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.
on the history channel they literally forged armour exactly how it was made back in the day, then fired a longbow at it. and you had to be within 100 feet for the bow to penetrate the armour. that was with an english longbow. Samurai bows were light, and small enough to be fired from horse. English longbows were solid, made from stronger wood, and needed to be fired from a standing position as it required a great amount of strength to fire, thus it generated a greater amount of force. so the samurai would have to fire his bow from like 30-50 feet away, and then just maybe. but the knight would have a shield and would stop any arrow, even an arrow from a crossbow. so no the bow idea would not defeat a european knight.
and those small weapons you are taking about would not be able to stop the force of a weapon such as a katana or european sword, they simply werent big enough to absorb the force of a full swing from a larger weapon. and if he tried the force would instantly be transfered to his wrists bending them and causing severe pain, the sword might also slide down the smaller blade and cut fingers off.
and if you were to try to use those small weapons against a knight you would have to get in close and if you tried the knight would simply stab you as his weapon is greater in size than those small weapons. just anyway you look at it, its not going to happen
Quote from "Equinox" »
Yeah... of course.
"My source is better than your source."
yes it is, history channel and hours and HOURS of research. i even did a thesis paper for school on medieval war technology. and so read countless books and spent hours and hours and hours on the internet.
and on my spare time i constantly read about the crusades.
*edit- and on a side note i have even worn a full suit of chain mail armour, and on another occasion i worse some french knight armour.
and because i love wikipedia so much and it is true in this instance here is a quote from it
"Sword edges could not penetrate even relatively thin plate (as little as 1 mm). Also, although arrows shot from bows, crossbows and early firearms could occasionally pierce plate especially at close range, later improvements in the steel forging techniques and armour design made even this line of attack increasingly difficult. By its apex, hardened steel plate was almost impregnable on the battlefield. Knights were instead increasingly felled by polearms such as the halberd and blunt weapons such as maces or war hammers that could send concussive force through the plate armour resulting in injuries such as broken bones, organ haemorrhage and/or head trauma. Another tactic was to attempt to strike through the gaps between the armour pieces, using daggers, spears and spear points to attack the man-at-arms' eyes or joints."
"Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armour popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. It should be remembered that an armoured knight would be trained to wear armour from his teens, and would likely develop the technique and endurance needed to comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830s, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average, considerably lighter than the equipment often carried by the elite of today's armies. (For example, SAS patrols have been known to carry equipment weighing well over 200 lb (91 kg) for many miles"
MERGE #2 on this post:
and ON TOP OF THAT FOLKS for those who keep on argueing how the the katana is a lightsaber, the katana only came into use around 1600.... by then Europeans had gunpowder firearms... so why not compare a samurai to an English musketeer in the 1800s? who would win then... because thats the gap we are talking about comparing samurai and European knights.
but anyways for sake of argument if we grabbed a samurai from the 1600's then went back further in time and grabbed a European knight from say the 1300's the knight would still prevail.
and why are you giving the samurai all of these weapons, do you think they carried these around with them all the time... why not give the knight a crossbow which would kill the samurai in 1 shot...
thanx Num3n, very interesting + you've got the facts to back it up... i'll sleep smarter tonight that's for sure :P. I never knew that the knight's armour could weight as little as 60lb 0_0, that's insane for the amount of protection it gives!
You obviously know little about swordplay, the idea is to parry the incoming blade and avert its momentum leaving your foe off balance. Lighter blades are much more maneuverable, and thus can parry with greater accuracy. With two blades, you can parry with one and then find an opening with the other or use both to trap your opponents blade.
trap your opponents blade assuming it is moving slowly and only slowly, otherwise the wrist is not capable of stopping the force behind a full length blade when you blade is small. it isnt the movies here m8 where Legolas can use his little blades and take out orc after orc. it just isnt going to happen no matter how skilled you are. big blade comes down on you, you try to parry with your smaller blades but the force would then almost be entirely shifted to your wrist due to the small size of it thus leaving you off balance.
really its quite hard to explain over the internet but it simply wouldnt work.
little blades can stop only if they match the speed of the bigger blade or get close enough; unlikely. but a parry is when you push the incoming blade in a similar direction, but who swings a big sword around? like i said knights jab using two hands, one along the blade edge usually.
i didnt read, but a knight can also be mounted and have his squire with him.
but the main point is that knights and samurai dont actually fight too much, theyre more like generals arnt they?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
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).
