I'm my own source, I took a European History class, I love history just as much as I love Video Games.
As I remember, most Knights were poor. Chivalry paid off quite well for these types when the 100 year war (lasted a longer than 100 years, it's just a title) came along. Knights were basically relegated land for loyalty to their king.
This land was often dominated by a Manor and farmland. If you think that a knight is some how going to live a life of luxury this way overblown, most knights had small pots of land, of course as more and more of them died, people would accumulate those conquered lands. Even within that land his peasants were entitled a considerable lot in terms of how much farmland will accomidate their survival. But that doesn't bring in much money either way.
If you want to make the argument that Knights as a whole had the means to be taught to fight expertly in comparison to a Japanese Samurai, let alone afford acceptable armor, you would invariably be wrong as too few knights could afford expert training or heavy armor, it was battlefield or wooden pegs and serfs and plunder.
Think about it, why do the thoughts of Knights stir up thoughts of glory? Because much of that thinking is what drove many knights to their chivalrous ways, they were struggling.
A merchant could afford expert training and heavy weaponry.
But hey, I can't stress it, that's how I remember the Middle Ages, we focused quite a bit on it but it's been a year since the class, I'll bet I got 5 things technically wrong.
the discussion wasnt about a poor disease ridden knight here... nor was it about a poor disease ridden samurai. we are talking about two well off warriors a knight and samurai. we are assuming that both are relatively wealthy to afford top of the line equipment for their time and area.
We should be talking about the average samurai vs the average knight. Average knight wore chainmail, skullcap, leather garments, and maybe a breast plate. I'd say that average samurai armor is as good, if not better. Samurai have two swords called daisho (big and small). The wakazashi was worn on the opposite side in case defensive measures were needed. It was also used for ritual suicide. So we have two warriors, one with daisho and one with sheild and long sword. The knight would probably use a smite and stab method while the samurai would keep distance with his longer sword and would either stab or slash at the leather garments or neck. While the knight has a defensive advantage with his shield, the samurai has an offensive advantage with his daisho. In the off chance that the samurai wedges his katana into the sheild he could turn the odds in his favor by switching to his wakazashi and hooking it around the shield towards the neck while using the knights sheild as a defense from his longsword.
We should be talking about the average samurai vs the average knight. Average knight wore chainmail, skullcap, leather garments, and maybe a breast plate. I'd say that average samurai armor is as good, if not better. Samurai have two swords called daisho (big and small). The wakazashi was worn on the opposite side in case defensive measures were needed. It was also used for ritual suicide. So we have two warriors, one with daisho and one with sheild and long sword. The knight would probably use a smite and stab method while the samurai would keep distance with his longer sword and would either stab or slash at the leather garments or neck. While the knight has a defensive advantage with his shield, the samurai has an offensive advantage with his daisho. In the off chance that the samurai wedges his katana into the sheild he could turn the odds in his favor by switching to his wakazashi and hooking it around the shield towards the neck while using the knights sheild as a defense from his longsword.
Ummm, as I know it the commonly used long swords of the Knight were actually longer than katanas usually utilized by Samurai, so they actually have no distance advantage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Don't try to be a great man, just be a man... and let history make its own judgment. -Zefram Cochrane, Star Trek
Ummm, as I know it the commonly used long swords of the Knight were actually longer than katanas usually utilized by Samurai, so they actually have no distance advantage.
If he were to wield a blade of that length with only one hand it would put him distinct leverage disadvantage. Most knights would have used an arming sword when wielding a shield anyway. 1Hing a 2Her barbarian style is'nt very practical dispite how cool it looks.
Dont forget that Knights also used Lances, maces, flails, warhammers/mauls, and axes, plus, they used a variety of swords ranging from short swords used along with shields and HUGE long broadswords like zweihanders and claymores.
