roman Empire they were fighting alongside the French forces of Francis I. Well, the Turks did almost take Vienna, but the Poles saved the city. | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![]() Also Japanese were familiar with mounted combat. And the Mongols DID land on Japanese soul: ![]() | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:09 Klive5ive wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 02:51 Kwark wrote: On July 27 2008 02:42 Klive5ive wrote: The Janissaries were not even close to as good as Knights. The German, French and English nobleman destroyed them when they met at Rhodes. Siege of Rhodes Although the Knights had to retreat eventually they lost only 2,000 men to the Turks 64,000! That's an ass-wooping even the Spartans would be proud of. I don't know where this myth that Knights aren't trained comes from, it's completely unfounded. Knights are the nobles, chosen for their prowess in battle. Equipped in very expensive armor, highly trained in many weapons and experienced in battle. They are not mal-nurished peasants. That said, the Mongols raped the Holy Roman Empire so bad it's not even funny. But because they only wanted to chill out in Hungary western Europe was left pretty much uninvaded. They sweep their way across Eurasia, arrive in Eastern Europe and annihilate the European great power of the day but then don't actually conquer anything. It's one of the great counterfactuals. You're talking nonsense. What do you mean "the Mongols". The Mongol empire ended at the end of the 14th Century when the Ming Dynasty was overthrown. I was making a point about a siege in 1522?! If you meant the Ottoman Empire they did indeed invade Western Europe, the reason they didn't attack Eastern Europe is because we were their military allies! When they captured Nice in 1543 from the Holy Roman Empire they were fighting alongside the French forces of Francis I. I was just pointing out that a conventional European army, knights and all, was absolutely crushed by an Asiatic army at the start of the medieval period. I wasn't refering to the Ottoman Empire. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:19 Kwark wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 03:09 Klive5ive wrote: On July 27 2008 02:51 Kwark wrote: On July 27 2008 02:42 Klive5ive wrote: The Janissaries were not even close to as good as Knights. The German, French and English nobleman destroyed them when they met at Rhodes. Siege of Rhodes Although the Knights had to retreat eventually they lost only 2,000 men to the Turks 64,000! That's an ass-wooping even the Spartans would be proud of. I don't know where this myth that Knights aren't trained comes from, it's completely unfounded. Knights are the nobles, chosen for their prowess in battle. Equipped in very expensive armor, highly trained in many weapons and experienced in battle. They are not mal-nurished peasants. That said, the Mongols raped the Holy Roman Empire so bad it's not even funny. But because they only wanted to chill out in Hungary western Europe was left pretty much uninvaded. They sweep their way across Eurasia, arrive in Eastern Europe and annihilate the European great power of the day but then don't actually conquer anything. It's one of the great counterfactuals. You're talking nonsense. What do you mean "the Mongols". The Mongol empire ended at the end of the 14th Century when the Ming Dynasty was overthrown. I was making a point about a siege in 1522?! If you meant the Ottoman Empire they did indeed invade Western Europe, the reason they didn't attack Eastern Europe is because we were their military allies! When they captured Nice in 1543 from the Holy Roman Empire they were fighting alongside the French forces of Francis I. I was just pointing out that a conventional European army, knights and all, was absolutely crushed by an Asiatic army at the start of the medieval period. I wasn't refering to the Ottoman Empire. Those were the Mongols, not the Japanese, so that has little/no significance to this discussion because of the different tactics, stratagems, and weapons/armor utilized. | ||
Madcatcf
Vietnam77 Posts
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... | ||
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
| ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:23 Madcatcf wrote: Vietnam repeled the Mongols 3 times. I wonder what kind of super weapons we had back then. Hmm... I wonder who cares. Hmm... | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
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 | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
| ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:23 Madcatcf wrote: Vietnam repeled the Mongols 3 times. I wonder what kind of super weapons we had back then. Hmm... One has to wonder what a people with an obsession with the steppes wanted with Vietnam. Maybe someone just explained to them that there were a lot of trees, not much good land for grazing and it rained a lot. | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:27 FragKrag wrote: How the fuck could Gallic bastards kill Uruk-Hai? I'm not surprised by CJ Entus's position on the chart at all. Uruk-hai are owned by trees. Srsly. | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:23 Madcatcf wrote: Vietnam repeled the Mongols 3 times. I wonder what kind of super weapons we had back then. Hmm... The Mamelukes also repelled a Mongol army at the pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut, halting the advance of the Mongols into Africa. | ||
HeavOnEarth
United States7087 Posts
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 theres no way CJ Entus > apaches what the fux and lolol swarm > trojans gg | ||
besiger
Croatia2452 Posts
| ||
Kaesi
United States82 Posts
On July 27 2008 03:23 Madcatcf wrote: 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. | ||
Ki_Do
Korea (South)981 Posts
| ||
![]()
Jibba
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. | ||
decafchicken
United States19967 Posts
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 | ||
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
- 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. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
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? | ||
![]()
Jibba
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. | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
| ||
fanatacist
10319 Posts
| ||
T-P-S
United States204 Posts
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
| ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
| ||
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
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. | ||
LuckyOne
266 Posts
+ 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 | ||
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
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. | ||
bboyldy
Korea (North)664 Posts
| ||
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
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. | ||
Madcatcf
Vietnam77 Posts
| ||
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
riotjune
United States3392 Posts
| ||
aseq
Netherlands3972 Posts
Madcatcf, samurai didn't have maces as far as i know, only wc3 and wow has, so your point isn't really valid. | ||
Steelflight-Rx
United States1389 Posts
| ||
aseq
Netherlands3972 Posts
Riotjune, i really think samurai had bows in this period, whereas medieval knight hadn't. Errrr. Europe probably didn't know what archers were all the way through even tho they came up with guns earlier. Errrrr. Welcome to the end of the era of samurai (which is roughly when knights reached Japan, thanks). | ||
loupouk
France105 Posts
but i'm realistic too if it's not a movie, chuck norris > bruce lee and knight> samurai | ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 27 2008 09:54 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: btw, if you think samurais are not awesome enough, samurais were the only people who defeated the mongol invasion, which btw, conquered the whole known world. Nothing else affected that victory. NOTHING | ||
Terranator
Canada286 Posts
| ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
| ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
swat
Australia142 Posts
Couldn't of you just edited your first post rather than going for a magical +5 postcount bump? There are too many contributing factors to put in to play to get a clear winner. If there were no outside factors though the knight would win easily. | ||
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
I'll just hop into my time machine and I'll get back to you guys later! *poof* | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
Also, as has been said before in this thread, the Japanese weren't the only ones who defeated the Mongol Hordes. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:21 Jyvblamo wrote: Umm... The Samurai weren't exactly fighting the battle-hardened soldiers of Genghis or Subedei, they were fighting the considerably weaker armies of Kublai Khan. Also, as has been said before in this thread, the Japanese weren't the only ones who defeated the Mongol Hordes. Mongols just controlled most of Asia and middle east not Europe(well a tiny part of it but w/e) lol something to consider | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:11 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: plus, the saracens fucking massacreed the stupid crusader knights, so they're no shit compared to samurai Think about what you just said. Europeans are not used to that kind of extreme heat. Your comparisons make no fucking sense. The army that was sent to Japan was of mainly Korean and Chinese, and then they lost most of their men in the journey. | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:27 IzzyCraft wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 10:21 Jyvblamo wrote: Umm... The Samurai weren't exactly fighting the battle-hardened soldiers of Genghis or Subedei, they were fighting the considerably weaker armies of Kublai Khan. Also, as has been said before in this thread, the Japanese weren't the only ones who defeated the Mongol Hordes. Mongols just controlled most of Asia and middle east not Europe(well a tiny part of it but w/e) lol something to consider The level of control that they wielded over their conquered lands is also debatable, as they often left local government intact and only demanded tribute. | ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:28 FragKrag wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 10:11 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: plus, the saracens fucking massacreed the stupid crusader knights, so they're no shit compared to samurai Think about what you just said. Europeans are not used to that kind of extreme heat. Your comparisons make no fucking sense. The army that was sent to Japan was of mainly Korean and Chinese, and then they lost most of their men in the journey. talk about sense, you mean like it has much sense a samurai battling a knight? if we're allowed to compare that i dont know why wouldnt be able to compare saracens to europeans. I mean we could actually compare those two, but i know what you mean. killing dragons make much sense too, because they were truly difficult foes to defeat!!!!!! | ||
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
![]() ![]() Samurai wins. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
Edit: But this is coming from a black player. | ||
CommanderFluffy
Taiwan1059 Posts
Too much sc. | ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:45 FragKrag wrote: Actually, I think protection from Black would be more useful. Edit: But this is coming from a black player. haha i actually think that the MTG knight is better, but its situational ![]() | ||
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12968 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:45 FragKrag wrote: Actually, I think protection from Black would be more useful. Edit: But this is coming from a black player. I'm assuming they're going at it face to face. Samurai would get+1+1 and own the knight. | ||
YPang
United States4024 Posts
| ||
REDBLUEGREEN
Germany1903 Posts
![]() | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:56 REDBLUEGREEN wrote: i think you're wrong, because you forgot that the samurai does not have good armor or shield and would get owned within the first 3 strikes ![]() How could we have been so blind...? | ||
opsayo
591 Posts
![]() | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
edit: ...especially katanas. | ||
lxginverse
Monaco1506 Posts
cause its cooler ![]() Suo... Hyoso-hojin lol | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
"Hey Bubba! Put this beer can on your head, I'ma shoot it!" | ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
Generally, knights are THE elite soldiers. They're strong as hell (able to cut charging enemies in half, even mounted), and they are wearing PLATE armor, making them invincible save for weak points in the armor (neck, joints). However, for the sake of the argument, we'll say the knight is using a sword and shield. This also means that the knight possesses high mobility even in full plate due to high strength. Samurais are also elite soldiers, seeking death in battle. This makes them to be extremely zealous soldiers who don't fear death. They naturally have high mobility, as well as the all powerful katana augmented with their highly skilled techniques. Katanas are traditionally able to cut most other swords due to the meticulous and precise crafting process, but it will not be able to cut through a slab of plate. If anything, the samurai has to stab the knight, which leaves the samurai open to be countered with a shield block and a nice stab in the gut. Therefore, the fight is simple... If the samurai charges first, the knight will block and cut him down by turtling... He'll shield his weak points and be able to dish out amazing damage with his strength. Trying to get behind the knight is useless, since the knight we're talking about has high mobility in the first place due to being able to wear the plate with ease... If the knight charges, the samurai can avoid his attack and swiftly counterattack in an hopefully vulnerable spot. If there is no such opening (and most likely there won't be due to the shield), the knight is back in control of the fight. TL;DR version: (Too long didn't read version) White people are too strong for us chinks. In any martial art, it's proven that no amount of technique beats pure raw manly strength. Combine the two (i.e. knights) and you've got an unstoppable melee killing machine. (Knights have extensive training too! (squires)) However, samurai usually are expert marksmen as well. They carry bows in addition to their swords. Therefore, the samurai will win if we are talking about real samurai who use bows. The knight may be able to last a long time by defending with his shield, but inevitably the knight will not be able to block 100% of the arrows shot. | ||
opsayo
591 Posts
| ||
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
On July 27 2008 10:03 Terranator wrote: Go knights! In all seriousness, most knights were mounted and cavalry > any melee foot soldier. How many times do I need to state that samurai also used horses? Seriously. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Everything about it was optimized for the quick draw and draw cut against a non-metallic target. They were tough enough to survive hitting steel armor without breaking (at least a couple of times), but they couldn't cut through unless it was weak. It had a good stabbing point, but it was balanced and curved for slashing, so stabbing with strength and precision against armor was difficult. The technology was basically the same as the spatha, which was in use in Europe in the 3rd century BC. European swordsmithing technology only improved from there, while Japan discovered it a millenium later and failed to progress beyond that level until contact was made with the West. Japan was basically limited to this one all-purpose long sword (although they also had the shorter wakizashi, and in earlier times they had a longer sword of similar design), while in Europe there were many specialized swords optimized for different purposes. Aside from special purpose optimizations and clever features, European swordsmithing was superior in three major aspects: a) Better understanding of cross-sectional structure. Japanese swords were all thick rectangular bars with a triangular edge. European swords used more sophisticated design features such as fullers, which allowed their swords to be lighter while having the same strength, as well as a choice between octagonal, diamond, hexagonal, lenticular, and hollow ground cross-sections for better suitability for specific purposes. b) Better understanding of temper. Katanas were tempered for one purpose alone: cutting power. That means a hard, sharp edge and a stiff yet durable, non-brittle back. There was no place on them that was suitable for forceful blocking: side, back, or edge, the blade was likely to be damaged when absorbing a hard hit directly. European blades might be tempered at the edges for a katana-like keen edge against non-armored opponents, or for a duller edge that would take less damage on armor, and the flats routinely had a temper like armor, so forceful blows could be blocked with the flat, avoiding damage to the blade. Some European swords were so springy they were almost impossible to break, and under the most extreme force (which would break a katana) would simply bend, so they could later be straightened, yet still had a stiff body and a sharp edge. c) Lower cost and more consistent quality. Superior European metallurgy and abundance of ores made swords much more affordable, and swordsmithing a much more viable business. There were more swordsmiths with more experience and more competition. A successful Japanese swordsmith might only have been involved in the manufacture of a hundred swords in his life, while his European equivalent might have made a thousand. Is it any wonder that the Japanese were mired in strict adherence to tradition while the Europeans experimented and made progress? The katana: just another heavy saber, optimized for fast killing of lightly armored opponents, no bells or whistles, expensive as hell. | ||
MCMcEmcee
United States1609 Posts
| ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 27 2008 12:29 Phyre wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 10:03 Terranator wrote: Go knights! In all seriousness, most knights were mounted and cavalry > any melee foot soldier. How many times do I need to state that samurai also used horses? Seriously. They weren't very good at fighting from horses, though. Normally they used horses as transporation to the battlefields, then got off of them and fought on foot, like dragoons. They didn't take the care in breeding large and fierce warhorses and training and equipping for the cavalry charge that the European knights did. For instance, they did not joust. Under certain circumstances, samurai would fight from horseback, with spear, sword, or even bow, but it wasn't their primary battlefield role the way it was with the knight. | ||
larra
Germany44 Posts
But since Japanese people likes to make an art of everything, a Kensai will own an elite Knight so bad with his micro and apm, the Knight will be cut into pieces from behind before he even realizes his opponent is 5 time faster than him, especially in sword-drawing technique. | ||
Jyvblamo
Canada13788 Posts
On July 27 2008 13:21 larra wrote: Normal Knight vs normal Samurai, Knight would win. But since Japanese people likes to make an art of everything, a Kensai will own an elite Knight so bad with his micro and apm, the Knight will be cut into pieces from behind before he even realizes his opponent is 5 time faster than him, especially in sword-drawing technique. The Kensai would lose because God would grant the Christian super-strength and he would kick the heathen's ass. | ||
Kaesi
United States82 Posts
In a straight up, on foot, sword vs sword fight, the knight has a significant edge I'd say. But the Samurai are not swordsmen... They're elite horse archers... Why are we even doing this comparison when it's been proven again and again horse archers >>>> Knights? | ||
LuckyOne
266 Posts
On July 27 2008 13:21 larra wrote: Normal Knight vs normal Samurai, Knight would win. But since Japanese people likes to make an art of everything, a Kensai will own an elite Knight so bad with his micro and apm, the Knight will be cut into pieces from behind before he even realizes his opponent is 5 time faster than him, especially in sword-drawing technique. no he will just take a potato chip ... and.... eat it!!! | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 27 2008 13:46 Jyvblamo wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 13:21 larra wrote: Normal Knight vs normal Samurai, Knight would win. But since Japanese people likes to make an art of everything, a Kensai will own an elite Knight so bad with his micro and apm, the Knight will be cut into pieces from behind before he even realizes his opponent is 5 time faster than him, especially in sword-drawing technique. The Kensai would lose because God would grant the Christian super-strength and he would kick the heathen's ass. yup hell if where gonna make shit up like knights can move faster then a turtle and swing swords as fast as a 2 year old with a base ball bat or samurais can do like front flips and run 19283102 miles an hour and can cut though cars might as well do spiritual power GOD>all lol holy wars ftw | ||
RowdierBob
Australia12843 Posts
| ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 27 2008 13:59 Kaesi wrote: I thought that article was very interesting and in-depth, but I think the OP of this thread lacks that same specificity. In a straight up, on foot, sword vs sword fight, the knight has a significant edge I'd say. But the Samurai are not swordsmen... They're elite horse archers... Why are we even doing this comparison when it's been proven again and again horse archers >>>> Knights? Yes, Samurai are not swordsmen. They are actually Mongolian/Hunnic cavalry archers. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
Knight = his own man Knight wins socially ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() So Samurai's are stronger but fuck knights are untouchable and can auto destroy shit. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
| ||
Kaesi
United States82 Posts
On July 27 2008 14:39 FragKrag wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 13:59 Kaesi wrote: I thought that article was very interesting and in-depth, but I think the OP of this thread lacks that same specificity. In a straight up, on foot, sword vs sword fight, the knight has a significant edge I'd say. But the Samurai are not swordsmen... They're elite horse archers... Why are we even doing this comparison when it's been proven again and again horse archers >>>> Knights? Yes, Samurai are not swordsmen. They are actually Mongolian/Hunnic cavalry archers. From wiki: The samurai stressed skill with the yumi (longbow), reflected in the art of kyujutsu (lit. the skill of the bow). The bow would remain a critical component of the Japanese military even with the introduction of firearms during the Sengoku Jidai period. The yumi, an asymmetric composite bow made from bamboo, wood, rattan and leather, was not as powerful as the Eurasian reflex composite bow, having an effective range of 50 meters (about 164 feet) or 100 meters ([328 feet]) if accuracy was not an issue. It was usually used on foot behind a tedate (手盾), a large and mobile bamboo wall, but shorter versions (hankyu) could also be used from horseback. The practice of shooting from horseback became a Shinto ceremony of Yabusame. The samurai used various weapons, but the katana is the weapon that is synonymous with samurai. Bushido teaches that the katana is the samurai's soul and sometimes a samurai is pictured as entirely dependent on the katana for fighting. They believe that the katana was so precious that they often gave them names and considered them as part of the living. However the use of swords did not become common in battle until the Kamakura period (1185–1333), where the tachi and uchigatana (the predecessor to the katana) became prevalent. The katana itself did not become the primary weapon until the Edo period. It's mostly marketing and PR that makes people think samurai = katana. Yeah, it's romanticized a lot, but that doesn't change history. It wasn't the primary weapon until the Edo period, and the Edo period runs from 1600-1830... so that means katanas weren't the primary weapon until the medieval ages were already over. In fact the Edo period is considered beginning of the modern period for Japan! | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 27 2008 16:12 Kaesi wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 14:39 FragKrag wrote: On July 27 2008 13:59 Kaesi wrote: I thought that article was very interesting and in-depth, but I think the OP of this thread lacks that same specificity. In a straight up, on foot, sword vs sword fight, the knight has a significant edge I'd say. But the Samurai are not swordsmen... They're elite horse archers... Why are we even doing this comparison when it's been proven again and again horse archers >>>> Knights? Yes, Samurai are not swordsmen. They are actually Mongolian/Hunnic cavalry archers. From wiki: The samurai stressed skill with the yumi (longbow), reflected in the art of kyujutsu (lit. the skill of the bow). The bow would remain a critical component of the Japanese military even with the introduction of firearms during the Sengoku Jidai period. The yumi, an asymmetric composite bow made from bamboo, wood, rattan and leather, was not as powerful as the Eurasian reflex composite bow, having an effective range of 50 meters (about 164 feet) or 100 meters ([328 feet]) if accuracy was not an issue. It was usually used on foot behind a tedate (手盾), a large and mobile bamboo wall, but shorter versions (hankyu) could also be used from horseback. The practice of shooting from horseback became a Shinto ceremony of Yabusame. The samurai used various weapons, but the katana is the weapon that is synonymous with samurai. Bushido teaches that the katana is the samurai's soul and sometimes a samurai is pictured as entirely dependent on the katana for fighting. They believe that the katana was so precious that they often gave them names and considered them as part of the living. However the use of swords did not become common in battle until the Kamakura period (1185–1333), where the tachi and uchigatana (the predecessor to the katana) became prevalent. The katana itself did not become the primary weapon until the Edo period. It's mostly marketing and PR that makes people think samurai = katana. Yeah, it's romanticized a lot, but that doesn't change history. It wasn't the primary weapon until the Edo period, and the Edo period runs from 1600-1830... so that means katanas weren't the primary weapon until the medieval ages were already over. In fact the Edo period is considered beginning of the modern period for Japan! Still 1 on 1 i'd only fight using a bow if i was on a horse also from most drawing of the era bowmen samurai didn't wear any armor. Hell only crossbow man use armor else it gets in your way most archers in Europe would crappy a large shield you shove into the ground creating a shield wall and the archers would fire from behind that. | ||
aseq
Netherlands3972 Posts
| ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
Knights are the definitely stronger in melee combat, while samurai fought with bows and even guns (see: arquebus). Ranged weapons will forever be the bane of knights, so if we're talking about a samurai with only a sword, the knight will utterly annihilate him whereas if the samurai was also armed with his traditional bow (or gun), then the samurai will emerge as the victor. But if we were to give limited ammunition to the samurai, the knight "may" yet come out as the victor providing he successfully dodges/blocks the arrows/bullets. Besides, the knights get all the wenches. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 27 2008 17:26 shinigami wrote: Again, knights can actually move fast even wearing plate because knights are generally made up of the strongest men. A samurai has no chance in melee range, especially if the knight is using a shield to further protect his neck and joints. Knights are the definitely stronger in melee combat, while samurai fought with bows and even guns (see: arquebus). Ranged weapons will forever be the bane of knights, so if we're talking about a samurai with only a sword, the knight will utterly annihilate him whereas if the samurai was also armed with his traditional bow (or gun), then the samurai will emerge as the victor. But if we were to give limited ammunition to the samurai, the knight "may" yet come out as the victor providing he successfully dodges/blocks the arrows/bullets. Besides, the knights get all the wenches. TT Although the catholic church was banned crossbows they where still used due to easier to aim and load and its alot more powerful then a bow. Also you should know knight armor where made esp if they are calvary to be arrow resistant most good plate mail will dent but not pierce the armor. A samurai that uses a bow would not wear armor if he expects to hit them its too restricting. Also if your going with a gun by then knight died out and so did samurai guns > all armor making anyone not using a gun useless. your not a samurai using a gun your just another marksman. By the time guns where in full swing knights and samurai where out of style. | ||
Play
Australia608 Posts
| ||
H
New Zealand6138 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 27 2008 17:54 p23s3 wrote: Samurai are like Jedi man... Knights are Archangels Jedi vs Holy MOTHERFUCKING POWER | ||
aeronexus
United States392 Posts
On July 27 2008 18:10 IzzyCraft wrote: Knights are Archangels Jedi vs Holy MOTHERFUCKING POWER so samurai:knight::jedi:god. this could lead to some very deep philosophizing. for example, did god even exist a long time ago in a galaxy far far away? (I am inclined towards the atheist version of that analogy tho ![]() | ||
Play
Australia608 Posts
On July 27 2008 18:10 IzzyCraft wrote: Knights are Archangels Jedi vs Holy MOTHERFUCKING POWER Jedi control the universe, or so the prophecy says... | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Against one enemy, it's not hard to see arrows coming and duck behind your shield. It's much harder against massed archers, and archers really become useful when they flank the enemy and attack from multiple directions at once, or against people (or horses) not covered by shields. Archers really shine against a massed cavalry charge. Shooting charging horses at the front of a crowd of charging horses creates utter chaos, and it's pretty rare for horses to be properly armored. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 27 2008 18:19 aeronexus wrote: Show nested quote + On July 27 2008 18:10 IzzyCraft wrote: On July 27 2008 17:54 p23s3 wrote: Samurai are like Jedi man... Knights are Archangels Jedi vs Holy MOTHERFUCKING POWER so samurai:knight::jedi:god. this could lead to some very deep philosophizing. for example, did god even exist a long time ago in a galaxy far far away? (I am inclined towards the atheist version of that analogy tho ![]() Well midichlorians are little particles that jedi manipulate whos to say god isn't some guy that does quantum physics and manipulates all particles in the universe | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28576 Posts
| ||
opsayo
591 Posts
Sorry, but it appears you've already voted in poll #4158: "Who would win? ". Well I'm out of ideas. | ||
![]()
Live2Win
![]()
United States6657 Posts
| ||
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
| ||
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_
455 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
2447 Posts
On July 28 2008 04:46 Spike wrote: Show nested quote + 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. 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: Show nested quote + 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. 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
On July 28 2008 04:40 noname_ wrote: Show nested quote + 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? 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
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 28 2008 06:13 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: You know people, armor doesnt mean autoinmunity against strikes. It's actually better to dodge an attack rather thank take a hit. The lack of armor offers great mobility, so i dont see how would lack of armor be a disadvantage in a battle. 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. Okay lol ill get in plate mail is designed to take slashes more or less cured to roll with the slashes etc and you can have the katana lets see who wins hell i wont even have a weapon just my gauntlets to punch you in the face. Armor is a god send other wise you can just get nicked and be slowed down bleeding slows you down alot more then armor ever would. Rapiers where a choice of sword to go with the musket because it was a light sword meant to pierce. When heavy armor become obsolete to guns leather armors of types where common to wear to prevents small cuts in a sword fight if your ever to miss with your gun and the guy has a sword so a piercing sword was chosen over a slashing sword for this reason its easier to pierce leather armor then it is to cut it. Armor > then no armor IT IS SITUATIONAL AND IT FITS THIS SITUATION SAMURAI WORE ARMOR THERE ARE NO PAINTINGS OF THE ERA WHERE A SAMURAI IS FIGHTING WITHOUT ARMOR UNLESS HES INSANE AND WANTS TO DIE FROM SMALL WOUNDS fucking die from tetanus from a small cut. Just cuz the guy is caring a sword doesn't make him samurai. Samurai have traditions and one of witch is preparing the body for battle WHICH INCLUDING WEARING ARMOR | ||
Februarys
Korea (South)259 Posts
Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Katanas are a slashing blade. You can't slash through plate mail. That's that. | ||
DamageControL
United States4222 Posts
On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Not plate mail. Yeah they can cut through a lot, perhaps even spear, but not plate mail armor. I voted for samauri cause im japanese but the knight would win | ||
Fishball
Canada4788 Posts
On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Samurai's has horses too ![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
Februarys
Korea (South)259 Posts
On July 26 2008 15:33 IzzyCraft wrote: We can just base it on size 6 Foot german vs 5 foot japanese More like 5'11 German and 5'7 Japanese Nice exaggeration | ||
Fishball
Canada4788 Posts
On July 28 2008 07:52 Kwark wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Katanas are a slashing blade. You can't slash through plate mail. That's that. No. Back then the Chinese has the 大刀(Big Blade?) for slashing and 長劍 (Long Sword) for thrusting. The Japanese wanted a weapon to be able to do both, hence they designed the Katana. Capable of doing both with its speed and power. You can look it up. | ||
Spike
United States1392 Posts
katana =/ lightsaber get it out of your heads; a katana will not slice through plate armor or shields. swordsmanship was advanced on both sides. too many people keep falling into the assumption that knights solely relied on brute strength and that all samurai's are the pinnacle of swordfighting. samurai's weren't used to fighting a shielded opponent. | ||
EmeraldSparks
United States1451 Posts
Good luck with a katana. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
On July 28 2008 07:57 Fishball wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 07:52 Kwark wrote: On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Katanas are a slashing blade. You can't slash through plate mail. That's that. No. Back then the Chinese has the 大刀(Big Blade?) for slashing and 長劍 (Long Sword) for thrusting. The Japanese wanted a weapon to be able to do both, hence they designed the Katana. Capable of doing both with its speed and power. You can look it up. If you have curved blade, it would never be as adept at thrusting as it is for slashing. Asian troops were not used to fighting heavily armored foes, so slashing worked out well. | ||
Fishball
Canada4788 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:04 FragKrag wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 07:57 Fishball wrote: On July 28 2008 07:52 Kwark wrote: On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Katanas are a slashing blade. You can't slash through plate mail. That's that. No. Back then the Chinese has the 大刀(Big Blade?) for slashing and 長劍 (Long Sword) for thrusting. The Japanese wanted a weapon to be able to do both, hence they designed the Katana. Capable of doing both with its speed and power. You can look it up. If you have curved blade, it would never be as adept at thrusting as it is for slashing. Asian troops were not used to fighting heavily armored foes, so slashing worked out well. I'm not actually arguing against the whole Samurai vs Knight thing, but I just wanted to point out that the Katana can in fact, and more or less meant to thrust in some way. There are actually Kendo styles that uses the Katana to thrust. | ||
SpiralArchitect
United States2116 Posts
Plus Samurais could be backed by ninjas at anytime thus making them more deadly than anything besides ninjas. voted Samurai this is like the closest poll ever | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:13 Fishball wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 08:04 FragKrag wrote: On July 28 2008 07:57 Fishball wrote: On July 28 2008 07:52 Kwark wrote: On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Katanas are a slashing blade. You can't slash through plate mail. That's that. No. Back then the Chinese has the 大刀(Big Blade?) for slashing and 長劍 (Long Sword) for thrusting. The Japanese wanted a weapon to be able to do both, hence they designed the Katana. Capable of doing both with its speed and power. You can look it up. If you have curved blade, it would never be as adept at thrusting as it is for slashing. Asian troops were not used to fighting heavily armored foes, so slashing worked out well. I'm not actually arguing against the whole Samurai vs Knight thing, but I just wanted to point out that the Katana can in fact, and more or less meant to thrust in some way. There are actually Kendo styles that uses the Katana to thrust. Its meant for thrusting like a long sword is you can do it but its not wise. Katana are top heavy the weight is in the blade, common for slashing swords to have this trait makes the slash more powerful and easier to go with. Thrusting blades are usually double edge and are grip heavy meaning your aim and control with the thrust is greatly enhanced. The katana has a pointed tip but its more or less for pushing chain mail or flesh it has a wide stock on the backing even if he stabbing thought the plate mail i doubt he get far in unless he has amazing strength to push far enough past the sharp part of the blade and to the backing. But by then the knight porably would have chopped him up good lol. Kanata can thrust but unless its hitting chain mail or less its very doubt full it will do much esp against plate mail that curves only an idiot bs would make it form fitting curving it lwins and glides off hits just point it out | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:17 Sp1ralArch1tect wrote: Traditionally I would say the Samurai would definitely win, just because Samurai have much more tact than your average knight. Plus Samurais could be backed by ninjas at anytime thus making them more deadly than anything besides ninjas. voted Samurai this is like the closest poll ever lol then the knights get to have legions of archers fire the first volleys i think the archers win as long as there is distance no need for knights. | ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
On July 28 2008 02:22 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: Show nested quote + 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". What I said is completely true. Any guy with decent martial arts training also does STRENGTH training. The best analogy would be a trained american boxer versus a wushu practitioner. The boxer does heavy duty strength and cardiovascular training, while the wushi practitioner would practice katas and breathing techniques. The boxer's fists would easily break the guy's jaw and win quite easily thanks to his strength augmented with boxing techniques. You can't win with just techniques alone. Strength is what protects or destroys people. | ||
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:36 zobz wrote: I'm coming in late but when was it agreed that it was katana vs broadsword? If i'm not mistaken there are plenty of old japanese weapons aside from the katana, particularly blunt ones which could dent and own plate armor i'm guessing, and i'm also guessing that the samurais would've been trained to employ these weapons on occasion? Hell most people aren't even thinking its a katana but like some sorta super sword that cuts though metal, cars, plate armor, cows, houses with ease. Anyways blunt weapons where meant to dent armor at lest in Europe but to throw the opposite to the ground or give them a concussion knock the air out of them etc. Doesn't matter if your armor is great if you get hit by a sledge(war) hammer your gonna feel something. | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
| ||
LemOn
United Kingdom8629 Posts
2k+++vs 2k++++ = Knights win all the time Period. | ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
On July 28 2008 08:33 shinigami wrote: What I said is completely true. Any guy with decent martial arts training also does STRENGTH training. The best analogy would be a trained american boxer versus a wushu practitioner. The boxer does heavy duty strength and cardiovascular training, while the wushi practitioner would practice katas and breathing techniques. That's a terribly faulty analogy. wushu is not combat designed. I want to see your boxer fight an aikido sensei, or 3rd++ dan taekwondoin. He'll probably not end up shitted up because he HAS BEEN TRAINED TO FIGHT, but eastern martial arts > western fighing any day. The boxer is not completly raw strenght, the analogy would fit best if a bodybuilder fought an advanced kung fu fighter. You know, the bodybuilder stands no chance. On July 28 2008 07:37 IzzyCraft wrote: Okay lol ill get in plate mail is designed to take slashes more or less cured to roll with the slashes etc and you can have the katana lets see who wins hell i wont even have a weapon just my gauntlets to punch you in the face. Armor is a god send other wise you can just get nicked and be slowed down bleeding slows you down alot more then armor ever would. Rapiers where a choice of sword to go with the musket because it was a light sword meant to pierce. When heavy armor become obsolete to guns leather armors of types where common to wear to prevents small cuts in a sword fight if your ever to miss with your gun and the guy has a sword so a piercing sword was chosen over a slashing sword for this reason its easier to pierce leather armor then it is to cut it. Armor > then no armor IT IS SITUATIONAL AND IT FITS THIS SITUATION SAMURAI WORE ARMOR THERE ARE NO PAINTINGS OF THE ERA WHERE A SAMURAI IS FIGHTING WITHOUT ARMOR UNLESS HES INSANE AND WANTS TO DIE FROM SMALL WOUNDS fucking die from tetanus from a small cut. Just cuz the guy is caring a sword doesn't make him samurai. Samurai have traditions and one of witch is preparing the body for battle WHICH INCLUDING WEARING ARMOR you missed completly my point. I stated that wearing heavy armor is not autowin because of the reasons i posted. If you were too blind to notice it's not my fault. Of course samurai wore armor, armor protects from slashes and light blunts, but at the cost of mobility. I dont think you have noticed but troops that wore next to no armor were troops who were meant as either: hit and run/cannon fodder. The mainstay of the army wore armor. | ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