Just because this is the spam section:
I saw the process on How It's Made on (was it the Discovery Channel?) I don't watch much TV, but that was an interesting show. The precision and concentration that goes into each one is unreal, and those things are made to kill. I mean MADE to kill- in most cases, in one single swipe, stab, jab, etc.
You speak as though samurai have weak wrists. You can trap a jab by putting the blades at a 90 degree angle and forcing aside the blow, essentially trapping it from landing on the torso or arm. A big sword is good for penetration but also has a tendency to throw you off balance when swinging or stabbing. In this situation the samurai would probably win if he could get in close. The wakazashi is a perfect defensive weapon, small enough to be maneuverable yet big enough to offer a sufficient area of protection.
i speak as though every human has weak wrists. you simply dont understand the mechanics of sword play apparently. and swinging your 4lb sword does not put you off balance, especially if you are a skilled swordsman. which every good knight was.
i speak as though every human has weak wrists. you simply dont understand the mechanics of sword play apparently. and swinging your 4lb sword does not put you off balance, especially if you are a skilled swordsman. which every good knight was.
Every human does not have weak wrists. Have you ever seen how a muay thai fighter trains? What you don't understand about swordplay is leverage. With a shorter blade you want to parry closer to the hilt of your opponents blade so that you dont bear the full brunt of the attack.
The momentum of the strike is what throws you off balance. The heavier the blade the more time it takes to switch from offense to defense.
i train muay thai, and a couple years ago trained in australia for just under 8 months. now i train with the muay thai leader of British Columbia Canada who used to train with John Wayne Parr.
and stop telling me what i do and do not understand. its incredibly rude, juvenile, annoying, and ignorant.
now let me ask you, if that style of fighting was so effective, then why, was it not implemented on the battlefield?
KNIGHTS ALL THE WAY BABY!!!....nvr was a fan of far eastern stuff........at least not compared to medieval stuff form like europe
HELL YEAH! The only far-eastern thing I do enjoy tho would have to be Final Fantasy Games. Yaknow that makes me wonder who would win, a Magitek Knight from final fantasy 5 or some kinda samurai bunny person from one of todays cruddy final fantasy games.
Now as far as most of the opinions that Ive seen:
In terms of cunning sneakiness the samurai wins. He is all at once a shadow and a dragon that can destroy a foe as silently as swaying grass billows in the wind
In terms of brutally loud and proud and roaring thunderous battlefrenzy the knight wins(I dont think a 6 foot 5 knight in huge armor complete with a horned helmet(of say... the Teutonic order) would tread lightly) his armored boots would shake the ground and he would roar out a challenge!
In terms of absolute blinding speed and finesse the samurai wins, for he is a master of all that is agile and graceful. His sword is made for sweeping arcs and is a graceful dance of death
In terms of who breaks the most stuff and rampages, the Knight does definitely. In an evil sense theres loads of historic films about bloodthirsty knights burning towns and ancient cities in their various wars. Haha its no wonder just about EVERY dark lord has major and recognizable knightly qualities(Sauron, Darth Vader, Golbez, Exdeath, Garland, etc.)
those ar my observations as to what has come up the most that Ive seen
In terms of absolute blinding speed and finesse the samurai wins, for he is a master of all that is agile and graceful. His sword is made for sweeping arcs and is a graceful dance of death
In terms of who breaks the most stuff and rampages, the Knight does definitely. In an evil sense theres loads of historic films about bloodthirsty knights burning towns and ancient cities in their various wars. Haha its no wonder just about EVERY dark lord has major and recognizable knightly qualities(Sauron, Darth Vader, Golbez, Exdeath, Garland, etc.)
dude your just reinforcing retarded stereotypes....