And most knights as as far as what Ive read were Not of modest means, but had a great deal of financial backing. There are two breeds of knights. The first are wealthy lords who go through the whole cycle of dubbing and whatnot and usually get more ornate armor and then theres the 'order' type of knights who had more basic armor that was mass-produced but far more practical. Knights in Orders were warrior-monks who spent every day in a monastery fortress either praying or training until they went to battle. (Holy crap this reminds me of Space-Marines from 40k! Makes sense since thats who theyre based on!) The Teutonic order and Knights Templar were pretty large and well-to-do orders. The Knights Templar were in fact destroyed because the French King Phillip was so terribly in debt to them financially. and the Teutonic order for a time had their own country. Plus, armor and weaponry was pretty damned expensive and needed alot of maintenance, a knight needed to either be a wealthy lord or in a powerful order as far as I know.
You know the funny thing? The fully armored barbarian from d2 looks WAY more like a Knight of the Teutonic(aka German) Order than like a Viking. Northern European countries like Denmark and Germany(Which makes sense) used alot of horns or wings on their classic Great-Helms. However Vikings did not, aint that messed up tho??
Okay let me rephrase the question of this topic, is there anything that Knights are better at than Samurai? Because everyone who I ask says Samurai are better and cooler and I need some logical argument to back me up in my opinion of knights other than the fact that they looked more BRUTAL, which is an unintelligent(yet hella-METAL!) sounding remark.
I'd say the knight is better suited for massive battles because their shields protected them from arrows, spears, throwing axes, and javelins. One on one they would be about even, but the samurai probably has a slight advantage against your average knight.
I'd say the knight is better suited for massive battles because their shields protected them from arrows, spears, throwing axes, and javelins. One on one they would be about even, but the samurai probably has a slight advantage against your average knight.
Well, your average 'samurai' would have been a highly trained warrior with years of combat school practice, while your average Joe knight would have been the first drunk and broke fool looking to make a living or a name for himself that chanced upon some weapons and armor...so the 'average' knight would get a definite beating in a controlled environment.
Also batman kicks superman's ass when using tiberium tipped darts. Or was that cryptonite? lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
Well, your average 'samurai' would have been a highly trained warrior with years of combat school practice, while your average Joe knight would have been the first drunk and broke fool looking to make a living or a name for himself that chanced upon some weapons and armor...so the 'average' knight would get a definite beating in a controlled environment.
Also batman kicks superman's ass when using tiberium tipped darts. Or was that cryptonite? lol
Dude, I have to agree about Batman, but once again Knights were pretty well-trained. Hundreds of thousands of knights lived the majority of their lives in fortress monasteries where they prayed and trained all friggin day until they got called out to battle. And a person didnt just "happen" on armor, nobody would leave it lying around, as the victor of a battle would often take the slayed opponents armor for his own army. And also Im not talking about peasants or improbable random ppl who found armor. Im taking about real full-fledged knights who were dubbed and trained and were once squires and all that.
Dude, I have to agree about Batman, but once again Knights were pretty well-trained. Hundreds of thousands of knights lived the majority of their lives in fortress monasteries where they prayed and trained all friggin day until they got called out to battle. And a person didnt just "happen" on armor, nobody would leave it lying around, as the victor of a battle would often take the slayed opponents armor for his own army. And also Im not talking about peasants or improbable random ppl who found armor. Im taking about real full-fledged knights who were dubbed and trained and were once squires and all that.
I cannot possibly stress this more: Knights were not rich, nor did they have forts, if anybody would have those it was a King or favored Lord. Think about it, honestly, there were thousands of Knights and only a few Forts, the typical knight lived in a Manor. which is just a big house surrounded by hovels for their subjects, and farmland.
Also, they were not very religous, many could not even read, as education was, as training was, not easy to come by. That does not necessarily mean they were not religously motivated. It's kind of complicated, their relationship with religion is much like most christians today, they say they're christian but they don't go to church and quite a few don't know even two hymns.
They were the chastized low class of royalty, if you even want to call them royal, that does not mean they are innately rich, training was NOT cheap and armor was neither. These men only found glory and riches in battle and plunder, thus is chivalry.
The best a typical knight could muster was a weapon, possibly a shield, and full body chain mail, maybe even some plate if they're lucky.