On July 28 2008 09:44 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 08:33 shinigami wrote: What I said is completely true. Any guy with decent martial arts training also does STRENGTH training. The best analogy would be a trained american boxer versus a wushu practitioner. The boxer does heavy duty strength and cardiovascular training, while the wushi practitioner would practice katas and breathing techniques. That's a terribly faulty analogy. wushu is not combat designed. I want to see your boxer fight an aikido sensei, or 3rd++ dan taekwondoin. He'll probably not end up shitted up because he HAS BEEN TRAINED TO FIGHT, but eastern martial arts > western fighing any day. The boxer is not completly raw strenght, the analogy would fit best if a bodybuilder fought an advanced kung fu fighter. You know, the bodybuilder stands no chance. That analogy is also fatally flawed. Bodybuilding is not strength training, but rather a sport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_training So with that in mind, a fighter with superior strength training will destroy the other fighter. So in my analogy, the boxer who has a much tougher training menu will destroy the wushu practitioner... Obviously! I guess Dragonball Z is my final decisive analogy to you. When Goku's power level is over 9000, it's pretty much over for Vegeta. | ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
Im thinking you're resonable and not thinkining that a 100 pound aikido sensei will win over a 250 pound boxer. average build person vs heavy weight probably | ||
Pangolin
United States1035 Posts
If I must give actual reasoning then I would say that it is because Knights have better armor and a shield. People seem to think that a Samurai would be able to just run around forever dodging attack, but Samurai wear armor as well so they would also get worn out. Also running away like that doesn't seem to hold to the Samurai ethos. However, if you would have asked me 3 months ago right after I watched Yojimbo I surely would have voted for Samurai and come up with reasoning for that as well. edit: I accidentally clicked Samurai so in the unlikely case that this poll comes down to a tie, consider the tie broken. | ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
On July 28 2008 10:17 RtS)Night[Mare wrote: you're using the same flawed analogy, wushu does not train for combat, boxer do. A fair analogy would be boxer vs aikido sensei. Even if the boxer is super strong. the aikido sensei will oblitarate him because the whole martial art is revolved around using the other people's strenght to their own oblivion. Im thinking you're resonable and not thinkining that a 100 pound aikido sensei will win over a 250 pound boxer. average build person vs heavy weight probably Aikido masters still need basic strength to be able to control their opponents. Again, you cannot win with just technique alone. | ||
XCetron
5225 Posts
| ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
Raw power is always more valuable than technique. In Super Robot Wars, the super robots win vs real robots. (power vs technical) In boxing, those with natural high power naturally dominate the agile boxers. In arm wrestling, technique doesn't matter at all. It's pretty much natural selection. | ||
XCetron
5225 Posts
| ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
And especially in anime/manga. But I'm also a realist, and quietly accept the truth that a souped up Skyline GT-R totally outclasses a Trueno (especially in Gran Turismo 4... R34s are rigged); Mr. Three-Two took the downhill challenge, negating his power advantage in the first place. Still, the RX-7 vs R34 in Fourth Stage... Best battle ever. | ||
Andaroo
Canada70 Posts
Of course... the samurai could just kill the horse and run around until the knight got tired and died from exhaustion, but then you wouldn't really need a samurai for that... | ||
Phyre
United States1288 Posts
On July 28 2008 11:38 Andaroo wrote: Uh... so not fair. The Japanese didn't have access to loads of metal, so samurai would never have had the opportunity to deal with a suit of plate armor before. Of course... the samurai could just kill the horse and run around until the knight got tired and died from exhaustion, but then you wouldn't really need a samurai for that... From what I understand, if you killed the horse of a knight 9/10 times the knight died from the fall or was crushed by the horse. Coming from my history teacher. | ||
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
| ||
Night[Mare
Mexico4793 Posts
| ||
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
On July 28 2008 12:04 ~OpZ~ wrote: Show nested quote + On July 26 2008 13:37 HypnoticPoo wrote: But katanas can cut through long swords, or any european sword for that matter, go watch mythbusters You mean that episode when they had to put the ability beyond human to make the sword break and broke it, but also made the Katana a dull piece of fecal matter. (Chipped, dull, all but useless) Yeah really, the katana only went though another sword when it was powered by a hydraulic arm swinging 10 times harder than any human could. And the katana was rendered useless after the hit, and I think broke on at least a few of their attempts. | ||
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On July 26 2008 14:41 IzzyCraft wrote: Basically imo Knight Samurai where above a lonely footman and where most familiar with sword play and nothing else Knight usually if rich enough on a horse in full armor with a lance Sorry man+horse=GG Samurai were actually more skilled with bows.... -_- | ||
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On July 28 2008 12:08 Haemonculus wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 12:04 ~OpZ~ wrote: On July 26 2008 13:37 HypnoticPoo wrote: But katanas can cut through long swords, or any european sword for that matter, go watch mythbusters You mean that episode when they had to put the ability beyond human to make the sword break and broke it, but also made the Katana a dull piece of fecal matter. (Chipped, dull, all but useless) Yeah really, the katana only went though another sword when it was powered by a hydraulic arm swinging 10 times harder than any human could. And the katana was rendered useless after the hit, and I think broke on at least a few of their attempts. And there wasn't a single "cut" in those experiments. Every sword that was broken was snapped. | ||
~OpZ~
United States3652 Posts
On July 28 2008 12:08 Haemonculus wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 12:04 ~OpZ~ wrote: On July 26 2008 13:37 HypnoticPoo wrote: But katanas can cut through long swords, or any european sword for that matter, go watch mythbusters You mean that episode when they had to put the ability beyond human to make the sword break and broke it, but also made the Katana a dull piece of fecal matter. (Chipped, dull, all but useless) Yeah really, the katana only went though another sword when it was powered by a hydraulic arm swinging 10 times harder than any human could. And the katana was rendered useless after the hit, and I think broke on at least a few of their attempts. They had 4 Katanas. All four were destroyed. One cut the sword but became COMPLETELY useless as a cutting tool, and at thrusting....well...Thats like trying to straighten a paper clip and thrusting with it....If it isn't straight and you're stabbing...yea...imagine that working well. | ||
EAGER-beaver
Canada2799 Posts
| ||
GunsofthePatriots
South Africa991 Posts
On July 26 2008 13:27 TryThis wrote: depends, does the knight get a horse/lance? cause that would give him a huge advantage, however in flat sword on sword combat i think the samurai would win, simply because the katana is a far superior weapon then a broad sword would be. Yeah, a fucking katana is going to rip through some armor. Give me a break. | ||
pyogenes
Brazil1401 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
bp1696
United States288 Posts
On July 28 2008 10:52 shinigami wrote: "In any martial art, it's proven that no amount of technique beats pure raw manly strength." Raw power is always more valuable than technique. In Super Robot Wars, the super robots win vs real robots. (power vs technical) In boxing, those with natural high power naturally dominate the agile boxers. In arm wrestling, technique doesn't matter at all. It's pretty much natural selection. Muhammed Ali. Not that I voted for samurai, but your generalizations are spurious. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
Samurai is also a very broad term for a large amount of Japanese soldiers at the time. They could range from being unskilled, to extremely skilled. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On July 28 2008 13:52 FragKrag wrote: People underestimate the power of steel plate armor. It is virtually impenetrable to any kind of sword. I don't care if your katana can cut through a tank, it can't cut through plate armor. Later variants of plate armor were effective against arquebus shots at close range, while being only 70 lbs. Samurai is also a very broad term for a large amount of Japanese soldiers at the time. They could range from being unskilled, to extremely skilled. I will bet you $5000000 a katana that can cut through a Challenger 2 tank can cut through plate armor. And as far as skill goes, the range of knight skill is probably greater than samurai skill. Samurai still had training as warriors, while many knights were simply nobility. | ||
![]()
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
That being said, since medieval plate was near-impervious, a cutting edge such as that of a katana would do very little against it; using a heavier, duller blade to break the bones underneath would be far more efficacious. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
Added: Or alternatively, he just pew pews laser from his eyes to melt the hilt. | ||
![]()
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
![]()
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
kramus
United States1259 Posts
| ||
dinmsab
Malaysia2246 Posts
| ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 28 2008 13:52 FragKrag wrote: Samurai is also a very broad term for a large amount of Japanese soldiers at the time. They could range from being unskilled, to extremely skilled. This bears repeating. Knights were elite heavy cavalry and nobility. They were a tiny portion of the population. Samurai were about 5% of the population of Japan. There were lots of them. They weren't rare or elite, and a lot of them were landless and poor. Many of them were illiterate, boorish, unskilled, and poorly equipped. They often lived the lives of bandits, waging war for the chance to loot and rape, and commonly rebelled or turned traitor for a chance at greater profit. Samurai are more properly comparable to European men-at-arms, a category which included knights, but also many other non-noble soldiers who were nonetheless dedicated to a single lord and enjoyed high status in society, and often had hope of promotion to knighthood if they served well in battle. Samurai from the Edo period barely deserved to be called warriors at all, for all of their posing as such and veneration of the sword. The Edo period was a peaceful time, and a time of xenophobic totalitarian oppression. The samurai were stripped of their lands and paid a salary. They wielded their weapons mainly against unarmed peasants, and had the right to do so for any reason. They were thugs of the government, walking symbols that sudden death waited for anyone who stepped out of line. Their own lives were in constant danger from their superiors as well, and they could be ordered to commit suicide for trivial misconduct or suspicion of disloyality (although this wouldn't always save their families or subordinates, refusing to commit an ordered suicide was a good way to get one's family and friends executed as well as yourself). This is the time when they gained a reputation for being cultured. Since they had no real work, fought no wars, received salary, and were not permitted to engage in industry or commerce, they wasted their time on idle amusements such as poetry, tea ceremony, and flower arrangement. In this manner, they faded to irrelevance, were replaced by a modern military, and eventually lost all privilege of rank. The romantic ideal of the samurai is only that. Few of them lived up to it. The same can be said of the knight, but knights were a more select, elite, and wealthier group than samurai, and accordingly, the average knight was held to a higher standard, and less likely to be in an unfortunate situation that made bad behavior attractive. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 28 2008 15:09 koreasilver wrote: Westerners absolutely overestimate the Japanese katana. I blame all those people watching crappy Japanese shows *There are good Japanese shows frankly ionno what they are but good movies i know lol* and think that nijars are super cool TT like the people that believe MA are absolutely great when everyone knows good grappling beats any form of ma! Wanna know something that nice little shiny part of the blade is a show of how poor quality metals katanas where made of. It's not for ascetics well now it is but back then its cuz good quality iron to form steel if the guy was lucky was hard to come buy so you use higher quality stuff for the point and just stock shit for the backing. FAIL kid i think we call this natural selection... I know we had a thread of this kid lol but ionno where it is. | ||
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
Therefore, knights win. | ||
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On July 28 2008 15:44 MYM.Testie wrote: There are no Samurai in George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series. Therefore, knights win. Well played Sir. We should remake the poll: Knights, Samurai, or Oberyn Martell | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
| ||
ShaLLoW[baY]
Canada12499 Posts
On July 28 2008 15:57 Funchucks wrote: Sandor Clegane voted "samurai" (even though he had never heard of them before). Man I really want to go reread this series again. In the meantime, I'll just continue my nightly "Hurry-the-fuck-up-and-finish-the-next-one" prayer. | ||
Muey
Finland149 Posts
On July 28 2008 14:14 Last Romantic wrote: That being said, since medieval plate was near-impervious, a cutting edge such as that of a katana would do very little against it; using a heavier, duller blade to break the bones underneath would be far more efficacious. Swords are not bludgeoning weapons and are not to be used as such, or said sword will most likely turn into an unusable heap of scrap way faster than intended. Not to say you can't do physical bashing with it, but ultimately the sword is a precision-made tool for cutting & thursting, and thus is constructed & balanced with this usage in mind. If you want to bash armor, you need to pick up a warhammer, mace, morning star or other blunt weapon created for the very purpose, because no sword was ever made with the intent to bash armor, and therefore no sword exists that would be good at it. Pure logic should already state this if you sit and think about the weapons for a minute - bashing weapons in general are top-heavy to give the wielder more power behind their hit, where as a good longsword will have a center of balance roughly at the handguard, as to so allow as easy handling as possible, for with a cutting & thursting weapon you need not use much as force against your target because the blade will do the extra work for you, and thus fast and good handling is to be preferred over raw physical impact strength. Of course, there were swords that had been tailored for use against plate mail - but these were long, thick, diamond-shaped rods instead of the usual flat blade you picture with a sword, with dull edges and and a sharp point, and were made for the purpose of puncturing through vulnerable parts in the armor, not to bash it open or cause damage to the target through physical shock damage. Even the "big" twohanders that popular fantasy likes to decipt as huge swingaxes made for doing large sweeping motions cutting anything in their path are anything but that - Unlike the popular image, in reality twohanders were relatively light-handled for a two-handed weapon, seldom weighting over 8 pounds, and their primary usage in warfare was to cut swaths through pikemen formations, rather being a weapon of choice for open infantry melees. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42116 Posts
On July 28 2008 07:57 Fishball wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 07:52 Kwark wrote: On July 28 2008 07:49 Februarys wrote: I thought the Japanese Katanas (the good ones) took months and maybe years to make...(pounding and crafting to create the sharpest blade possible) and I heard that some of the good ones can cut through almost anything...probably even plate mail Forgive me if I'm wrong but the good Katanas could cut up almost anything the knight has and the Samurai's swordmanship level was very advanced...thats why 'kendo ' is still very popular even today, while I don't see any sword arts that are popular from Europe except 'fencing' and you kind of can't really do fencing with a 2 handed claymore That being said, the Knight probably had an advantage with a horse but thats probably it Katanas are a slashing blade. You can't slash through plate mail. That's that. No. Back then the Chinese has the 大刀(Big Blade?) for slashing and 長劍 (Long Sword) for thrusting. The Japanese wanted a weapon to be able to do both, hence they designed the Katana. Capable of doing both with its speed and power. You can look it up. They may have wanted a weapon that can slash through armour and thrust at range and cook dinner while winning the hearts and minds of civilians but that doesn't mean that the weapon they ultimately ended up using is that. You can't slash through steel plate because the force needed to push a blade through a wall of steel is less than the blade can withstand and the human can swing at. The blade will just scratch along the surface. As for thrusting. What you want is a long dagger like a dirk which you can just punch through a weak point in the armour. It works because it is essentially a spike. A katana with its curved blade is not essentially a spike. It is not designed for a high stress impact along the length of it. You can poke flesh with it, you may even have some luck against leather but ramming it into a chunk of steel will break it. | ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
In a fight a knight only cares about killing his enemy and surviving himself all be it wounded. He didn't care if it looked good or not. Raw practicallity. Dynamic. I see no way the knight will lose unless he gets overconfident and wears himself out or overextents an attack and exposes a weakspot in the armour. | ||
opsayo
591 Posts
On July 28 2008 10:52 shinigami wrote: "In any martial art, it's proven that no amount of technique beats pure raw manly strength." Raw power is always more valuable than technique. In Super Robot Wars, the super robots win vs real robots. (power vs technical) In boxing, those with natural high power naturally dominate the agile boxers. In arm wrestling, technique doesn't matter at all. It's pretty much natural selection. In arm wrestling there is still quite a bit of technique involved. In boxing, anyone at a world class level has unbelievable athleticism and top of the ladder technique. Compared to the layman boxer even George Foreman was a technical master. I assume you are simply overexaggerating, with your "power beats technique." In wrestling it is entirely technique. You can't force moves if you don't have it. With technique comes power and speed. In jiu jitsu it is even more so centered on technique (I would know). It's not like this is a fight of a paper doll with masterful zen abilities versus the incredible hulk blindfolded... both parties are going to have technique and strength. As for whoever mentioned Aikido - please, I think we should discuss real forms of fighting. | ||
r.Evo
Germany14079 Posts
While european weapons were built to use brutal strength to damage armors (e.g. european swords weren't meant to "cut" through armor but to disform it. Including the man inside.) ...japanese fighting styles aim on hitting the vulnerable spots of an armor. For example armpits, throat etc. ... Also, if you're talking about "traditional european plate armor" ... ever tried to actually GET UP after falling to the ground in one of these? ;o ... Also those things are goddamn heavy and it get's fucking warm in there. Just get the knight on foot, drop ur own armor and use a naginata (kind of a glaive). ggnore. | ||
FragKrag
United States11545 Posts
![]() this shit is imba but, I doubt it can find a weakness in plate armor, because they were almost always covered up with chain mail "shirts" | ||
BaDayOri
Korea (South)469 Posts