So you know that a warriors wrists would be tough from training. The wakazashi was a companion sword to the katana, and were often used in unison by skilled swordsman. It is a difficult technique to master but is very effective.
Wrists are natural weak points in humans as they contain loads of bones, extremely small amounts of muscle, loads of veins, and only tendons hold it together.
Wakazashis are from 1 to 2ft in length, so they aren't terribly short. By combining the strength of both his wrists he could easily block an incoming broadsword.
Who was the most famed knight of European countries and what did he use in combat?
Wakazashis are from 1 to 2ft in length, so they aren't terribly short. By combining the strength of both his wrists he could easily block an incoming broadsword.
Who was the most famed knight of European countries and what did he use in combat?
Sir Elton John and his 2 ft platform shoes and glittering jacket.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember the String of Ears
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
I would have to say that the very nature of combat puts each side at distinct advantages, but in a 1-on-1, a trained samurai would excell because of the cultural ramifications. Europeans used to fight large, pitched battles, Japanese would match off in duels 1-vs-1. It was not until the mongols attempted to invade, that they really began to use what we would consider conventional methods.
I would have to say that the very nature of combat puts each side at distinct advantages, but in a 1-on-1, a trained samurai would excell because of the cultural ramifications. Europeans used to fight large, pitched battles, Japanese would match off in duels 1-vs-1. It was not until the mongols attempted to invade, that they really began to use what we would consider conventional methods.
you do realize knights trained in 1v1 combat all of the time right? and they held regular tournaments.
the samurai would not excel.... and cultural ramifications, wtf does that mean
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
k obviously you didnt read that article i posted again and again. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
here it is for like the 5th time.
on the history channel they literally forged armour exactly how it was made back in the day, then fired a longbow at it. and you had to be within 100 feet for the bow to penetrate the armour. that was with an english longbow. Samurai bows were light, and small enough to be fired from horse. English longbows were solid, made from stronger wood, and needed to be fired from a standing position as it required a great amount of strength to fire, thus it generated a greater amount of force. so the samurai would have to fire his bow from like 30-50 feet away, and then just maybe. but the knight would have a shield and would stop any arrow, even an arrow from a crossbow. so no the bow idea would not defeat a european knight.
and those small weapons you are taking about would not be able to stop the force of a weapon such as a katana or european sword, they simply werent big enough to absorb the force of a full swing from a larger weapon. and if he tried the force would instantly be transfered to his wrists bending them and causing severe pain, the sword might also slide down the smaller blade and cut fingers off.
and if you were to try to use those small weapons against a knight you would have to get in close and if you tried the knight would simply stab you as his weapon is greater in size than those small weapons. just anyway you look at it, its not going to happen
yes it is, history channel and hours and HOURS of research. i even did a thesis paper for school on medieval war technology. and so read countless books and spent hours and hours and hours on the internet.
and on my spare time i constantly read about the crusades.
*edit- and on a side note i have even worn a full suit of chain mail armour, and on another occasion i worse some french knight armour.
and because i love wikipedia so much and it is true in this instance here is a quote from it
"Sword edges could not penetrate even relatively thin plate (as little as 1 mm). Also, although arrows shot from bows, crossbows and early firearms could occasionally pierce plate especially at close range, later improvements in the steel forging techniques and armour design made even this line of attack increasingly difficult. By its apex, hardened steel plate was almost impregnable on the battlefield. Knights were instead increasingly felled by polearms such as the halberd and blunt weapons such as maces or war hammers that could send concussive force through the plate armour resulting in injuries such as broken bones, organ haemorrhage and/or head trauma. Another tactic was to attempt to strike through the gaps between the armour pieces, using daggers, spears and spear points to attack the man-at-arms' eyes or joints."