Japanese Samurai were directly funded by their Lord, Japanese Armor typically was hard leather with bamboo and silk for ceremonial purposes. The japanese sword was a slashing, yet well made piercing weapon. I don't know but I think training was free under japanese lords. If you're thinking otherwise it may be lordless rounin that you're thinking of.
And a person didnt just "happen" on armor, nobody would leave it lying around, as the victor of a battle would often take the slayed opponents armor for his own army.
That's what I meant when I said that they chanced upon weapons and armor. Damn italics not working again.
What about their physical capabilities?
Asian people are mostly shorter and smaller in size. Though I can distinctly remember something about the knights' armour (which means the men as well) being small compared to today's standards...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "KonataX" »
lol it can still easily be a ranger since who said you cant shoot arrows at melee distance xD
Quote from "Archie" »
The Barbarian is from Arreat, a very cold snowy mountain top, but they are much tougher than normal humans, so they don't need warmth.
Quote from "Archie" »
Where are Barbarians originally from? Sumeria, or more specifically Mesopotamia, AKA Europe. Think the Alps and the Pyrenees
Most people of Asian descent are shorter than their Europe counter part. But I thought Japanese and Mongol are the exception (could be wrong). Training wise, I think Samurai being sponsor by their lord have a bigger advantage. I well trained Knight with full plate and nice sword would beat a Samurai of the same level. Simply because Katana were design as a slash weapon (can pierce too, but wasn't design for that), so they can't really do much against plates...or chainmail for that matter. Samurai are quicker though. Now, if you're talking about a Samurai and Knight (lords), who doesn't wear armor and not on horse...then Samurai win. Crap! How do you make paragraphs?
I cannot possibly stress this more: Knights were not rich, nor did they have forts, if anybody would have those it was a King or favored Lord. Think about it, honestly, there were thousands of Knights and only a few Forts, the typical knight lived in a Manor. which is just a big house surrounded by hovels for their subjects, and farmland.
Also, they were not very religous, many could not even read, as education was, as training was, not easy to come by. That does not necessarily mean they were not religously motivated. It's kind of complicated, their relationship with religion is much like most christians today, they say they're christian but they don't go to church and quite a few don't know even two hymns.
They were the chastized low class of royalty, if you even want to call them royal, that does not mean they are innately rich, training was NOT cheap and armor was neither. These men only found glory and riches in battle and plunder, thus is chivalry.
The best a typical knight could muster was a weapon, possibly a shield, and full body chain mail, maybe even some plate if they're lucky.
Japanese Samurai were directly funded by their Lord, Japanese Armor typically was hard leather with bamboo and silk for ceremonial purposes. The japanese sword was a slashing, yet well made piercing weapon. I don't know but I think training was free under japanese lords. If you're thinking otherwise it may be lordless rounin that you're thinking of.
Dude, whata about Knightly Orders? The Teutonic order and the Knights Templar were very wealthy and had huge fortress/monasteries. The Knights Templar grew so rich that even King Phillip of France was in financial debt to them.
Knightly orders were warrior-monks who lived most of their daily lives in the monastery either training or praying. Read up on the Teutonic, Templar, or Hospitaller orders to see what I mean.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
source? or gtfo lol
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
As I remember, most Knights were poor. Chivalry paid off quite well for these types when the 100 year war (lasted a longer than 100 years, it's just a title) came along. Knights were basically relegated land for loyalty to their king.
This land was often dominated by a Manor and farmland. If you think that a knight is some how going to live a life of luxury this way overblown, most knights had small pots of land, of course as more and more of them died, people would accumulate those conquered lands. Even within that land his peasants were entitled a considerable lot in terms of how much farmland will accomidate their survival. But that doesn't bring in much money either way.
If you want to make the argument that Knights as a whole had the means to be taught to fight expertly in comparison to a Japanese Samurai, let alone afford acceptable armor, you would invariably be wrong as too few knights could afford expert training or heavy armor, it was battlefield or wooden pegs and serfs and plunder.
Think about it, why do the thoughts of Knights stir up thoughts of glory? Because much of that thinking is what drove many knights to their chivalrous ways, they were struggling.
A merchant could afford expert training and heavy weaponry.
