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
228 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Near Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

Hieronymus_Reiter wrote:

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.


Excellent, agreed.

On average, knights/samurais would kill each other off if everything was equalized, however knights are stronger physically. If you pick samurai, you know you've been watching too much anime. Normal samurai's (in the REAL world) can't teleport quickly behind the knight with a simple sidestep, they get impaled, thanks.
958 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
46 / M / Alberta, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
u guys suck! i think karate kid owns the world..

yay!
30 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
51 / M / Beautiful and Sun...
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

namezox wrote:

question.

European Knights on horseback or on foot?


Why not both? Pick a Japanese lord from 1400 to 1600 and his army and throw him up against, let's say...an equal amount of troops from the army of Charles the Bold, the last Duke of Burgundy. We'll let Charles leave his cannons and at home.

The knight on horseback charging with a lance would most likely defeat a samurai on horseback. The European horses were bigger and heavier and putting all that weight behind the point of a lance would punch right through Japanese armour. A sendai-do was not made with that kind of abuse in mind. Eurpoean armmour was designed to defend against this kind of attack, though.

I would like to see Jacques de Lalaing, one of the most famous Burgundian knights of his day, fight with a pollaxe against the best samurai who would use a naginata. I would like to see Musashi fight against Talhoffer or Fiore, each with his respective sword.
2942 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / canada..........ehh
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
hmmm it is pretty hard to decide unless you acctually see both two different types of warriors fight cause samurais have much more speed so they could probably easily evade knights attacks and slowly counter them to death since a knight has a overload of armour.
but since knights have an overload of armour they can probably just bait a samurai into attacking and somehow disarm him from his weapon and he is probably dead.
so i have no clue what would happen
70633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

jayzone900 wrote:
Oh yah, samurais pwn because of their main weapon, the katana. Their weapon which was very important was efficiently crafted often taking months to comlpete. On most cases the metal was folded hundreds of times to make sure the metal is void of all impurities. anyway the swords was much lighter on most cases, depending on its length, and would easily cut through bone. perhaps armor too because its usually thin as to avoid extremely heavy armor


The Samurai's main weapon was the bow (and lets not forget the Welsh Yew Longbow) Samurai, technologically speaking, were far behind the Europeans... their swords may look impressive but Europeans were making folded steel weapons 1000 years earlier.

Samurai would use their weapons in order:
Bow
Yari (spear)
Katana

Knights are less predictable, they'd have a spear/lance but their mele weapon might be a sword, axe, mace, warhammer...

Remember Samurai only ever fought other Samurai. I don't know if steel armour is better than Bamboo armour but it's something to bear in mind.


bujujutko wrote:

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.


Remember Katana are strongest when striking a curved surface (another Katana) and weakest when striking a flat(er) surface (armour) The main way to kill an armoured knight is to thrust between the plates of his armour. Katana are just not made to thrust.


edsamac wrote:

Broad swords are most effective using light thrusts and stabs, which makes it's handling similar to fencing.


And we all know who wins between a Samurai and fencer (it was the fencer BTW)

Kenjitsu is all well and good but when your opening move is to cut your opponent in half with an insane swing and his is to run you through and step back in roughly one third of the time...

Let's not forget the horses, a charging horse and armoured Knight could weigh over a ton. Imagine getting hit by a large family car carrying a spear and travailing at 40 miles per hour.


projectcedric wrote:
Vikings.

They're cool. They're crazy. They have a cool religion/belief. They pretty much kick ass.


Not to mention the Dane Axe. It ever there was a cooler weapon I've yet to see it. If you've seen one thrown you'll know what I mean. www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvqSipRAIm8&feature=related Not being thrown but that coconut never stood a chance.


projectcedric wrote:

Gladiators are even inferior to the main Roman army who use special techniques in battle, eg. the Phalanx.


So did the SPARTANS! ^_~

Cunning battle Strategy = Inferior?

Of course were all making a pointless argument. We all know the winner in any fight would be Drizzt Do'Urden. :P
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

DarkLFluffles wrote:

as far as i know (and correct me if im wrong) the knights would have a big advantage...being able to use a whole ton of diffrent weapons like maces, axes, 2h swords, bows and shields. while ive never seen or heard of samurai carrying more then a katana and maybe another smaller sword


A samurai can use a naginata as a siege weaponry or a bow.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

mikagecorp wrote:

u guys suck! i think karate kid owns the world..

yay!


You're wrong! Pat Morita pawns him. But Chuck Norris pawns Pat Morita.

Chuck Norris owns the world.
70633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

projectcedric wrote:


mikagecorp wrote:

u guys suck! i think karate kid owns the world..

yay!


You're wrong! Pat Morita pawns him. But Chuck Norris pawns Pat Morita.

Chuck Norris owns the world.


With the exception of Drizzt of course.

6275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
No more versus threads.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

Tyrfing wrote:



projectcedric wrote:

Gladiators are even inferior to the main Roman army who use special techniques in battle, eg. the Phalanx.


So did the SPARTANS! ^_~

Cunning battle Strategy = Inferior?

Of course were all making a pointless argument. We all know the winner in any fight would be Drizzt Do'Urden. :P


The Spartans are not Gladiators. They were a very strong nation known for being valiant and cunning. Had circumstances been different they would have survived longer.

The Roman army also used cunning battle strategies and tactics. Thus they are superior. I cannot compare between the Roman Army and the Spartans. They probably pretty much on the same ground. Roman Army = large number. Spartans = exceptional valor.

Whatever the case, the Gladiators are inferior against both. They were mostly criminals, had no military training, and their experienced were limited to the Colosseum.
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

Tyrfing wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


mikagecorp wrote:

u guys suck! i think karate kid owns the world..

yay!


You're wrong! Pat Morita pawns him. But Chuck Norris pawns Pat Morita.

Chuck Norris owns the world.


With the exception of Drizzt of course.



Um.. no. Chuck Norris still pawns. Drizzt is too short.
6275 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

projectcedric wrote:


Tyrfing wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


mikagecorp wrote:

u guys suck! i think karate kid owns the world..

yay!


You're wrong! Pat Morita pawns him. But Chuck Norris pawns Pat Morita.

Chuck Norris owns the world.


With the exception of Drizzt of course.



Um.. no. Chuck Norris still pawns. Drizzt is too short.


Not really since Chuck Norris got his ass handed to him by Bruce Lee in Way of the Dragon

Posted 12/29/07
The only strong people i admire in Europe are the Greeks and Romans, the others are... nah... just trash. Europe would only be overran by the Khans anyway if Asia wasn't too large... European knights were easily defeated by the muslims, how much more if they are to face some warriors who excel in fighting than they are.

No warriors fight like the Samurai does, Europeans are just armorclad cowards who depend much in their armor. They suck at fighting, even at just holding their swords. without their armors they are useless...
2923 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M
Offline
Posted 12/29/07

AkumaKitsune wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


Tyrfing wrote:


projectcedric wrote:


mikagecorp wrote:

u guys suck! i think karate kid owns the world..

yay!


You're wrong! Pat Morita pawns him. But Chuck Norris pawns Pat Morita.

Chuck Norris owns the world.


With the exception of Drizzt of course.



Um.. no. Chuck Norris still pawns. Drizzt is too short.


Not really since Chuck Norris got his ass handed to him by Bruce Lee in Way of the Dragon



um okay.
2081 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / F / philippines
Offline
Posted 12/29/07
for some reason european knight looks so smelly..
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.