I would go with Samurai, since they are very quick and gifted in the Martial Arts, which can deal with a lethal blow very fast. A knight is heavy and takes very long to make one swing of a sword.
I wouldnt call that lame, that was a well-spoken and educated response. So now I guess the Knight's techniques were all brute force, while those of samurai are of speed and finesse.
"I want to say something but I'll keep it to myself I guess and leave this useless post behind to make you aware that there WAS something... "
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
samurai would win because he'd just shoot an arrow. but if it were hand t hand combat, the knight would have the upper hand.
many people think knights are really slow, but they actually arnt, and they actually dont "swing" their swords as much as people think; they actually jab and thrust. all that armor plus a reasonable speed puts them at a slight advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
samurai would win because he'd just shoot an arrow. but if it were hand t hand combat, the knight would have the upper hand.
many people think knights are really slow, but they actually arnt, and they actually dont "swing" their swords as much as people think; they actually jab and thrust. all that armor plus a reasonable speed puts them at a slight advantage.
Ah, but the samurai had advanced weapons and armor that allowed for fast paced combat. A samurai's armor is far superior to breast plates and simple leather armor. Their armor was great for stopping any form of attack, including stabs. It was also very light. Katana are the sharpest blades on earth, made by folding the steel many times over. Sometimes their blades were folded over a thousand times. In order to test a newly formed blade, corpses were stacked up and the blade was brought down on them. The amount of severed corpses gauged its sharpness (thats what I call brutal).
Ah, but the samurai had advanced weapons and armor that allowed for fast paced combat. A samurai's armor is far superior to breast plates and simple leather armor. Their armor was great for stopping any form of attack, including stabs. It was also very light. Katana are the sharpest blades on earth, made by folding the steel many times over. Sometimes their blades were folded over a thousand times. In order to test a newly formed blade, corpses were stacked up and the blade was brought down on them. The amount of severed corpses gauged its sharpness (thats what I call brutal).
man some people are honestly so dense.... man get over your damn imagination m8. quote on quote "The steel is often folded from 8 to as many as 16 times. (Beyond 16, the act of folding no longer gives any benefit to the steel.)"
samurai originally came into existence around 1000ad. knights existed
murderface you sound like a wide eyed child obsessed with samurai, you make katanas sound like lightsabers....
samurai would win because he'd just shoot an arrow. but if it were hand t hand combat, the knight would have the upper hand.
many people think knights are really slow, but they actually arnt, and they actually dont "swing" their swords as much as people think; they actually jab and thrust. all that armor plus a reasonable speed puts them at a slight advantage.
you do realize the short bow of the samurai completely lacked the power to punch through European armour right?
I meant 1000 layers, the genius of the samurai sword is that it contained an iron backbone that gave it flexibility while the tempered steel on the outside gave it an unparalleled cutting surface.
Kyudo, the way of the bow.
If this wont penetrate European armor I don't know what will.
I meant 1000 layers, the genius of the samurai sword is that it contained an iron backbone that gave it flexibility while the tempered steel on the outside gave it an unparalleled cutting surface.
Kyudo, the way of the bow.
If this wont penetrate European armor I don't know what will.
do you see how easily he pulls that back, that wood is too soft to generate the force needed..... the English longbow is without a doubt considered the most devastating ranged weapon to exist in the middle ages ever.... by almost every single expert on the period.
and yes i know you mean bloody 1000 layers.... wow you must be sleeping m8.
you said "Sometimes their blades were folded over a thousand times"
Then i said in response: "man some people are honestly so dense.... man get over your damn imagination m8. quote on quote "The steel is often folded from 8 to as many as 16 times.""
you said: "I meant 1000 layers"
............-_-
the fact of the matter is that European knights had superior armour to deal with more diverse conditions, be it the wet environment in Great Britain (samurai armour became extremely heavy when it rained due to how it was kept together), or the hot arid landscape of the middle east. the armour was able to prevent nearly every type of weapon at the time excluding long bows fired from very short distances or crossbows, and naturally stabs from hand weapons to weak points in the armour, or finally massive blows from heavy weapons damaging internal body parts.
Katanas, even of the late 1700s (by the way i have been comparing people within the period of 1000-1400 BC) were not lightsabers. though they were superior in terms of sharpness and cutting ability they were by no means FAR superior to European swords. In the movies and in video games you see them cutting other swords in half, cutting shields in half etc. that is literally impossible ever for the sharpest katana ever made. 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 devestating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is FAR less effective against cutting metal and armour.
then quote on quote from a War history expert: "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."
Anyways aside from what you hear in movies and the like, medieval knight swords were literally about the same weight, ie less than 4 pounds. they provided superior effectevness while fighting with shields and were more easily able to thrust as it was a straight edge. also both sides were sharp providing greater flexibility when fighting.
anyways if the two opponents were to come face to face on an open field, the sun out. the knight would most probably win due to the fact that the shield would be nearly impossible to pass, and if it was passed his armour would deflect any blow inflicted by the Katana. If the samurai were to swing at the knight his sword would get momentarily wedged in the knight's shield and this would be a perfect oppertunity for the knight to cleave his head off or simply stab him. i could go on and on with different scenarios, but ultimately the knight would be victious, only luck would grant the samurai a victory.