"Contrary to common misconceptions, a well-made suit of medieval 'battle' armour (as opposed to the primarily ceremonial 'parade' and 'tournament' armour popular with kings and nobility of later years) hindered its wearer no more than the equipment carried by soldiers today. It should be remembered that an armoured knight would be trained to wear armour from his teens, and would likely develop the technique and endurance needed to comfortably run, crawl, climb ladders, as well as mount and dismount his horse without recourse to a crane (a myth probably originating from an English music hall comedy of the 1830s, and popularised in Mark Twain's A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). A full suit of medieval plate is thought to have weighed little more than 60 lb (27 kg) on average, considerably lighter than the equipment often carried by the elite of today's armies. (For example, SAS patrols have been known to carry equipment weighing well over 200 lb (91 kg) for many miles"
MERGE #2 on this post:
and ON TOP OF THAT FOLKS for those who keep on argueing how the the katana is a lightsaber, the katana only came into use around 1600.... by then Europeans had gunpowder firearms... so why not compare a samurai to an English musketeer in the 1800s? who would win then... because thats the gap we are talking about comparing samurai and European knights.
but anyways for sake of argument if we grabbed a samurai from the 1600's then went back further in time and grabbed a European knight from say the 1300's the knight would still prevail.
and why are you giving the samurai all of these weapons, do you think they carried these around with them all the time... why not give the knight a crossbow which would kill the samurai in 1 shot...
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
really its quite hard to explain over the internet but it simply wouldnt work.
little blades can stop only if they match the speed of the bigger blade or get close enough; unlikely. but a parry is when you push the incoming blade in a similar direction, but who swings a big sword around? like i said knights jab using two hands, one along the blade edge usually.
i didnt read, but a knight can also be mounted and have his squire with him.
but the main point is that knights and samurai dont actually fight too much, theyre more like generals arnt they?
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
Just because this is the spam section:
I saw the process on How It's Made on (was it the Discovery Channel?) I don't watch much TV, but that was an interesting show. The precision and concentration that goes into each one is unreal, and those things are made to kill. I mean MADE to kill- in most cases, in one single swipe, stab, jab, etc.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
The momentum of the strike is what throws you off balance. The heavier the blade the more time it takes to switch from offense to defense.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
and stop telling me what i do and do not understand. its incredibly rude, juvenile, annoying, and ignorant.
now let me ask you, if that style of fighting was so effective, then why, was it not implemented on the battlefield?
HELL YEAH! The only far-eastern thing I do enjoy tho would have to be Final Fantasy Games. Yaknow that makes me wonder who would win, a Magitek Knight from final fantasy 5 or some kinda samurai bunny person from one of todays cruddy final fantasy games.
Now as far as most of the opinions that Ive seen:
In terms of cunning sneakiness the samurai wins. He is all at once a shadow and a dragon that can destroy a foe as silently as swaying grass billows in the wind
In terms of brutally loud and proud and roaring thunderous battlefrenzy the knight wins(I dont think a 6 foot 5 knight in huge armor complete with a horned helmet(of say... the Teutonic order) would tread lightly) his armored boots would shake the ground and he would roar out a challenge!
In terms of absolute blinding speed and finesse the samurai wins, for he is a master of all that is agile and graceful. His sword is made for sweeping arcs and is a graceful dance of death
In terms of who breaks the most stuff and rampages, the Knight does definitely. In an evil sense theres loads of historic films about bloodthirsty knights burning towns and ancient cities in their various wars. Haha its no wonder just about EVERY dark lord has major and recognizable knightly qualities(Sauron, Darth Vader, Golbez, Exdeath, Garland, etc.)
those ar my observations as to what has come up the most that Ive seen
dude your just reinforcing retarded stereotypes....
read this please http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Miyamoto Musashi
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Who was the most famed knight of European countries and what did he use in combat?
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
"to the worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish."
you do realize knights trained in 1v1 combat all of the time right? and they held regular tournaments.
the samurai would not excel.... and cultural ramifications, wtf does that mean