On July 28 2008 20:20 KaasZerg wrote: The samuria cared too much about tradition, honnor and ellegance. Stuck in his ways. Static. In a fight a knight only cares about killing his enemy and surviving himself all be it wounded. He didn't care if it looked good or not. Raw practicallity. Dynamic. no | ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
On July 28 2008 20:43 opsayo wrote: Show nested quote + On July 28 2008 10:52 shinigami wrote: "In any martial art, it's proven that no amount of technique beats pure raw manly strength." Raw power is always more valuable than technique. In Super Robot Wars, the super robots win vs real robots. (power vs technical) In boxing, those with natural high power naturally dominate the agile boxers. In arm wrestling, technique doesn't matter at all. It's pretty much natural selection. In arm wrestling there is still quite a bit of technique involved. In boxing, anyone at a world class level has unbelievable athleticism and top of the ladder technique. Compared to the layman boxer even George Foreman was a technical master. I assume you are simply overexaggerating, with your "power beats technique." In wrestling it is entirely technique. You can't force moves if you don't have it. With technique comes power and speed. In jiu jitsu it is even more so centered on technique (I would know). It's not like this is a fight of a paper doll with masterful zen abilities versus the incredible hulk blindfolded... both parties are going to have technique and strength. As for whoever mentioned Aikido - please, I think we should discuss real forms of fighting. Technique is important. All I'm saying is that technique can't beat out power unless the technician has power himself. I agree with the aikido thing... It'll never work in real combat. On that note, pro wrestling isn't even real combat either. Jujutsu is top-tier, but in a controlled environment with rules. Outside of that, different conditions and variables will give different arts the advantage. In the knight vs samurai division, my argument still stands. To reiterate, the knight has high mobility despite the heavy armor because it's not that heavy to him. The knight is a strong motherfucker, and knows how to fight against other armored targets. The samurai has no chance in melee since the knight specializes in it, and must resort to using the gun/bow he carries to win since ranged is the ultimate bane of armored (and unarmored) targets... But depending on the knight's skill at blocking, he may still come out on top if the samurai runs out of ammo. The knight is unquestionably the favourite in an all-melee fight. | ||
LuckyOne
266 Posts
edit: yea its called yari but i dont know if it can pierce armor like knights spears Poll: whats a poll (Vote): pool (Vote): pol (Vote): poo | ||
Muey
Finland149 Posts
On July 28 2008 23:42 r.Evo wrote:While european weapons were built to use brutal strength to damage armors (e.g. european swords weren't meant to "cut" through armor but to disform it. Including the man inside.) No, and no. Read my post at the end of page 17. Also, if you're talking about "traditional european plate armor" ... ever tried to actually GET UP after falling to the ground in one of these? ;o ... Also those things are goddamn heavy and it get's fucking warm in there. As stated many times, while full plate does add weight, they're not very nearly as cumbersome as you think because that weight is well-distributed, and it is worn by a person who is used & has been trained for wearing it. Getting up after falling is no problem. Running is no problem. Of course you won't be as fast or agile as an unarmored person, but the cumbersomeness of full plate is by large extremely exaggerated, usually stemming from contemporary poorly informed opinions based on bad desciptions in popular culture and the seemingly sensible common sense idea that anything made of metal must naturally be super heavy, on top of the medieval period generally being pictured as a time of "backwardness - The same reason why people have the silly notion that longswords weighted 20 pounds, had dull edges & were used to hack open enemy plate armor by force -_-. Just get the knight on foot, drop ur own armor and use a naginata (kind of a glaive). ggnore. The naginata is a curved glaive weapon, and like the katana, primarly made for slashing and thus suffers from all the same problems the Katana does when facing a full plate knight. In fact, many naginatas were little more than re-used katana blades attached to the end of a balanced pole. It does however, being a poled weapon, have the advantage of reach, but with little chance to actually do physical damage it's not going to give you that much more of an advantage over a sword. Obviously, for actually "getting the knight on foot" (eg dismounting him), it is a good choice of a weapon. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
Krohm
Canada1857 Posts
On July 29 2008 06:55 IzzyCraft wrote: aww i thought this died... It should die, its really a pointless debate thread. There is far to many variables to really say who would win for sure, but I'm leaning towards a knight. Lots of the people who voted for the Samurai are also very miss, and undereducated about them. Samurai were not some super soldiers of the past. Also knights were not some big clunky and slow hulks in 200 pounds of iron armor... The only way I can see the Samurai winning is if they got lucky with their dagger, and hit a weak spot or exposed spot in a knights armor. But overall, there is just too many variables. | ||
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
On July 28 2008 23:42 r.Evo wrote: While european weapons were built to use brutal strength to damage armors (e.g. european swords weren't meant to "cut" through armor but to disform it. Including the man inside.) Swords weren't used in war. Swords are just... swords. It's a personal weapon and symbol of status. If you don't want to die you get something that's actually useful in war. Disform armour with a sword? You know the difference between a sword and a flail, right? Also, vs plate armour a weapon is useless. What you need is a 'tin can opener'. Specialized weapons that are retarded vs anything else. You dismount a knight with a pole arm that's designed to do just and only that. If he doesn't get trampled by the other knights then you and your fellow peasants sit on him before he can get up, since his armour won't do this for you, and then one guy uses the 'tin can opener' to kill him. You can train samurai to do that, I guess. You can also give the samurai guy the same armour. Humans are humans. Stuff like 'samurai are better trained' or 'knights are stronger, they're more elite' is all nonsense. Knights and samurai are so unspecific terms. There have been all kinds of different knights and samurai. Just look at the time span and at the number of people. | ||
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
![]()
disciple
9070 Posts
| ||
Ceril
Sweden1343 Posts
Do note this is at 0 degrees, straight on the plate, not angeled to further reduce inpact and 20 meters, longbow strength. You dont wear armor if its not going to help you against the opponents weapons. Also note its not to thick. | ||
3 Lions
![]()
United States3705 Posts
| ||
Ceril
Sweden1343 Posts
| ||
KaasZerg
Netherlands927 Posts
edit: something I found on knights armour. It looks easier then I thought. | ||
KissBlade
United States5718 Posts
| ||
_PulSe_
United States541 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + Knight Vs. Samurai * Report Here's an interesting read if you got the time. The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai? [The Scenario] First of all, we must ask where is it these two lone warriors would meet? Under what circumstances? Since the conditions of this imaginary fight could play a major factor, it can be proposed that such an encounter would best take place on a flat, firm, open field with no cover and plenty of room to maneuver. Though each is an accomplished horseman, it would also be conducive to have the single-combat duel occur dismounted, alone, on foot and without use of missile weapons. Interestingly, the same climate and weather for each would be just about right. There are a great many intangibles to consider here. The ability of each combatant to read or size up their opponent and the threat they posed would be an important consideration. Are both to be briefed on the nature of their opponent and his armaments? Or will the encounter be a blind one in which neither knows anything about their adversary? We might want to just assume that each of our ideal combatants has been informed to some degree regarding the other and therefore mentally prepared and composed. Of course, if we are supposing a clash between two "typical warriors", we must also ask exactly what will be considered typical? The knights of circa 1100 and the samurai of circa 1200 were roughly evenly matched in equipment. But the same comparative warriors during the 1400's for instance, were quite dissimilar. Each of the two historical warriors in question did fight with equivalent technologies, under fairly similar climates and terrain, and for similar reasons. But it's difficult to think in terms of a "generic" Medieval knight or a "standard" samurai warrior. With respect to a European knight, it's not easy to choose what nationality, and what type of warrior from which portion of the overall Middle Ages. With the samurai though, we are dealing with a single, homogenous culture and one in which versions of their historical martial traditions have survived, in one form or another, fairly intact. Thus we have a somewhat better idea of the average samurai's training and ability through the centuries than compared to contemporary European warriors. Then again, it's sometimes argued that today's version of modern civilian budo ("war ways") is not equivalent to the historical military bujutsu ("war skills") of the samurai. At the same time, while we may not have an extant tradition of knightly martial arts any longer, we however do have volumes of actual training manuals from the era describing in technical detail for us just what their skills and methods at the time were all about. As for the knight, are we assuming he will be a maile clad Norman with sword and kite shield from the year 1066? An English or French chevalier of 1350 in partial plate with arming sword ready for duel in the champ clos? Will he be an Italian condottieri from 1450 resplendent in full regalia? Or will he be a Teutonic knight of circa 1400 in a head-to-toe suit of articulated Gothic plate-armor and ******* sword? Will the samurai be wearing the older box-like Muromachi armor and armed with a tachi blade? Or will he wear the later close fitting Kamakura period do-maru armor and use the more familiar katana? For that matter, would the samurai be allowed to use both his long katana and his wakizashi short sword together? These are significant matters that get at the heart of why such a question as who would "win" or who is the "better" fighter (or even whose equipment was better) really is unanswerable. Of course, for the sake of engaging discourse let us hypothesize just what would happen if these two comparable individuals, each highly trained and experienced in the respective fighting skills of their age, were to meet on the battlefield in single combat to the death (!). As an amusing historical diversion we can at least make an educated guess to what would possibly be, not the result, so much as some of the key decisive elements of such an encounter. The Warriors We can reasonably assume that the personal attributes such as individual strength, speed, stamina, age, health, and courage, are fairly consistent between such professional warriors. Assuming we can somehow control for these attributes, we could match combatants with some equality. It would not be unrealistic to believe on a whole that neither was likely decisively stronger or faster than the other. Although, we can't discount physiology as a factor and this would certainly be a reasonable advantage for the European (16th century samurai armor examples are sized for men around 5'3"-5'5", while European armor from the same period and earlier would fit men ranging from just under 6' to about 6'5"). Although, other evidence suggests average European heights in the 16th century were just above 5 feet. Interestingly, while the European concept of physical fitness among knights by the 15th century emphasized the classical Greco-Roman youthful physique of a narrow waist and broad shoulders on a lean frame, the Japanese ideal was one of a more mature man having a wider base and broader middle -no doubt reflecting the natural ethnographic characteristics of each race, but also influencing the fighting techniques they employed. To what degree this occurred is worth contemplating. We might also want to consider the forms of warfare each swordsman was experienced in and focused upon. The early samurai engaged in a ritualized style of warfare where individual champions might fight separate battlefield duels following established protocols, as opposed to a later mounted archery style of combat amidst pike formations of lesser foot soldiers. Their clan warfare was decidedly feudalistic yet with acquiring and honor and renown also being a goal. Skirmishing was not also uncommon and there were a few large scale military expeditions to Korea and surrounding islands. But most combat occurred in the environment of the home islands. Whereas in contrast, knights emphasized mounted shock warfare with couched lances, and off the field a concern for chivalric and judicial duels as well as tournaments of all kinds. The Western way of war for knights was directed more at a traditional battle of annihilation as part of an overall campaign of conquest. Yet, individual challenges, whether to the death or not, were frequent. Knightly arms and armor were the result of a dynamic interaction of Latin, Celtic, and Germanic cultures as well as Turkish and Arabic influences. The environment knights fought under was extensive and diverse, ranging from the cold of Scandinavia to the deserts of the Middle East, from the plains of Western Europe to the deep forest of the East, and the swamps, fields, and mountains in between. We cannot overlook the role that culture might play in this contest. Samurai warriors existed in a hierarchical and conformist culture that rewarded obedience and loyalty over individuality. Knights existed in a more complex and fluid society that emphasized self-expression with a long tradition of reliance on individual initiative. Both cultures had experience fighting against outsiders and foreigners: the Europeans encountered the Turks, Mongols, Saracens, and others; the Japanese encountered the Koreans, Chinese, Mongols, and others. Thus, in considering the historical record on cross-cultural collisions in different locations, would we want to give the edge to the more socially diverse Europeans on this? On an individual basis then, we must consider what effect might be played by the quality of fatalism within the samurai code of bushido, or rather the resolute acceptance of death that motivated the fiercest samurai. But then, we cannot overlook the quality of piety and faith that could motivate a noble knight to great feats, or of the ideals of chivalry that he might uphold to the death. It's possible a Medieval European knight would have a certain disdain and scorn for his foreign, "pagan" adversary. Of course, the Japanese warrior's well-known attitude of proud invincibility and readiness to die for his lord could equally make him vulnerable to an unfamiliar foe. Contempt for life and contempt for a dangerous, unknown opponent you might underestimate can be a disastrous combination. While courage is important, fighting spirit alone is insufficient. There are surely intangibles here that we cannot be measured with any reliability. These and other non-quantifiable, psychological factors aside, we are left with weapons, armor, and training. The Armor Armor changes things in swordplay. If you've never trained in it, you can't imagine how it affects your movements and execution of even simple actions. It has been said that while Europeans designed their armor to defeat swords, the Japanese designed their swords to defeat armor. There is a certain truth to this, but it's a simplistic view. The better Japanese armor was constructed of small overlapping lacquered metal scales or plates tied together with silk cords in order to specifically resist the slicing cut of the katana. It allowed good freedom of movement while offering excellent protection. But if it got wet, the silk cords soaked up water and it became terribly heavy. Though the earliest styles of samurai armor were designed with large square plates more as a defense against arrows, the later forms were intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and to lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of their swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement. But how would it hold up to the stabs of a narrowly pointed knightly sword? This is an important question. Medieval European armor was designed and shaped more to deflect strikes and absorb blunt force blows from lances and swords. A knight's armor varied from simple byrnies of fine riveted maile ("chainmaile") that could absorb slices and prevent cuts, to well-padded soft jackets, and metal coats-of-plates which were designed equally to protect from concussion weapons as penetrating thrusts. Maile armor existed in numerous styles and patterns but arguably reached its zenith in 15th century Western Europe, where closely-woven riveted links could resist any drawing slice as well as being proof against many slashes and thrusts from swords. Maile of such equivalent was not used in Japan. A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move. Without the necessary weapons designed intentionally to face and defeat plate armor, any fighter armed with a sword alone would have difficulty (katana or not). Indeed, full European plate armor with maile might very well damage the keen edge on particularly fine katanas. After all, we should not forget that despite the katana's vaunted cutting ability, the samurai were able to successfully rely on their armors as defense against it. There is every reason to imagine knightly armor would have been just as, if not more, effective. If we therefore assume the armors to be more evenly matched, say maile and partial plate for the knight as used around 1250, things would get more interesting. However, the samurai did often carry an excellent thick dagger which would have been quite useful. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers and with close-in grappling (something not generally known about actual knightly fencing skills). The Shield We must consider whether the knight in this hypothetical duel will be armed in the familiar shield and short sword style or will use only a single long-sword? If armed with a shield, we must ask what kind? Will the knight employ a center-gripped type with front umbo or one worn by enarme straps? Will the shield be the highly effective "kite" shape with its superb defense or one of the smaller, more maneuverable convex "heater" styles? How about a thick steel buckler (a fist-gripped hand shield)? There's a reason virtually every culture developed the shield and that they were literally used for thousands of years. They were very effective. In 15th century Europe, it was only the combination of the development of full plate armor and two-handed swords combined with heavy pole-arms and powerful missile weapons that finally reduced the long reigning value of the shield in warfare. The Medieval style of sword and shield fighting is distinctly different from the two-hand grip and quick full-arm slashing cuts of Kenjutsu. Medieval short swords are properly wielded with more of a throw of the arm and a twist of the hips while making passing steps forward or back. Strikes are thrown from behind the shield while it simultaneously guards, feints, deflects, or presses. A sword and shield is a great asset over a single sword alone. Fighting with sword and shield offers a well-rounded and strong defense that safely permits a wide range of both direct and combination attacks. A sword can cut quite well from almost all angles around or underneath a shield. Indeed, since the shield side is so well guarded, the opponent is the one limited to attacking to only one side -the non-shield side. While a large shield does indeed close off a tremendous amount of targets to an attacker, it also limits, to a far smaller degree, freedom to attack by the shield user. As it comes out from behind their shield to strike, an attacker's weapon can be counter-timed and counter-cut -and this is indeed one tactic to employ against a shield user. Yet a shield user's attacks are not at all one sided. A shield can be used offensively in a number of ways and at very close range. Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through. Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, chopping into a shield's edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason. Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real indigenous provisions for fighting shields. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword and shield combination will have a hard time. The shield was not used the way typically shown in movies, video games, stage-combat, or historical role-playing organizations such as the SCA. Fighting against a Medieval shield is not simply a matter of maneuvering around it or aiming blows elsewhere. If a warrior does not really know the shield, or hasn't faced a good shield fighter, then they cannot be expected to know how to ideally fight against it. The Samurai's Sword In major battles among each warrior, a suit of armor was typically worn and a sword wielded in one or two-hands. For the knight, the primary weapons had always been the long lance and the sword, and to a lesser degree the polaxe, dagger, and mace. The sword was always the foundational weapon of a Knight's fencing training. For the samurai however, the sword was but one of three major weapons along with the bow and arrow and the yari (thrusting spear). We should consider that, despite their later acquired reputation for swordsmanship, the samurai's primary weapon was, in fact, not the sword. The sword really did not even become a premier weapon of samurai culture and reach its cult status until the mid to late 17th century when the civil warring period ended. It is something of a myth that every individual Japanese samurai was himself an expert swordsman (no more true than every wild West cowboy was an expert gunfighter). After all, the expression so associated with bushido is "the Way of the horse and bow", not "the Way of the sword." Besides, unlike knightly chivalric tales and combat accounts, the majority of single combats between samurai described in feudal Japanese literature took place with daggers not swords. But for sake of discussion, let us assume such for both fighters in this imaginary case. As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting against metal (-but no, it only cuts through other swords in movies and video games!). However, Medieval plate armor is well known for its resistance to cutting, and cutting at a moving target hidden by a shield or a greatsword is not easy. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor. Except for major interaction in Korea and encounters against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might (...and no, they won't slice through cars or chop into concrete pillars either). It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as resilient in flexibility nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armors as some forms of Medieval swords had to be. The katana's design was not set in stone. It was changed and altered over the centuries like any other sword, being slowly improved or adapted to the different needs and tastes of their users in terms of cross section, curvature, and length. In the 13th century for instance, their points had to be redesigned because they were prone to snapping against the metal reinforced "studded" leather armor (essentially equivalent to European brigandine or armor) of the Mongols and Chinese. By the 18th century their blades, no longer used earnestly against armor, tended to be made longer, lighter, and thinner for classroom practicing. True, the Japanese feudal warrior did have their own form of greatsword in the long no dachi blades, these however were employed specifically by lower ranking foot-soldiers against horses (and presumably, on occasion against pikes). So, we cannot draw an equivalency between these and Medieval greatswords used in knightly fencing arts or to the true two-handers of 16th century European battlefields. Over all the katana was a very well-rounded design: excellent at cutting and slicing, yet good at thrusting, and suitable for armored or unarmored fighting on foot or horseback, either one or two-handed. It was a carefully crafted and beautiful weapon reflecting generations of artistry and fearsome necessity, but it was still only a sword -a man-made tool of well-tempered and expertly polished metal. Though the details of manufacture differed, they were made by the same fundamental scientific processes of heating and hand-working metal by shaping and grinding as were other fine swords around the world throughout history. Regardless of how they are designed or constructed, all swords have the same goals and perform the same functions: that of guarding against attacks while delivering their own lethal blows. The Knight's Swords Having equipped our samurai, we must turn to the sword to be used by our knightly combatant. It must be understood there was such a great diversity of knightly swords and armor types. European swords were, in a sense, always specialized rather than generalized designs: there were ones for foot combat, ones for horseback, single and double-hand ones, straight and curved ones, ones for armored and for unarmored fighting, ones for tournaments, ones for civilian duelling, ones ideal just for thrusting or for cutting only, and ones only for training. A knight's arming sword was typically a one-handed weapon originally (but not always) intended specifically for use with a shield. Their blades are wide and fairly thin and rigid, with chisel-like edges intentionally designed for cutting through maile armor and deep into flesh and bone with a quick, forceful blow. They were light, agile, and stiff, yet very flexible to withstand the trauma of use. They too varied with time from the wider, flatter kinds to those rigid, tapering, sharply pointed and well suited for stabbing both plate and laminated armors. The later wide-based and acutely pointed style of ******* sword was superb at thrusting. So, even though Japanese armor for the most part was made up of the same quality steel as went into their weapons, European blades would likely not encounter anything especially difficult with it that they didn't already face. Although the Medieval sword and shield combination was fairly common, longer blades useable in two hands were in widespread use from about 1250 to roughly 1600 in Europe. When we talk about Medieval European longswords or war-swords (or even greatswords), we are not dealing with a single uniform style. There were wide, flat blades with parallel edges well suited to powerful cuts. Later, swords specifically designed for facing heavier armor had narrower, much more rigid blades of diamond or hexagonal cross-sections that tapered to hard, sharp points. They were used to whack and bash at armor before stabbing and thrusting into joints and gaps. They were also employed as short spears and even warhammers, yet were still capable of cutting at more lightly armored opponents. The difference between these two European blade forms is significant and once more underscores the distinction between the manner of using a katana and a straight Medieval European sword. The tapering blade form has a different center of balance and is often a lighter blade. Its point of percussion is located farther down the blade and its fine point is capable of making quick, accurate, and strong thrusts. The wider style can make a somewhat greater variety of strikes and delivers more effective cuts overall. But the later is more agile and easier to guard and parry with. It can also more easily employ its versatile hilt in binding, trapping, and striking. Its proper techniques and style of use is rarely depicted with any accuracy in movies and staged performances. Almost never is the proper historical usage shown with its tighter movements, various thrusts, and infighting with the hilt. The reach factor also cannot be overlooked. Although a skilled fighter can effectively use a short blade against a long blade or vice versa, and although neither longswords nor katanas had standardized lengths, overall the katana in general is significantly shorter than European two-handed swords and great-swords. A longer two-edged weapon does have advantages -especially if used by a taller man against a smaller with a shorter single-edge weapon. Surprisingly though, the weights between the two weapons are actually very similar and vary within the same degrees. Surprisingly, the longsword or greatsword is arguably a more complex weapon that the katana. Though there were single-edge versions, it generally has two edges that can be used, as well as a versatile crossguard and pommel permitting a variety of specialized techniques. Another element to consider is that European swords could be used in "half-sword" techniques where the second hand literally grips around the blade itself to wield the weapon in bashing, deflecting, binding, and trapping in all manner of ways that virtually make it a pole-axe or short spear. This was especially effective in fighting against plate armor. We must ponder would this be unusual for the samurai or just very similar to fighting with a short staff? Either way, with its especially sharp edge, a katana is not employed quite like this. Knightly blades could be excellent swords, but are often denigrated merely as crude hunks of iron while samurai swords are venerated and exalted sometimes to the point of absurdity by collectors and enthusiasts (something the Japanese themselves do not discourage). Bad films and poorly trained martial artists reinforce this myth. The bottom line is that Medieval swords were indeed well-made, light, agile fighting weapons equally capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving deep into body cavities. They were far from the clumsy, heavy things they're often portrayed as in popular media and far, far more than a mere "club with edges." Interestingly, the weight of katanas compared to longswords is very close with each on average being less than 4 pounds. The Swordsmanship It can be difficult for those not familiar with the nature of a Medieval longsword or greatsword to understand its true manner of use, since the general public as well as martial artists of Asian styles are far more familiar with the katana's style. So, if instead of a shield and sword we match a knight with a long-sword or greatsword against the katana armed samurai this could make a significant difference. But, we must not fall into the mistake of judging the Medieval long-sword in terms of what we know about classical Japanese fencing. It is a mistake to think the straight, double-edged Medieval sword with cruciform-hilt is handled like a curved katana. While there are certainly similarities and universal commonalties between the two styles of swordsmanship (such as in stances and cuts), there are also significant and fundamental differences. They each make the same basic seven or eight cuts and can thrust. But as a curved blade with an especially keen edge, the katana is superior in the potential use of quick, short slices. Yet, as a long, straight blade tapering to a keen point, the longsword is a better thruster. Additionally, its dual edges, enabled by a graspable pommel, allow it to attack along more lines than just eight standard cuts. Having two edges to work with can quickly permit back-edge and reverse cuts. This permits a larger number of strikes from different angles. The katana is wielded in a quick flowing manner with a torque of the grip as well as a push of the hips. Pulling a curved blade in this way makes it slice as it shears. The footwork is more linear with short quick hopping steps. In contrast to the slicing slash of a curved, single-edged, Japanese blade, Medieval swords were made for hacking, shearing cuts delivered primarily from the elbow and shoulder and employing wide (even "shuffling") passing steps. The actions are larger with more fast whirling actions as the two edges are employed, the pommel alone gripped, or the hands changed to different positions on the hilt. As a straight blade it strikes more with a point-of-percussion on the first 6-8 inches of blade down from the point as opposed to the curved katana which uses more of just the first few inches. If we bring into the equation the Medieval *******-sword with compound-hilt of side-rings and bar-guards as well as half-grip handle using various methods of holding it, this could also be a significant factor. Such hilts allow for a variety of one or two-hand gripping options and gives superior tip control for either thrusting or edge alignment. When contrasting these two styles of sword we should probably also keep in mind a number of points. We classify each as longswords because both were blade weapons designed for the same purpose, killing. It is from this fact that they even have any similarities we can compare. Differences between them are result of the particularities of their functions and the ways they accomplish their goals. We should also keep in mind that Japanese swords and sword-arts reflect a living tradition, and one with a long standing interest group in the West promoting its study. While in contrast, our Medieval heritage has for decades had virtually nothing but Hollywood fantasy and role-players misrepresenting it. From this, it can be seen that a direct comparison of a European sword to a Japanese one is not possible. They are "apples and oranges", so to speak. They're both fruit, both delicious, but you can do different, though very similar, things with each. Educated Guesses As our hypothetical fight ensued, any number of things might happen. In the course of striking at one another, a chance blow by either side could possibly end the fight. The katana may or may not be able to make a lethal or incapacitating cut (something difficult to do against plate armor, let alone a maile coat with a shield). But the knight, unfamiliar with the aggressive style or nature of his opponent, might throw out a strike that makes him vulnerable to a well-timed counter-attack. Of course, the samurai might also underestimate the power of the Medieval sword's cleaving blows and agile thrusts, even against his armor. The average European two-hand sword is longer in handle and blade than the average katana by several inches to as much as a foot or more and is not at all slow. It has a versatile hilt used for binding, trapping, and parrying. But the katana is also a fast weapon that cuts strongly and guards well and comes in a variety of lengths. Despite its considerable reach though, there are numerous techniques for infighting using the long-sword's "half" guards and there are many techniques for striking with a shield. But then the katana is very good at close-in slices, which a straight blade cannot effectively do nearly as well. Of course, against good armor such actions can be negligible and fighting against shields was relatively unknown in Japan. So on one hand, the knight's fighting style -either of close-in sword and shield clashing, or large passing steps with long-reaching shearing cuts and plunging thrusts with a longsword or greatsword -might prove decisive. On the other, the intense, focused, counter-cutting style of the samurai with his razor-keen blade and own experience in armored fighting might prove decisive. Then again, maybe they'd kill one another? It could be argued that the samurai by nature could have a tactical advantage in attitude and fortitude as a result of the psychological elements of his training and fighting methods. He is well- known to have integrated unarmed techniques into his repertoire as well as having a keen sense of an opponent's strengths and weaknesses. Still, much of this is intangible and subjective. Besides, although not widely appreciated, it is now well-documented (particularly from Medieval Italian and German fighting manuals) that European knights and men-at-arms fully integrated advanced grappling, wrestling, and disarming techniques into their fighting skills. They also studied considerably on tactics and the military "sciences." There is no evidence to the myth that knightly martial culture was any less sophisticated or highly develop than its Asian counterparts -its traditions and methods only fell out of use with the social and technological changes brought about by advances in firearms and cannon. While it is known that the average samurai had a large inventory of unarmed fighting techniques at his disposal, these too would be unlikely to play a part against a shield wielding warrior. Some could suggest that the samurai was simply a better swordsman and more tenacious warrior and would likely out-fight his European counterpart. Others could say, "No way," and argue a skilled, superbly conditioned knight in full plate armor using either a sword and shield combination or a longsword would be near invulnerable and brutally overpowering. Still others could rightly point out that such over-generalized statements either way are un-provable conjecture. There are so many elements to address and practitioners who are experienced in one form of sword art or familiar with only one type of blade and not others will tend to favor what they're familiar with. It is rare to find individuals with a deep grasp of the attributes of each method and the arms involved. Those who think the Medieval sword and shield was and is just a "wham-bam, whack-whack" fight are as greatly misinformed as those who imagine the katana was handled in some mysterious and secret manner and can cut through anything as if it were a light-saber. Those who presume the use of Medieval long-sword merely involved a brutish hacking are also under a tremendous delusion. It is a mystery how such beliefs can be held independently of those who today assiduously study and train in the subject as a true martial art, and spend years in practice with the actual weapons. Perhaps this ignorance is due to watching too many movies or the influence of fantasy-historical societies with their costumed role-playing. Medieval and Renaissance sword fighting is often viewed by the uninformed as a wholly subjective matter either consisting of merely brute force and ferocity, or else incapable of reasoned analysis and discernable principles. Both are equally inaccurate. It is sad when leading modern fencing masters (experienced only with the dueling style of light foils, epees, and sabers) will issue naïve, unschooled statements about how Medieval swords "weighed 20 pounds" or could only be used for "clumsy" bashing and chopping. There is a definite prejudice that the modern refined fencing sport is "superior" to earlier, more brutal methods. Without going into the history of warfare, it's important to state it is a myth that personal combat in Europe was entirely crude, cumbersome, and never an art. It may perhaps be true that, only in a modern cultural context, it cannot compare to the surviving systematized traditions of feudal Japanese sword arts. However there is sufficient evidence surviving that when paired with contemporary research has given us a much better under-standing of the function and use of Medieval and Renaissance European arms and armors to confirm that they consisted of a highly effective and dynamic "Science of Defence." Keeping our hypothesis broad To be fair, while there is an extraordinary amount of nonsense and fantasy surrounding historical European swords and sword arts, there is a good deal of myth and ignorance on the true teachings of historical Japanese fencing. While there is today an active subculture promoting and preserving historical Japanese bujutsu or practicing modern budo and a great deal is also known about their practice, the equivalent can not yet be said for "lost" Medieval or Renaissance fighting arts. But, at least for the latter, there are dozens of surviving technical guides from the period describing the actual methods and techniques of knights and men-at-arms in great detail. So, given the complexities of the question of what kind of knightly arms and armor from what period we could consider in a hypothetical knight-samurai encounter, it might be easier to just imagine an unarmored duel, sword against sword, without shields. Let's assume that our gladiatorial fantasy would be fought by two respective 15th century warriors with single swords alone. In this way we essentially have two fighting men both experienced in using a long sword as well as fighting unarmored. This solves a lot of questions. But even here the issue is problematic. We still need to ask what kind of katana and what kind of longsword? What length of blade and handle? There was no standard generic model for either weapon, after all. So, assuming that we choose two weapons of comparative dimensions, we could make the knightly longsword of the cruciform-hilted, double-edged, slightly tapering variety. Under this scenario, the katana would have a slight advantage, we could imagine. It's adept in unarmored cut and thrust fighting where the slightest wound from its keen edge could perhaps sever a hand or disabled an arm. It could also thrust well and might even threaten a pressing or slicing draw if close in. The half-swording techniques of the longsword would also not be nearly as viable here, though its hilt design might prove very useful. While the longsword would be menacing in its quick and long-reaching thrust, its stabbing attacks would perhaps not be that unfamiliar to a samurai use to facing spears. On the other hand, the knight would himself not be that unused at all to facing a curved single-edged blade, likely being skilled in or familiar with such ones as the falchion, badelaire, messer, long Grossemesser, and even Turkish scimitars. So again, the outcome of the match would come down to intangibles of personal attitude and individual prowess. As to the issue of the deadliness of thrusting wounds versus cutting ones, well, the historical and forensic evidence does favor the lethality of stabs--but only in contrast to lacerating flesh wounds not deep cleaving blows. Considering the many issues brought out in describing the modern reconstruction of historical European martial arts, contrasting them with the practice of Asian fighting arts is a legitimate area of speculation. If we had a time machine and for depraved research wanted to go back, grab a hundred random Medieval knights and an equal number of samurai, match them one on one and throw them at each other, we might be able to come up some statistical averages (and some serious ethical problems, as well). In one sense we are talking about very different approaches to armed personal defense in this comparison. But, then again