But hey, I can't stress it, that's how I remember the Middle Ages, we focused quite a bit on it but it's been a year since the class, I'll bet I got 5 things technically wrong.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Ummm, as I know it the commonly used long swords of the Knight were actually longer than katanas usually utilized by Samurai, so they actually have no distance advantage.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
And most knights as as far as what Ive read were Not of modest means, but had a great deal of financial backing. There are two breeds of knights. The first are wealthy lords who go through the whole cycle of dubbing and whatnot and usually get more ornate armor and then theres the 'order' type of knights who had more basic armor that was mass-produced but far more practical. Knights in Orders were warrior-monks who spent every day in a monastery fortress either praying or training until they went to battle. (Holy crap this reminds me of Space-Marines from 40k! Makes sense since thats who theyre based on!) The Teutonic order and Knights Templar were pretty large and well-to-do orders. The Knights Templar were in fact destroyed because the French King Phillip was so terribly in debt to them financially. and the Teutonic order for a time had their own country. Plus, armor and weaponry was pretty damned expensive and needed alot of maintenance, a knight needed to either be a wealthy lord or in a powerful order as far as I know.
You know the funny thing? The fully armored barbarian from d2 looks WAY more like a Knight of the Teutonic(aka German) Order than like a Viking. Northern European countries like Denmark and Germany(Which makes sense) used alot of horns or wings on their classic Great-Helms. However Vikings did not, aint that messed up tho??
Okay let me rephrase the question of this topic, is there anything that Knights are better at than Samurai? Because everyone who I ask says Samurai are better and cooler and I need some logical argument to back me up in my opinion of knights other than the fact that they looked more BRUTAL, which is an unintelligent(yet hella-METAL!) sounding remark.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Well, your average 'samurai' would have been a highly trained warrior with years of combat school practice, while your average Joe knight would have been the first drunk and broke fool looking to make a living or a name for himself that chanced upon some weapons and armor...so the 'average' knight would get a definite beating in a controlled environment.
Also batman kicks superman's ass when using tiberium tipped darts. Or was that cryptonite? lol
Miyamoto Musashi
BTW I know leonidas wasn't technically a knight, he was a hoplite.
Fuck you, I'm a dragon.
Chuck Norris vs. .......................
/end of discussion
Dude, I have to agree about Batman, but once again Knights were pretty well-trained. Hundreds of thousands of knights lived the majority of their lives in fortress monasteries where they prayed and trained all friggin day until they got called out to battle. And a person didnt just "happen" on armor, nobody would leave it lying around, as the victor of a battle would often take the slayed opponents armor for his own army. And also Im not talking about peasants or improbable random ppl who found armor. Im taking about real full-fledged knights who were dubbed and trained and were once squires and all that.
Also, they were not very religous, many could not even read, as education was, as training was, not easy to come by. That does not necessarily mean they were not religously motivated. It's kind of complicated, their relationship with religion is much like most christians today, they say they're christian but they don't go to church and quite a few don't know even two hymns.
They were the chastized low class of royalty, if you even want to call them royal, that does not mean they are innately rich, training was NOT cheap and armor was neither. These men only found glory and riches in battle and plunder, thus is chivalry.
The best a typical knight could muster was a weapon, possibly a shield, and full body chain mail, maybe even some plate if they're lucky.
Japanese Samurai were directly funded by their Lord, Japanese Armor typically was hard leather with bamboo and silk for ceremonial purposes. The japanese sword was a slashing, yet well made piercing weapon. I don't know but I think training was free under japanese lords. If you're thinking otherwise it may be lordless rounin that you're thinking of.
What about their physical capabilities?
Asian people are mostly shorter and smaller in size. Though I can distinctly remember something about the knights' armour (which means the men as well) being small compared to today's standards...
if you're on disabled scripts.
Dude, whata about Knightly Orders? The Teutonic order and the Knights Templar were very wealthy and had huge fortress/monasteries. The Knights Templar grew so rich that even King Phillip of France was in financial debt to them.
Knightly orders were warrior-monks who lived most of their daily lives in the monastery either training or praying. Read up on the Teutonic, Templar, or Hospitaller orders to see what I mean.