First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Euopean Knights vs Samurai, who shall dominate
233 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / under the sea
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
the samurai off cores. their swords kick butt.
7886 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Melbourne
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

arano wrote:

bla bla bla...vs. threads suck!


is it time to make a vs.thread for me,...let me think


i think u should make a thread asking us how we believe u should kill urself.
7763 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Davao City, Phili...
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
Samurais will own for a couple of good reasons

1.In terms of weapons, middle to dark age weapons are one of the weakest close range combat weapons there is. The reason is because the way they make those swords. They just flatten large amounts of steal to make their swords. With this method of making a weapon, the metals in one side might be more than the metal in the other thus making it brittle in one part of the sword. The samurai weapons, katana, was made by folding a good amount of steal so many times that the metals used will combine into equal fractions thus making it more stable and more durable.

2. In terms of training, the samurais are superior in every way. Knights just learn how to swing a sword while samurais have styles and forms that are usefull in battle.

3. Their armor arent that different. A mail can be pierced or slashed as long as the weapon dont break and assuming the warrior has the strength to do so and the katana is almost unbreakable so its easy.
5890 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / ENGLAND
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
they both good but a samurai 2 me is much more amazing and o yeh this is crunchyroll most people r bound 2 pic a samurai
1125 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
samurais are stupid...they kill themselves based on small reasons like shame or failure on a mission given to them by their masters. When in war of course the knight would win 'cuz of armour plus strategized formations plus there's more of them, while the samurais are slowly dying 'cuz of harakiri or seppuku.
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
I think this is an interesting topic, but there are many useless posts and idiotic comebacks...

I'll keep the topic open for the meantime, but if the stupidity in this thread continues, I'll just lock it.


As far as it goes, you can compare the two in terms of technique, weaponry, armory, and all around "philosophy".

Technique is a very subjective topic, and it's difficult to say that one technique is better than the other, more so since their applied techniques differ based on the terrain upon which they are accustomed for usage. But for what it's worth, both knights and samurai have ingenious tactics that can make them fearsome warriors.


The Samurai sword (katana) is perhaps the most most powerful sword, that mimics the design of a Scimitar, but combines lightweight action with effective force of impact. The range of motion allows swift movements that follow the natural action of the warriors movements.

A knight sword is usually either in the class of a broad sword (light weight, "stand alone" sword, usually handled with one hand) or a long sword (heavy, two-handed sword). Broad swords are most effective using light thrusts and stabs, which makes it's handling similar to fencing. Usually handled with a shield, the broad sword is most effective for one-on-one combat. The long sword, on the other hand, is limited to single motion swings or "log-cuts", with limited effectiveness as far as stabbing is concerned (because of it's weight). Although, the weapon is useful both defensively and offensively, and works well to direct combat to a mid-stance position (meaning, it effectively pushes the enemy further away from you, thus limiting their range).

Although this is useful, the Katana can do both tactics effectively, so the Samurai can effectively switch between offensive and defensive tactics on a single sword (at the expense of not having a shield).


Armory is another story. Though the Samurai armor isn't as sturdy as a Knight's, it weighs a lot less, and allows greater range of movement. But both armors are heavy to begin with, so weight doesn't play much of a role as much as sturdiness does. The Samurai armor also tends to have many embellishments that are unnecessary from a tactical advantage. On this level, the Knight wins.


Philosophy is yet another subjective topic. It may be hard to understand, from a Western Standpoint, the ideals that a Samurai has, as far as "honor" and family "dignity" are concerned. Death in battle, even at one's own expense, is better than living a life of shame and disgrace upon one's own family name. But this philosophy has nothing to do with the war faring tactics of either side of the spectrum, so I see no reason as to why this is a basis for Knights to be better than Samurai.


With everything weighed, I pick the Samurai over the Knight.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

edsamac wrote:

The Samurai sword (katana) is perhaps the most most powerful sword, that mimics the design of a Scimitar, but combines lightweight action with effective force of impact. The range of motion allows swift movements that follow the natural action of the warriors movements.

A knight sword is usually either in the class of a broad sword (light weight, "stand alone" sword, usually handled with one hand) or a long sword (heavy, two-handed sword). Broad swords are most effective using light thrusts and stabs, which makes it's handling similar to fencing. Usually handled with a shield, the broad sword is most effective for one-on-one combat. The long sword, on the other hand, is limited to single motion swings or "log-cuts", with limited effectiveness as far as stabbing is concerned (because of it's weight). Although, the weapon is useful both defensively and offensively, and works well to direct combat to a mid-stance position (meaning, it effectively pushes the enemy further away from you, thus limiting their range).