it's all the same when reduced to two armed combatants facing one another in antagonistic combat. There are many universal commonalities and shared fundamentals between both European and Japanese feudal warriors, but there were also significant technical and stylistic differences in their respective approaches. If not, their martial histories and their arms and armors would not have been so distinct. So what can we really know? As can be seen, there are just far too many variables and unknowns to make a judgment either way for such a theoretical question as who could defeat whom between knights and samurai. The fight cannot be reduced to any generalized statements about who had the overall historical advantage in skill or who had the superior array of arms and armor. In matters like this we certainly cannot not invoke mystical principles or endless "what ifs" and still engage in intelligent conjecture. All we can do is give an opinion of questionable value. Still, it is an intriguing comparison to ponder objectively. There is so much unnecessary emotion encountered when fervent proponents of one or the other schools of swordsmanship speculates wildly on this topic. Amusingly, before reflexively reacting with a strong opinion one way or another when thinking about this subject, we might want to stop and ask ourselves to ponder the same imaginary contest between two samurai, for example, a Muromachi era versus say, a Kamakura one. Or we could do the same for the knight, posing the problem of who would defeat whom, an 11th century Flemish knight or a 14th century Burgundian one? By doing this simple mental exercise we can see the inherent problems of arguing one way or another over such imaginary fights. Keeping in mind that live demonstrations speak louder than any words, hopefully this writing has cleared away some of the prejudice on behalf of both kenjutsu students and Medievalists. I personally give only limited credit to occasions of cross-sparring by modern practitioners of each respective art, as they seldom can meet under mutually agreeable or equally advantageous conditions for very long. Personally, while I admire the techniques and principles of kenjutsu as generally being highly effective (but not specifically its modern methods of instruction), I cannot disregard the proven efficacy of the sword and shield method. Nor can I ignore the formidable utility and versatility of an excellent European longsword or great sword when combined with superior European armor -and the difficulty it offers when posed against the single sword. But a fine katana can be a truly awesome sword. I have long been an admirer of its form and function. However, not all of them were superb weapons and typically the quality of European blades is erroneously denigrated and dismissed. Also, my own understanding of the German and Italian longsword and great-sword methods of fence from the late 14th to early 17th centuries gives be considerable doubt that a skilled knight of any era would encounter anything too unfamiliar in facing a samurai swordsman of any era. There are many other factors that still could be raised when speculating on a hypothetical combat between a knight and a samurai. In the end though, my own answer to the question of who would win is that it is unanswerable...but would be an awesome experiment. Being a great warrior is a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not exclusive to any one culture or time period. The better fighter wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better fighter -or at least the luckier one. article by: J. Clements | ||
Inzek
Chile802 Posts
so i think the importan thing is skill... i think samurai wins! ippon! anyone has seen Highlander (Duncan Mccloud...) the way his sword use to "cut" others.. awesome.. lol... | ||
thoraxe
United States1449 Posts
| ||
Newbistic
China2912 Posts
IF the samurai can damage/kill the knight or the horse with his bow, he would be at a significant advantage. Since the knight is wearing plate mail, hurting him would be doubtful. But the horse would most likely fall. Knight 0-1 Samurai IF the samurai fails to hurt the knight or the horse with the bow and arrow and the knight is able to close in with the lance, I'm pretty sure it has longer reach than a Japanese spear. A good hit would either kill or knock the samurai off his horse, giving the knight an advantage. Knight 1-1 Samurai However, if both fail and it comes down to a foot battle, with knight using sword/shield and samurai using his twin swords, I would say the samurai wins. Sure, the knight's shield/sword techniques are effective, but his offensive capabilities are not even close to the samurai's. Even if he manages to get the samurai's main sword stuck, the samurai can either put his weight into the sword and push the knight off balance, or use his second sword to parry the counterattack. The samurai's offensive/defensive capabilities are far better with two swords. Furthermore, the samurai with his short sword immediately available in one hand is in a far better position to thrust at armor joints than the knight. Knight 1-2 Samurai | ||
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
Samurai were a bunch of peasants that fought other peasants in civil wars, the only conflict with the outside world before europeans (when they already had guns by the way) was with the mongols and japan wouldve lost horribly if it wasnt because of the weather. | ||
_PulSe_
United States541 Posts
Here we go guys. This is the be all end of samurai vs knight courtesy of the history channel. Warning it is incredibly long Knight Vs. Samurai * Report Here's an interesting read if you got the time. The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai? [The Scenario] First of all, we must ask where is it these two lone warriors would meet? Under what circumstances? Since the conditions of this imaginary fight could play a major factor, it can be proposed that such an encounter would best take place on a flat, firm, open field with no cover and plenty of room to maneuver. Though each is an accomplished horseman, it would also be conducive to have the single-combat duel occur dismounted, alone, on foot and without use of missile weapons. Interestingly, the same climate and weather for each would be just about right. There are a great many intangibles to consider here. The ability of each combatant to read or size up their opponent and the threat they posed would be an important consideration. Are both to be briefed on the nature of their opponent and his armaments? Or will the encounter be a blind one in which neither knows anything about their adversary? We might want to just assume that each of our ideal combatants has been informed to some degree regarding the other and therefore mentally prepared and composed. Of course, if we are supposing a clash between two "typical warriors", we must also ask exactly what will be considered typical? The knights of circa 1100 and the samurai of circa 1200 were roughly evenly matched in equipment. But the same comparative warriors during the 1400's for instance, were quite dissimilar. Each of the two historical warriors in question did fight with equivalent technologies, under fairly similar climates and terrain, and for similar reasons. But it's difficult to think in terms of a "generic" Medieval knight or a "standard" samurai warrior. With respect to a European knight, it's not easy to choose what nationality, and what type of warrior from which portion of the overall Middle Ages. With the samurai though, we are dealing with a single, homogenous culture and one in which versions of their historical martial traditions have survived, in one form or another, fairly intact. Thus we have a somewhat better idea of the average samurai's training and ability through the centuries than compared to contemporary European warriors. Then again, it's sometimes argued that today's version of modern civilian budo ("war ways") is not equivalent to the historical military bujutsu ("war skills") of the samurai. At the same time, while we may not have an extant tradition of knightly martial arts any longer, we however do have volumes of actual training manuals from the era describing in technical detail for us just what their skills and methods at the time were all about. As for the knight, are we assuming he will be a maile clad Norman with sword and kite shield from the year 1066? An English or French chevalier of 1350 in partial plate with arming sword ready for duel in the champ clos? Will he be an Italian condottieri from 1450 resplendent in full regalia? Or will he be a Teutonic knight of circa 1400 in a head-to-toe suit of articulated Gothic plate-armor and ******* sword? Will the samurai be wearing the older box-like Muromachi armor and armed with a tachi blade? Or will he wear the later close fitting Kamakura period do-maru armor and use the more familiar katana? For that matter, would the samurai be allowed to use both his long katana and his wakizashi short sword together? These are significant matters that get at the heart of why such a question as who would "win" or who is the "better" fighter (or even whose equipment was better) really is unanswerable. Of course, for the sake of engaging discourse let us hypothesize just what would happen if these two comparable individuals, each highly trained and experienced in the respective fighting skills of their age, were to meet on the battlefield in single combat to the death (!). As an amusing historical diversion we can at least make an educated guess to what would possibly be, not the result, so much as some of the key decisive elements of such an encounter. The Warriors We can reasonably assume that the personal attributes such as individual strength, speed, stamina, age, health, and courage, are fairly consistent between such professional warriors. Assuming we can somehow control for these attributes, we could match combatants with some equality. It would not be unrealistic to believe on a whole that neither was likely decisively stronger or faster than the other. Although, we can't discount physiology as a factor and this would certainly be a reasonable advantage for the European (16th century samurai armor examples are sized for men around 5'3"-5'5", while European armor from the same period and earlier would fit men ranging from just under 6' to about 6'5"). Although, other evidence suggests average European heights in the 16th century were just above 5 feet. Interestingly, while the European concept of physical fitness among knights by the 15th century emphasized the classical Greco-Roman youthful physique of a narrow waist and broad shoulders on a lean frame, the Japanese ideal was one of a more mature man having a wider base and broader middle -no doubt reflecting the natural ethnographic characteristics of each race, but also influencing the fighting techniques they employed. To what degree this occurred is worth contemplating. We might also want to consider the forms of warfare each swordsman was experienced in and focused upon. The early samurai engaged in a ritualized style of warfare where individual champions might fight separate battlefield duels following established protocols, as opposed to a later mounted archery style of combat amidst pike formations of lesser foot soldiers. Their clan warfare was decidedly feudalistic yet with acquiring and honor and renown also being a goal. Skirmishing was not also uncommon and there were a few large scale military expeditions to Korea and surrounding islands. But most combat occurred in the environment of the home islands. Whereas in contrast, knights emphasized mounted shock warfare with couched lances, and off the field a concern for chivalric and judicial duels as well as tournaments of all kinds. The Western way of war for knights was directed more at a traditional battle of annihilation as part of an overall campaign of conquest. Yet, individual challenges, whether to the death or not, were frequent. Knightly arms and armor were the result of a dynamic interaction of Latin, Celtic, and Germanic cultures as well as Turkish and Arabic influences. The environment knights fought under was extensive and diverse, ranging from the cold of Scandinavia to the deserts of the Middle East, from the plains of Western Europe to the deep forest of the East, and the swamps, fields, and mountains in between. We cannot overlook the role that culture might play in this contest. Samurai warriors existed in a hierarchical and conformist culture that rewarded obedience and loyalty over individuality. Knights existed in a more complex and fluid society that emphasized self-expression with a long tradition of reliance on individual initiative. Both cultures had experience fighting against outsiders and foreigners: the Europeans encountered the Turks, Mongols, Saracens, and others; the Japanese encountered the Koreans, Chinese, Mongols, and others. Thus, in considering the historical record on cross-cultural collisions in different locations, would we want to give the edge to the more socially diverse Europeans on this? On an individual basis then, we must consider what effect might be played by the quality of fatalism within the samurai code of bushido, or rather the resolute acceptance of death that motivated the fiercest samurai. But then, we cannot overlook the quality of piety and faith that could motivate a noble knight to great feats, or of the ideals of chivalry that he might uphold to the death. It's possible a Medieval European knight would have a certain disdain and scorn for his foreign, "pagan" adversary. Of course, the Japanese warrior's well-known attitude of proud invincibility and readiness to die for his lord could equally make him vulnerable to an unfamiliar foe. Contempt for life and contempt for a dangerous, unknown opponent you might underestimate can be a disastrous combination. While courage is important, fighting spirit alone is insufficient. There are surely intangibles here that we cannot be measured with any reliability. These and other non-quantifiable, psychological factors aside, we are left with weapons, armor, and training. The Armor Armor changes things in swordplay. If you've never trained in it, you can't imagine how it affects your movements and execution of even simple actions. It has been said that while Europeans designed their armor to defeat swords, the Japanese designed their swords to defeat armor. There is a certain truth to this, but it's a simplistic view. The better Japanese armor was constructed of small overlapping lacquered metal scales or plates tied together with silk cords in order to specifically resist the slicing cut of the katana. It allowed good freedom of movement while offering excellent protection. But if it got wet, the silk cords soaked up water and it became terribly heavy. Though the earliest styles of samurai armor were designed with large square plates more as a defense against arrows, the later forms were intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and to lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of their swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement. But how would it hold up to the stabs of a narrowly pointed knightly sword? This is an important question. Medieval European armor was designed and shaped more to deflect strikes and absorb blunt force blows from lances and swords. A knight's armor varied from simple byrnies of fine riveted maile ("chainmaile") that could absorb slices and prevent cuts, to well-padded soft jackets, and metal coats-of-plates which were designed equally to protect from concussion weapons as penetrating thrusts. Maile armor existed in numerous styles and patterns but arguably reached its zenith in 15th century Western Europe, where closely-woven riveted links could resist any drawing slice as well as being proof against many slashes and thrusts from swords. Maile of such equivalent was not used in Japan. A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move. Without the necessary weapons designed intentionally to face and defeat plate armor, any fighter armed with a sword alone would have difficulty (katana or not). Indeed, full European plate armor with maile might very well damage the keen edge on particularly fine katanas. After all, we should not forget that despite the katana's vaunted cutting ability, the samurai were able to successfully rely on their armors as defense against it. There is every reason to imagine knightly armor would have been just as, if not more, effective. If we therefore assume the armors to be more evenly matched, say maile and partial plate for the knight as used around 1250, things would get more interesting. However, the samurai did often carry an excellent thick dagger which would have been quite useful. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers and with close-in grappling (something not generally known about actual knightly fencing skills). The Shield We must consider whether the knight in this hypothetical duel will be armed in the familiar shield and short sword style or will use only a single long-sword? If armed with a shield, we must ask what kind? Will the knight employ a center-gripped type with front umbo or one worn by enarme straps? Will the shield be the highly effective "kite" shape with its superb defense or one of the smaller, more maneuverable convex "heater" styles? How about a thick steel buckler (a fist-gripped hand shield)? There's a reason virtually every culture developed the shield and that they were literally used for thousands of years. They were very effective. In 15th century Europe, it was only the combination of the development of full plate armor and two-handed swords combined with heavy pole-arms and powerful missile weapons that finally reduced the long reigning value of the shield in warfare. The Medieval style of sword and shield fighting is distinctly different from the two-hand grip and quick full-arm slashing cuts of Kenjutsu. Medieval short swords are properly wielded with more of a throw of the arm and a twist of the hips while making passing steps forward or back. Strikes are thrown from behind the shield while it simultaneously guards, feints, deflects, or presses. A sword and shield is a great asset over a single sword alone. Fighting with sword and shield offers a well-rounded and strong defense that safely permits a wide range of both direct and combination attacks. A sword can cut quite well from almost all angles around or underneath a shield. Indeed, since the shield side is so well guarded, the opponent is the one limited to attacking to only one side -the non-shield side. While a large shield does indeed close off a tremendous amount of targets to an attacker, it also limits, to a far smaller degree, freedom to attack by the shield user. As it comes out from behind their shield to strike, an attacker's weapon can be counter-timed and counter-cut -and this is indeed one tactic to employ against a shield user. Yet a shield user's attacks are not at all one sided. A shield can be used offensively in a number of ways and at very close range. Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Even with a katana a shield cannot simply be sliced through. Medieval shields were fairly thick wood covered in leather and usually trimmed in metal. Not only that, they were highly maneuverable, making solid, shearing blows difficult. More likely, a blade would be momentarily stuck in the rim if it struck too forcefully. Unlike what is seen in the movies, or described in heroic literature, chopping into a shield's edge can temporarily cause the sword blade to wedge into the shield for just an instant and thereby be delayed in recovering or renewing an attack (and exposing the attacker's arms to a counter-cut). Shields without metal rims were even favored for this very reason. Kenjutsu (Japanese swordsmanship), though consisting of very effective counter-cutting actions, also has no real indigenous provisions for fighting shields. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword and shield combination will have a hard time. The shield was not used the way typically shown in movies, video games, stage-combat, or historical role-playing organizations such as the SCA. Fighting against a Medieval shield is not simply a matter of maneuvering around it or aiming blows elsewhere. If a warrior does not really know the shield, or hasn't faced a good shield fighter, then they cannot be expected to know how to ideally fight against it. The Samurai's Sword In major battles among each warrior, a suit of armor was typically worn and a sword wielded in one or two-hands. For the knight, the primary weapons had always been the long lance and the sword, and to a lesser degree the polaxe, dagger, and mace. The sword was always the foundational weapon of a Knight's fencing training. For the samurai however, the sword was but one of three major weapons along with the bow and arrow and the yari (thrusting spear). We should consider that, despite their later acquired reputation for swordsmanship, the samurai's primary weapon was, in fact, not the sword. The sword really did not even become a premier weapon of samurai culture and reach its cult status until the mid to late 17th century when the civil warring period ended. It is something of a myth that every individual Japanese samurai was himself an expert swordsman (no more true than every wild West cowboy was an expert gunfighter). After all, the expression so associated with bushido is "the Way of the horse and bow", not "the Way of the sword." Besides, unlike knightly chivalric tales and combat accounts, the majority of single combats between samurai described in feudal Japanese literature took place with daggers not swords. But for sake of discussion, let us assume such for both fighters in this imaginary case. As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting against metal (-but no, it only cuts through other swords in movies and video games!). However, Medieval plate armor is well known for its resistance to cutting, and cutting at a moving target hidden by a shield or a greatsword is not easy. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor. Except for major interaction in Korea and encounters against the Mongols, the katana developed in comparative isolation and is not quite the "ultimate sword" some of its ardent admirers occasionally build it up as. The katana's exceptionally hard edge was prone to chipping and needed frequent re-polishing and its blade could break or bend the same as any other sword might (...and no, they won't slice through cars or chop into concrete pillars either). It was not designed to take a great deal of abuse, and is not as resilient in flexibility nor intended to directly oppose soft or hard armors as some forms of Medieval swords had to be. The katana's design was not set in stone. It was changed and altered over the centuries like any other sword, being slowly improved or adapted to the different needs and tastes of their users in terms of cross section, curvature, and length. In the 13th century for instance, their points had to be redesigned because they were prone to snapping against the metal reinforced "studded" leather armor (essentially equivalent to European brigandine or armor) of the Mongols and Chinese. By the 18th century their blades, no longer used earnestly against armor, tended to be made longer, lighter, and thinner for classroom practicing. True, the Japanese feudal warrior did have their own form of greatsword in the long no dachi blades, these however were employed specifically by lower ranking foot-soldiers against horses (and presumably, on occasion against pikes). So, we cannot draw an equivalency between these and Medieval greatswords used in knightly fencing arts or to the true two-handers of 16th century European battlefields. Over all the katana was a very well-rounded design: excellent at cutting and slicing, yet good at thrusting, and suitable for armored or unarmored fighting on foot or horseback, either one or two-handed. It was a carefully crafted and beautiful weapon reflecting generations of artistry and fearsome necessity, but it was still only a sword -a man-made tool of well-tempered and expertly polished metal. Though the details of manufacture differed, they were made by the same fundamental scientific processes of heating and hand-working metal by shaping and grinding as were other fine swords around the world throughout history. Regardless of how they are designed or constructed, all swords have the same goals and perform the same functions: that of guarding against attacks while delivering their own lethal blows. The Knight's Swords Having equipped our samurai, we must turn to the sword to be used by our knightly combatant. It must be understood there was such a great diversity of knightly swords and armor types. European swords were, in a sense, always specialized rather than generalized designs: there were ones for foot combat, ones for horseback, single and double-hand ones, straight and curved ones, ones for armored and for unarmored fighting, ones for tournaments, ones for civilian duelling, ones ideal just for thrusting or for cutting only, and ones only for training. A knight's arming sword was typically a one-handed weapon originally (but not always) intended specifically for use with a shield. Their blades are wide and fairly thin and rigid, with chisel-like edges intentionally designed for cutting through maile armor and deep into flesh and bone with a quick, forceful blow. They were light, agile, and stiff, yet very flexible to withstand the trauma of use. They too varied with time from the wider, flatter kinds to those rigid, tapering, sharply pointed and well suited for stabbing both plate and laminated armors. The later wide-based and acutely pointed style of ******* sword was superb at thrusting. So, even though Japanese armor for the most part was made up of the same quality steel as went into their weapons, European blades would likely not encounter anything especially difficult with it that they didn't already face. Although the Medieval sword and shield combination was fairly common, longer blades useable in two hands were in widespread use from about 1250 to roughly 1600 in Europe. When we talk about Medieval European longswords or war-swords (or even greatswords), we are not dealing with a single uniform style. There were wide, flat blades with parallel edges well suited to powerful cuts. Later, swords specifically designed for facing heavier armor had narrower, much more rigid blades of diamond or hexagonal cross-sections that tapered to hard, sharp points. They were used to whack and bash at armor before stabbing and thrusting into joints and gaps. They were also employed as short spears and even warhammers, yet were still capable of cutting at more lightly armored opponents. The difference between these two European blade forms is significant and once more underscores the distinction between the manner of using a katana and a straight Medieval European sword. The tapering blade form has a different center of balance and is often a lighter blade. Its point of percussion is located farther down the blade and its fine point is capable of making quick, accurate, and strong thrusts. The wider style can make a somewhat greater variety of strikes and delivers more effective cuts overall. But the later is more agile and easier to guard and parry with. It can also more easily employ its versatile hilt in binding, trapping, and striking. Its proper techniques and style of use is rarely depicted with any accuracy in movies and staged performances. Almost never is the proper historical usage shown with its tighter movements, various thrusts, and infighting with the hilt. The reach factor also cannot be overlooked. Although a skilled fighter can effectively use a short blade against a long blade or vice versa, and although neither longswords nor katanas had standardized lengths, overall the katana in general is significantly shorter than European two-handed swords and great-swords. A longer two-edged weapon does have advantages -especially if used by a taller man against a smaller with a shorter single-edge weapon. Surprisingly though, the weights between the two weapons are actually very similar and vary within the same degrees. Surprisingly, the longsword or greatsword is arguably a more complex weapon that the katana. Though there were single-edge versions, it generally has two edges that can be used, as well as a versatile crossguard and pommel permitting a variety of specialized techniques. Another element to consider is that European swords could be used in "half-sword" techniques where the second hand literally grips around the blade itself to wield the weapon in bashing, deflecting, binding, and trapping in all manner of ways that virtually make it a pole-axe or short spear. This was especially effective in fighting against plate armor. We must ponder would this be unusual for the samurai or just very similar to fighting with a short staff? Either way, with its especially sharp edge, a katana is not employed quite like this. Knightly blades could be excellent swords, but are often denigrated merely as crude hunks of iron while samurai swords are venerated and exalted sometimes to the point of absurdity by collectors and enthusiasts (something the Japanese themselves do not discourage). Bad films and poorly trained martial artists reinforce this myth. The bottom line is that Medieval swords were indeed well-made, light, agile fighting weapons equally capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving deep into body cavities. They were far from the clumsy, heavy things they're often portrayed as in popular media and far, far more than a mere "club with edges." Interestingly, the weight of katanas compared to longswords is very close with each on average being less than 4 pounds. The Swordsmanship It can be difficult for those not familiar with the nature of a Medieval longsword or greatsword to understand its true manner of use, since the general public as well as martial artists of Asian styles are far more familiar with the katana's style. So, if instead of a shield and sword we match a knight with a long-sword or greatsword against the katana armed samurai this could make a significant difference. But, we must not fall into the mistake of judging the Medieval long-sword in terms of what we know about classical Japanese fencing. It is a mistake to think the straight, double-edged Medieval sword with cruciform-hilt is handled like a curved katana. While there are certainly similarities and universal commonalties between the two styles of swordsmanship (such as in stances and cuts), there are also significant and fundamental differences. They each make the same basic seven or eight cuts and can thrust. But as a curved blade with an especially keen edge, the katana is superior in the potential use of quick, short slices. Yet, as a long, straight blade tapering to a keen point, the longsword is a better thruster. Additionally, its dual edges, enabled by a graspable pommel, allow it to attack along more lines than just eight standard cuts. Having two edges to work with can quickly permit back-edge and reverse cuts. This permits a larger number of strikes from different angles. The katana is wielded in a quick flowing manner with a torque of the grip as well as a push of the hips. Pulling a curved blade in this way makes it slice as it shears. The footwork is more linear with short quick hopping steps. In contrast to the slicing slash of a curved, single-edged, Japanese blade, Medieval swords were made for hacking, shearing cuts delivered primarily from the elbow and shoulder and employing wide (even "shuffling") passing steps. The actions are larger with more fast whirling actions as the two edges are employed, the pommel alone gripped, or the hands changed to different positions on the hilt. As a straight blade it strikes more with a point-of-percussion on the first 6-8 inches of blade down from the point as opposed to the curved katana which uses more of just the first few inches. If we bring into the equation the Medieval *******-sword with compound-hilt of side-rings and bar-guards as well as half-grip handle using various methods of holding it, this could also be a significant factor. Such hilts allow for a variety of one or two-hand gripping options and gives superior tip control for either thrusting or edge alignment. When contrasting these two styles of sword we should probably also keep in mind a number of points. We classify each as longswords because both were blade weapons designed for the same purpose, killing. It is from this fact that they even have any similarities we can compare. Differences between them are result of the particularities of their functions and the ways they accomplish their goals. We should also keep in mind that Japanese swords and sword-arts reflect a living tradition, and one with a long standing interest group in the West promoting its study. While in contrast, our Medieval heritage has for decades had virtually nothing but Hollywood fantasy and role-players misrepresenting it. From this, it can be seen that a direct comparison of a European sword to a Japanese one is not possible. They are "apples and oranges", so to speak. They're both fruit, both delicious, but you can do different, though very similar, things with each. Educated Guesses As our hypothetical fight ensued, any number of things might happen. In the course of striking at one another, a chance blow by either side could possibly end the fight. The katana may or may not be able to make a lethal or incapacitating cut (something difficult to do against plate armor, let alone a maile coat with a shield). But the knight, unfamiliar with the aggressive style or nature of his opponent, might throw out a strike that makes him vulnerable to a well-timed counter-attack. Of course, the samurai might also underestimate the power of the Medieval sword's cleaving blows and agile thrusts, even against his armor. The average European two-hand sword is longer in handle and blade than the average katana by several inches to as much as a foot or more and is not at all slow. It has a versatile hilt used for binding, trapping, and parrying. But the katana is also a fast weapon that cuts strongly and guards well and comes in a variety of lengths. Despite its considerable reach though, there are numerous techniques for infighting using the long-sword's "half" guards and there are many techniques for striking with a shield. But then the katana is very good at close-in slices, which a straight blade cannot effectively do nearly as well. Of course, against good armor such actions can be negligible and fighting against shields was relatively unknown in Japan. So on one hand, the knight's fighting style -either of close-in sword and shield clashing, or large passing steps with long-reaching shearing cuts and plunging thrusts with a longsword or greatsword -might prove decisive. On the other, the intense, focused, counter-cutting style of the samurai with his razor-keen blade and own experience in armored fighting might prove decisive. Then again, maybe they'd kill one another? It could be argued that the samurai by nature could have a tactical advantage in attitude and fortitude as a result of the psychological elements of his training and fighting methods. He is well- known to have integrated unarmed techniques into his repertoire as well as having a keen sense of an opponent's strengths and weaknesses. Still, much of this is intangible and subjective. Besides, although not widely appreciated, it is now well-documented (particularly from Medieval Italian and German fighting manuals) that European knights and men-at-arms fully integrated advanced grappling, wrestling, and disarming techniques into their fighting skills. They also studied considerably on tactics and the military "sciences." There is no evidence to the myth that knightly martial culture was any less sophisticated or highly develop than its Asian counterparts -its traditions and methods only fell out of use with the social and technological changes brought about by advances in firearms and cannon. While it is known that the average samurai had a large inventory of unarmed fighting techniques at his disposal, these too would be unlikely to play a part against a shield wielding warrior. Some could suggest that the samurai was simply a better swordsman and more tenacious warrior and would likely out-fight his European counterpart. Others could say, "No way," and argue a skilled, superbly conditioned knight in full plate armor using either a sword and shield combination or a longsword would be near invulnerable and brutally overpowering. Still others could rightly point out that such over-generalized statements either way are un-provable conjecture. There are so many elements to address and practitioners who are experienced in one form of sword art or familiar with only one type of blade and not others will tend to favor what they're familiar with. It is rare to find individuals with a deep grasp of the attributes of each method and the arms involved. Those who think the Medieval sword and shield was and is just a "wham-bam, whack-whack" fight are as greatly misinformed as those who imagine the katana was handled in some mysterious and secret manner and can cut through anything as if it were a light-saber. Those who presume the use of Medieval long-sword merely involved a brutish hacking are also under a tremendous delusion. It is a mystery how such beliefs can be held independently of those who today assiduously study and train in the subject as a true martial art, and spend years in practice with the actual weapons. Perhaps this ignorance is due to watching too many movies or the influence of fantasy-historical societies with their costumed role-playing. Medieval and Renaissance sword fighting is often viewed by the uninformed as a wholly subjective matter either consisting of merely brute force and ferocity, or else incapable of reasoned analysis and discernable principles. Both are equally inaccurate. It is sad when leading modern fencing masters (experienced only with the dueling style of light foils, epees, and sabers) will issue naïve, unschooled statements about how Medieval swords "weighed 20 pounds" or could only be used for "clumsy" bashing and chopping. There is a definite prejudice that the modern refined fencing sport is "superior" to earlier, more brutal methods. Without going into the history of warfare, it's important to state it is a myth that personal combat in Europe was entirely crude, cumbersome, and never an art. It may perhaps be true that, only in a modern cultural context, it cannot compare to the surviving systematized traditions of feudal Japanese sword arts. However there is sufficient evidence surviving that when paired with contemporary research has given us a much better under-standing of the function and use of Medieval and Renaissance European arms and armors to confirm that they consisted of a highly effective and dynamic "Science of Defence." Keeping our hypothesis broad To be fair, while there is an extraordinary amount of nonsense and fantasy surrounding historical European swords and sword arts, there is a good deal of myth and ignorance on the true teachings of historical Japanese fencing. While there is today an active subculture promoting and preserving historical Japanese bujutsu or practicing modern budo and a great deal is also known about their practice, the equivalent can not yet be said for "lost" Medieval or Renaissance fighting arts. But, at least for the latter, there are dozens of surviving technical guides from the period describing the actual methods and techniques of knights and men-at-arms in great detail. So, given the complexities of the question of what kind of knightly arms and armor from what period we could consider in a hypothetical knight-samurai encounter, it might be easier to just imagine an unarmored duel, sword against sword, without shields. Let's assume that our gladiatorial fantasy would be fought by two respective 15th century warriors with single swords alone. In this way we essentially have two fighting men both experienced in using a long sword as well as fighting unarmored. This solves a lot of questions. But even here the issue is problematic. We still need to ask what kind of katana and what kind of longsword? What length of blade and handle? There was no standard generic model for either weapon, after all. So, assuming that we choose two weapons of comparative dimensions, we could make the knightly longsword of the cruciform-hilted, double-edged, slightly tapering variety. Under this scenario, the katana would have a slight advantage, we could imagine. It's adept in unarmored cut and thrust fighting where the slightest wound from its keen edge could perhaps sever a hand or disabled an arm. It could also thrust well and might even threaten a pressing or slicing draw if close in. The half-swording techniques of the longsword would also not be nearly as viable here, though its hilt design might prove very useful. While the longsword would be menacing in its quick and long-reaching thrust, its stabbing attacks would perhaps not be that unfamiliar to a samurai use to facing spears. On the other hand, the knight would himself not be that unused at all to facing a curved single-edged blade, likely being skilled in or familiar with such ones as the falchion, badelaire, messer, long Grossemesser, and even Turkish scimitars. So again, the outcome of the match would come down to intangibles of personal attitude and individual prowess. As to the issue of the deadliness of thrusting wounds versus cutting ones, well, the historical and forensic evidence does favor the lethality of stabs--but only in contrast to lacerating flesh wounds not deep cleaving blows. Considering the many issues brought out in describing the modern reconstruction of historical European martial arts, contrasting them with the practice of Asian fighting arts is a legitimate area of speculation. If we had a time machine and for depraved research wanted to go back, grab a hundred random Medieval knights and an equal number of samurai, match them one on one and throw them at each other, we might be able to come up some statistical averages (and some serious ethical problems, as well). In one sense we are talking about very different approaches to armed personal defense in this comparison. But, then again it's all the same when reduced to two armed combatants facing one another in antagonistic combat. There are many universal commonalities and shared fundamentals between both European and Japanese feudal warriors, but there were also significant technical and stylistic differences in their respective approaches. If not, their martial histories and their arms and armors would not have been so distinct. So what can we really know? As can be seen, there are just far too many variables and unknowns to make a judgment either way for such a theoretical question as who could defeat whom between knights and samurai. The fight cannot be reduced to any generalized statements about who had the overall historical advantage in skill or who had the superior array of arms and armor. In matters like this we certainly cannot not invoke mystical principles or endless "what ifs" and still engage in intelligent conjecture. All we can do is give an opinion of questionable value. Still, it is an intriguing comparison to ponder objectively. There is so much unnecessary emotion encountered when fervent proponents of one or the other schools of swordsmanship speculates wildly on this topic. Amusingly, before reflexively reacting with a strong opinion one way or another when thinking about this subject, we might want to stop and ask ourselves to ponder the same imaginary contest between two samurai, for example, a Muromachi era versus say, a Kamakura one. Or we could do the same for the knight, posing the problem of who would defeat whom, an 11th century Flemish knight or a 14th century Burgundian one? By doing this simple mental exercise we can see the inherent problems of arguing one way or another over such imaginary fights. Keeping in mind that live demonstrations speak louder than any words, hopefully this writing has cleared away some of the prejudice on behalf of both kenjutsu students and Medievalists. I personally give only limited credit to occasions of cross-sparring by modern practitioners of each respective art, as they seldom can meet under mutually agreeable or equally advantageous conditions for very long. Personally, while I admire the techniques and principles of kenjutsu as generally being highly effective (but not specifically its modern methods of instruction), I cannot disregard the proven efficacy of the sword and shield method. Nor can I ignore the formidable utility and versatility of an excellent European longsword or great sword when combined with superior European armor -and the difficulty it offers when posed against the single sword. But a fine katana can be a truly awesome sword. I have long been an admirer of its form and function. However, not all of them were superb weapons and typically the quality of European blades is erroneously denigrated and dismissed. Also, my own understanding of the German and Italian longsword and great-sword methods of fence from the late 14th to early 17th centuries gives be considerable doubt that a skilled knight of any era would encounter anything too unfamiliar in facing a samurai swordsman of any era. There are many other factors that still could be raised when speculating on a hypothetical combat between a knight and a samurai. In the end though, my own answer to the question of who would win is that it is unanswerable...but would be an awesome experiment. Being a great warrior is a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not exclusive to any one culture or time period. The better fighter wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better fighter -or at least the luckier one. article by: J. Clements | ||