Quote from "Equinox" »
Samurai, hands down, in any kind of combat. They had much better discipline. Knights were just soldiers who had money to buy a horse.
yes they were just blubbering barbarians barely able to distinguish hand from hand and person from person. ............ sigh.......
omfg Equinox.....
please send 10 minutes and read this because the heresy that just came from your mouth... is just so plain ignorant that i had a momentary loss of self control there....
This is all assuming the samurai has a sword and not a bow, naginata, or dual wakazashis. Two short blades makes finding an opening much easier. A naginata is basically a sword on a stick that offers excellent defese as well as a powerful, accurate blow. I dont get how you can tell how hard he is pulling on that bow. Longbows are famed for accuracy, and all helmets have face holes. A well aimed arrow beats a well armored soldier any day.
I remember reading about European plate armor being very heavy, not versatile without a horse, and making it almost impossible to see anything... so I'd assume in a 1v1 he'd take some of it off and switch to chainmail.
I remember reading about European plate armor being very heavy, not versatile without a horse, and making it almost impossible to see anything... so I'd assume in a 1v1 he'd take some of it off and switch to chainmail.
well you read wrong. some armour yes, but almost all was designed to be light and versatile so work with a horse or on foot. They werent retarded, just because it took place a few hundred years ago doesnt mean they were one generation off from ass licking monkeys.
I would go with Samurai, since they are very quick and gifted in the Martial Arts, which can deal with a lethal blow very fast. A knight is heavy and takes very long to make one swing of a sword.
So that's my lame answer.
T
F
O
I'm seriously serial.
-Equinox
"We're like the downtown of the Diablo related internet lol"
-Winged
many people think knights are really slow, but they actually arnt, and they actually dont "swing" their swords as much as people think; they actually jab and thrust. all that armor plus a reasonable speed puts them at a slight advantage.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
man some people are honestly so dense.... man get over your damn imagination m8. quote on quote "The steel is often folded from 8 to as many as 16 times. (Beyond 16, the act of folding no longer gives any benefit to the steel.)"
samurai originally came into existence around 1000ad. knights existed
murderface you sound like a wide eyed child obsessed with samurai, you make katanas sound like lightsabers....
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
anyways that long article will completely remove all your absurb biases
you do realize the short bow of the samurai completely lacked the power to punch through European armour right?
Kyudo, the way of the bow.
If this wont penetrate European armor I don't know what will.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Samurai fight for there honor and are portrayed as rightfull and i dislike that
i like how some knights had impure desires it just made there story a bit more interesting
oops posted on wrong thread ill just change my post to fit this one
do you see how easily he pulls that back, that wood is too soft to generate the force needed..... the English longbow is without a doubt considered the most devastating ranged weapon to exist in the middle ages ever.... by almost every single expert on the period.
and yes i know you mean bloody 1000 layers.... wow you must be sleeping m8.
you said "Sometimes their blades were folded over a thousand times"
Then i said in response: "man some people are honestly so dense.... man get over your damn imagination m8. quote on quote "The steel is often folded from 8 to as many as 16 times.""
you said: "I meant 1000 layers"
............-_-
the fact of the matter is that European knights had superior armour to deal with more diverse conditions, be it the wet environment in Great Britain (samurai armour became extremely heavy when it rained due to how it was kept together), or the hot arid landscape of the middle east. the armour was able to prevent nearly every type of weapon at the time excluding long bows fired from very short distances or crossbows, and naturally stabs from hand weapons to weak points in the armour, or finally massive blows from heavy weapons damaging internal body parts.
Katanas, even of the late 1700s (by the way i have been comparing people within the period of 1000-1400 BC) were not lightsabers. though they were superior in terms of sharpness and cutting ability they were by no means FAR superior to European swords. In the movies and in video games you see them cutting other swords in half, cutting shields in half etc. that is literally impossible ever for the sharpest katana ever made. 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 devestating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is FAR less effective against cutting metal and armour.
then quote on quote from a War history expert: "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."
Anyways aside from what you hear in movies and the like, medieval knight swords were literally about the same weight, ie less than 4 pounds. they provided superior effectevness while fighting with shields and were more easily able to thrust as it was a straight edge. also both sides were sharp providing greater flexibility when fighting.
anyways if the two opponents were to come face to face on an open field, the sun out. the knight would most probably win due to the fact that the shield would be nearly impossible to pass, and if it was passed his armour would deflect any blow inflicted by the Katana. If the samurai were to swing at the knight his sword would get momentarily wedged in the knight's shield and this would be a perfect oppertunity for the knight to cleave his head off or simply stab him. i could go on and on with different scenarios, but ultimately the knight would be victious, only luck would grant the samurai a victory.
yes they were just blubbering barbarians barely able to distinguish hand from hand and person from person. ............ sigh.......
omfg Equinox.....
please send 10 minutes and read this because the heresy that just came from your mouth... is just so plain ignorant that i had a momentary loss of self control there....
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
well you read wrong. some armour yes, but almost all was designed to be light and versatile so work with a horse or on foot. They werent retarded, just because it took place a few hundred years ago doesnt mean they were one generation off from ass licking monkeys.
"My source is better than your source."