Although this is useful, the Katana can do both tactics effectively, so the Samurai can effectively switch between offensive and defensive tactics on a single sword (at the expense of not having a shield).



You probably forgot though that most knights (i take on the the typical, european Medieval Knight in this case) aren't really that much bent on using the sword. In reality, they're far more trained in using polearms and lances, as in jousts, that deal with longer ranges.


edsamac wrote:
Philosophy is yet another subjective topic. It may be hard to understand, from a Western Standpoint, the ideals that a Samurai has, as far as "honor" and family "dignity" are concerned. Death in battle, even at one's own expense, is better than living a life of shame and disgrace upon one's own family name. But this philosophy has nothing to do with the war faring tactics of either side of the spectrum, so I see no reason as to why this is a basis for Knights to be better than Samurai.



When it comes to philosophy, the samurais are in the far edge. The image of knights are notoriously disgraced throughout the history because of blood lust and corruption, i.e. The Crusades, the Knight Templars... The samurais on the otherhand died gracefully at the end of the shogunate era.
9121 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
The nuns would win.

4317 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Tokyo Uni
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

Your_Typical_Friend wrote:

i say samurais. they faster then armored pussy white men


hahah too true
Posted 12/29/07
NO vs thread. x) i think samurai would..
4987 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Philippines
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
I believe both knights and samurais have equal training. They are counterparts of each other. But if you ask me samurais will win since they can fight whether or not they have gears while knights cannot.
7801 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Pinsnotch2
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
knights of course samurais are japanese meaning they have smaller bodies and are weaker while knights are european and get really big and are like 6 foot something plus they have armor a little blade for slashing isn't going to do much good against plate armor
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

projectcedric wrote:


edsamac wrote:

The Samurai sword (katana) is perhaps the most most powerful sword, that mimics the design of a Scimitar, but combines lightweight action with effective force of impact. The range of motion allows swift movements that follow the natural action of the warriors movements.

A knight sword is usually either in the class of a broad sword (light weight, "stand alone" sword, usually handled with one hand) or a long sword (heavy, two-handed sword). Broad swords are most effective using light thrusts and stabs, which makes it's handling similar to fencing. Usually handled with a shield, the broad sword is most effective for one-on-one combat. The long sword, on the other hand, is limited to single motion swings or "log-cuts", with limited effectiveness as far as stabbing is concerned (because of it's weight). Although, the weapon is useful both defensively and offensively, and works well to direct combat to a mid-stance position (meaning, it effectively pushes the enemy further away from you, thus limiting their range).

Although this is useful, the Katana can do both tactics effectively, so the Samurai can effectively switch between offensive and defensive tactics on a single sword (at the expense of not having a shield).



You probably forgot though that most knights (i take on the the typical, european Medieval Knight in this case) aren't really that much bent on using the sword. In reality, they're far more trained in using polearms and lances, as in jousts, that deal with longer ranges.


Good point. I actually pointed out the more obvious choice of weapon, since it's the most well known, and can be compared with the samurai sword.

I guess the Samurai equivalent of the lance would be the halberd, but this weapon is usually used on foot.
7801 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Pinsnotch2
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
thought they used those huge maces and throwing axes
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Beautiful and Sun...
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
I was going to post a really long thing about European weapons and the training of medieval knights. But I'll save everyone from a long rant. Studying medieval history is a hobby of mine and I have taken martial arts seminars where I learned two handed sword techniques. It's a lot of fun.

What it comes down to is: Who do you want to win, the knight or the samurai? It's a popularity contest at this point. Medieval knights didn't just swing swords either. Their martial art was as well developed as the samurai's. There are manuscripts like Talhoffer and Fiore de Liberi's Flos Duelatorum available online. Check out Schola St. George or AEMMA if you want more info on this.

Medieval European armour wasn't all that heavy actually. A full plate armour from the late 1400's would only weigh about 25 to 35kg. And a longsword was only about 1.5 to 2kg.

You can't say that all samurai would beat all knights or the other way around. There are too many variables in combat to make a blanket statement like that. It has been my experience that when two opponents of equal skill and matching equipment fight, the big guy usually wins.
It isn't about knight versus samurai any way. The real question is...

Viking versus Gladiator.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.