CDRdude
United States5625 Posts
On July 31 2008 03:28 _PulSe_ wrote: article by: J. Clements Dude, that was posted on like the second page. | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
Gokey
United States2722 Posts
On July 31 2008 03:28 _PulSe_ wrote: since noone read it the first time here it is without a spoiler article by: J. Clements So basically, it ends up being, "it depends" ... Anyway, theorycrafting seems to be TLnet's favorite hobby... | ||
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
On July 31 2008 03:37 Gokey wrote: Show nested quote + On July 31 2008 03:28 _PulSe_ wrote: since noone read it the first time here it is without a spoiler article by: J. Clements So basically, it ends up being, "it depends" ... Anyway, theorycrafting seems to be TLnet's favorite hobby... Dude he expects us to read all of that when he couldnt read the first 3 pages of the thread. | ||
Instigata
United States546 Posts
Also just wondering about the term 'knight' seems to vague as all of Europe had different types of knights. I guess it would be like saying who would win vs boxing and martial arts. Well there's a lot of martial arts. | ||
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
J. Celments I have a better way of solving this. Much better than my time machine! Nuclear launch detected. Looks like Terran won. They both lose! ![]() | ||
XCetron
5225 Posts
| ||
lololol
5198 Posts
On July 31 2008 03:59 XCetron wrote: lets have a knight with a baseball bat vs a dog trained as a samurai with a knife fight each other. Fixed. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 31 2008 03:58 Showtime! wrote: In short, "Let's beat around the bush some more." J. Celments I have a better way of solving this. Much better than my time machine! Nuclear launch detected. Looks like Terran won. They both lose! ![]() I think then everyone looses terran has some nice radiation proof armor cuz my marines dont die from radiation poisoning after going to the place where the nuke hit | ||
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
He said something about this having been done somewhere like portugal I think, where a group of samurai took on some knights and the samurai were butchered a few times, and then they came back to kill all of the knights (probably just a tale though lol). Ps lots of medieval knights spent their entire day practising their fighting skills so don't no-one say they just sat around and supped the finest of kingly buttered ales. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 31 2008 04:52 HamerD wrote: Interesting article from t'history channel. I went into the weapons shop and asked the usually knowledgeable guy this very question about 6 months ago. He said that, in his opinion, samurais would lose more if it was a first encounter with one another's fighting style. And that, if samurai could study their opponent and knights could study theirs, the samurai would win more. He said something about this having been done somewhere like portugal I think, where a group of samurai took on some knights and the samurai were butchered a few times, and then they came back to kill all of the knights (probably just a tale though lol). Ps lots of medieval knights spent their entire day practicing their fighting skills so don't no-one say they just sat around and supped the finest of kingly buttered ales. Too bad the knight would kill them there is no studying people when they loose in a fight lol It is true that samurai aren't that experience at fighting those outside of the south east Asian area, while European knight fought just about everyone even extending territory down into the middle east so for a first encounter the knight if hes been around has a huge amounts of experience over a samurai Also i didn't know they had bomb back then how else they kill the knight threw him in water? doubt you can swim in metal armor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3997HZuWjk | ||
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 31 2008 05:15 geometryb wrote: i think a fencer would beat a kendoer Eh but fencing and kendo is biased off a point hit system not how you usually would fight cuz you get more points for hitting the guy before they hit you etc. frankly i just like not to get hit | ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
On July 31 2008 05:00 IzzyCraft wrote: Also i didn't know they had bomb back then how else they kill the knight threw him in water? doubt you can swim in metal armor. To kill a knight, they used warhammers and other blunt weapons to crush the knight's bones behind the plate armor. Samurai aren't exactly equipped with that, but with the very weapon plate armor was designed to make the user invulnerable from. Samurai just can't win in melee, so they have to take it to a ranged fight with their bow/gun. How the hell are they going to pierce plate with their katana? It just doesn't work. Added: If I remember correctly, you can swim in armor. I believe it was the Chinese spearmen who could actually swim while wearing metal armor. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 31 2008 09:08 shinigami wrote: Show nested quote + On July 31 2008 05:00 IzzyCraft wrote: Also i didn't know they had bomb back then how else they kill the knight threw him in water? doubt you can swim in metal armor. To kill a knight, they used warhammers and other blunt weapons to crush the knight's bones behind the plate armor. Samurai aren't exactly equipped with that, but with the very weapon plate armor was designed to make the user invulnerable from. Samurai just can't win in melee, so they have to take it to a ranged fight with their bow/gun. How the hell are they going to pierce plate with their katana? It just doesn't work. Added: If I remember correctly, you can swim in armor. I believe it was the Chinese spearmen who could actually swim while wearing metal armor. That must be very tiering lol i can barely swim in clothes get all weighted down etc. Anyways the way you kill a knight with a bow or a cross bow is hit the joints preferably the face to neck and ring mail cant take a periceing action of a arrow so that easy if your a good ass shot. | ||
Warrior Madness
Canada3791 Posts
| ||
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 31 2008 10:30 Warrior Madness wrote: It depends. Does the samurai have a wasp knife? Lol i knew this would pop up frankly i dont get it you have to stab them then press a button fuck you already stabed that as if that wasn't enough | ||
ez(styles)
United States15 Posts
On July 31 2008 10:30 Warrior Madness wrote: It depends. Does the samurai have a wasp knife? 10 /10 | ||
Andaroo
Canada70 Posts
On July 31 2008 05:00 IzzyCraft wrote: It is true that samurai aren't that experience at fighting those outside of the south east Asian area, while European knight fought just about everyone even extending territory down into the middle east so for a first encounter the knight if hes been around has a huge amounts of experience over a samurai Also i didn't know they had bomb back then how else they kill the knight threw him in water? doubt you can swim in metal armor. Cause every skilled knight has fought in foreign lands =o=. | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
On July 31 2008 13:36 Andaroo wrote: Show nested quote + On July 31 2008 05:00 IzzyCraft wrote: It is true that samurai aren't that experience at fighting those outside of the south east Asian area, while European knight fought just about everyone even extending territory down into the middle east so for a first encounter the knight if hes been around has a huge amounts of experience over a samurai Also i didn't know they had bomb back then how else they kill the knight threw him in water? doubt you can swim in metal armor. Cause every skilled knight has fought in foreign lands =o=. Not everyone needs to fight against each other fucking kill them foreigners over each other haha holy wars much? or centuries fighting against the Muslims don't count? Muslims are people too! | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
Steppe people very much like the Mongols would raid into Persia with their mounted archers. They would use their superior range and mobility to harass any forces sent against them while enjoying near immunity to retaliation. The Persians found that the solution was to mount heavily armored lancers on superior armored horses. These matched the mobility of the raiders and enjoyed near-immunity to arrows, and were highly effective at catching and killing mounted archers. These cataphracts were adopted into the army of the Roman Empire and sent north to serve in Europe, where they were imitated and became the prototype for the knight. Heavy lancers proved so effective, the ultimate elite offensive force, that they came to dominate society. However, with such effective anti-archer forces maintained at a high state of readiness, bows and arrows fell out of fashion. And since horse armor is even more costly and encumbering than armor for men, and enemy horses were valued as war-prizes by the knightly elite, fewer and fewer knights bothered properly armoring their horses. It was considered dishonorable (not to mention unprofitable) to target the horse rather than the rider. It must also be remembered that it is not so easy to kill a big, thick-ribbed animal like a horse with an arrow, especially in the chaos of the battlefield or with indirect, long-range, arcing shots. Much is made of the Mongolian mounted archers, but in reality the Mongols were intelligent, fantastically adaptable warriors with an army that grew far more diverse and sophisticated as their empire grew. The Mongols who pressed into eastern Europe were not the freshly united horse herders who first began stealing land from their soft, agrarian neighbors. These were second and third generation conquerers, full of the best military knowlege that could be plundered from the known world. The Mongol conquest is said to have begun with shame and humiliation at a wedding feast, when Genghis Khan contrasted the luxurious silks and other trade goods brought as gifts by more southerly tribesmen to the crude felt, fur, and leather of his own people. He then understood his people's ignorance, isolation, and lack of sophistication, and so more than for plunder, he set out to gain knowledge and technology. He was always particularly keen to have his armies carry off tradesmen and experts of all kinds back to his people. This spirit applied especially to military matters. In the single case of a major battle involving Mongols and European knights, the Battle of Legnica in Poland, the knights were not only baffled by superior tactics, sorely troubled by the Mongolian archers and insufficient armor for their horses, and generally outmaneuvered by a more professional, experienced, and cohesive enemy, but in the end they were isolated from infantry (and thus prevented from resting), their horses were exhausted, and they were finished off by a superior force of Mongolian heavy cavalry. If the Mongols weren't prepared to fight fire with fire in this way, they might very well have still lost. The English invasion of France in the Hundred Years War is often considered to prove the superiority of the longbow over the mounted knight, when Welsh bowmen simply shot the unarmored horses of French knights, but there were many factors at play. The French forces were foolishly led, and possibly desperate. Phillip VI never seemed to let the specific reality of a situation affect his decisions. He commanded his knights (with unarmored horses) to charge uphill over muddy and broken ground, or through trapped fields, against a prepared force of longbowmen defended by heavy infantry with pikes (edit: well, not many pikes, but polearms suitable to set to receive a cavalry charge and otherwise deal with cavalry, such as the guisarme). He sent mercenary crossbowmen into battle against longbowmen on open ground without giving them time to retrieve their large shields from the luggage train. Later, frustrated by the archers, he ordered his knights to dismount and attack on foot vs. more specialized and better prepared heavy infantry on superior ground. On top of that, it is now considered by some historians that the recorded strength of France's forces were exaggerated, and those of England's understated, in a propaganda effort by Henry V to make himself seem a brilliant battle commander capable of going against the odds, when in fact he had the numerical advantage in well-prepared and seasoned troops (as opposed to peasant levies, which serve poorly for any purpose and are nearly helpless against archers in particular). The effect of the then-unique English cannons is also not to be understated. At any rate, with the rise in popularity of archers and crossbowmen, the knights began armoring their horses once more. Heavily armored cavalry remained relevant for hundreds of years, until firearms evolved beyond the point of being blocked by reasonably wearable steel armor. | ||
![]()
Last Romantic
United States20661 Posts
Heavy, quick, cavalry. Hit Pts: 100 Attack: 10 Range: 0 Armor: 2/2 Samurai: Japanese unique unit. Infantry with fast attack. Attack bonus vs Unique units, buildings. Hit Pts: 60 Attack: 8 Range: 0 Armor: 1/1 +1 pierce armor Pretty straightforward, I think. Samurai's slightly higher DPS can't overcome the knight's HP, especially if it's a Frankish knight. | ||
lololol
5198 Posts
| ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
On July 31 2008 09:50 IzzyCraft wrote: That must be very tiering lol i can barely swim in clothes get all weighted down etc. Anyways the way you kill a knight with a bow or a cross bow is hit the joints preferably the face to neck and ring mail cant take a periceing action of a arrow so that easy if your a good ass shot. Right! But the major problem lies with the numbers... Arrows are very effective versus a knight in large numbers since the knight can't properly defend his flanks. In a 1v1, the chance of an arrow hitting a weak point is VERY small... Probably non-existent because most arrows don't pierce plate in the first place, leaving for very few openings. Necks are generally protected, and joints aren't exactly exposed either. As far as I know, a fully decked out knight has no weak points, save for the palms due to the way gauntlets work (metal pieces sewn onto leather gloves). But that's easily protected by the shield and the back of the hand. But if those are made of plate as well... I only see the modernized samurai with a gun as the best option for taking down a knight. Japanese matchlocks were advanced at the time, and were very useful for making easy kills against armored targets. I mean, do these joints look weak to you? http://surrealdesignz.com/psds/uploaded2/SurrealDesignz_soulcalibursiegfried.png + Show Spoiler + Okay, the above pic that was fantasy, but here's a picture of a real gothic plate armor suit: http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/A000019_L.jpg http://www.medievalrepro.com/Images/Hounskull Armour 002edit.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Gothic-armor06.jpg Another Gothic style plate armor: ![]() Maximilian armor, successor to the Gothic plate armor! | ||
IzzyCraft
United States4487 Posts
| ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
Looking at the picture, the joints, neck, et cetera ARE the weakest... when attacked by a warhammer. You're gonna break your joints taking a hit from that! But a katana? Useless. Utterly useless. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On July 31 2008 16:48 shinigami wrote: I mean, do these joints look weak to you? Dazzlingly marvellous! Perfect! Flawless! Staggering! + Show Spoiler + Old fool! There's a large patch in the hollow of his left breast as bare as a snail out of its shell! | ||
shinigami
Canada423 Posts
A perfectly timed "The Hobbit" reference! | ||
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
This is just like Sven vs Yunero. | ||
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
| ||
We Are Here
Australia1810 Posts
| ||
BlueRoyaL
United States2493 Posts
On August 01 2008 20:54 We Are Here wrote: slash goes through bkb ;p even more pwnage. thus, we have reached the final conclusion: SAMURAI >>>>>>> knight end of discussion ;D | ||
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
You don't need an internet poll to figure this out. The poll results thus far are skewed; I suspect that the anime lovers and azn pryderz are voting samurai for romantic reasons. | ||
liosama
Australia843 Posts
even if i had 10 dark templars next to me i'd run away after seeing someone pull that off infront of me | ||
.MistiK
Netherlands347 Posts
| ||
Riot
27 Posts
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm | ||
aseq
Netherlands3972 Posts
On August 01 2008 21:33 liosama wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1ztcStQl4 even if i had 10 dark templars next to me i'd run away after seeing someone pull that off infront of me He's very good. Vs. Air. | ||
Funchucks
Canada2113 Posts
On August 02 2008 01:07 aseq wrote: Can't you read? He was pwning DTs.Show nested quote + On August 01 2008 21:33 liosama wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1ztcStQl4 even if i had 10 dark templars next to me i'd run away after seeing someone pull that off infront of me He's very good. Vs. Air. Anyway, you've got to respect the dude's ability to sheath. Bet he could out-sheath a dozen knights at once! + Show Spoiler + How come these iaido kata never include poking the fallen enemy to make sure he's dead, then wiping blood and gore off your sword with his pants leg? + Show Spoiler + You've got to bet that when the Protoss emperor introduced his new Dark Templar, there was some snickering in the crowd. | ||
liosama
Australia843 Posts
[QUOTE]On August 02 2008 01:07 aseq wrote: [QUOTE]On August 01 2008 21:33 liosama wrote: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1ztcStQl4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE1ztcStQl4[/url] even if i had 10 dark templars next to me i'd run away after seeing someone pull that off infront of me [/QUOTE] He's very good. Vs. Air. [/QUOTE]Can't you read? He was pwning DTs. /QUOTE] i lol'ed | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2![]() ![]() Shuttle ![]() Hyuk ![]() Stork ![]() ggaemo ![]() TY ![]() sSak ![]() ToSsGirL ![]() sorry ![]() soO ![]() [ Show more ] Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games singsing4255 B2W.Neo1493 Beastyqt1205 Lowko677 hiko547 crisheroes420 XaKoH ![]() Fuzer ![]() Liquid`VortiX148 ArmadaUGS77 FunKaTv ![]() Organizations
StarCraft 2 • StrangeGG StarCraft: Brood War![]() • -Miszu- ![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • intothetv ![]() • Kozan • IndyKCrew ![]() • LaughNgamezSOOP • Migwel ![]() • sooper7s Dota 2 League of Legends |
Monday Night Weeklies
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Clem vs Dark
ByuN vs herO
Code For Giants Cup
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
WardiTV Spring Champion…
[ Show More ] SC Evo League
Replay Cast
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Online Event
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Spring Champion…
Online Event
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Scan
Barracks vs Light
|
|