|
Post by driabtheindextrous on Mar 16, 2009 10:11:07 GMT -5
just thought I would ask
|
|
|
Post by Skeith, the Forsaken on Mar 16, 2009 10:54:44 GMT -5
Samurai, they were way more skilled in the art of combat. The only advantage knights had was their sturdier armor. Most knights didn't own the classic image of full plate either.
Also a samurai's weapons were better suited for combat. Lighter and sharper than a knight's sword. The samurai could take him out before the knight got a swing in.
|
|
|
Post by driabtheindextrous on Mar 16, 2009 11:29:21 GMT -5
i disagree wholeheartedly the knight would have had the advantage of a shield and plate armor better defense versus good offense. the samurai wore more or less lacquered bamboo for armor and it was meant more for ceremony than combat a knights sword being as dull as it were would still crack these very easily and if nothing else would have dealt damage through sheer kinetic energy upon impact.
|
|
|
Post by Buddha on Mar 16, 2009 11:45:36 GMT -5
Ah, the question that never dies. driab made the right points with singular combat.
En masse would be a total rompastomp with the knights over the samurai because because an army of knights consisted of much greater numbers to an absurd degree.
|
|
|
Post by Skeith, the Forsaken on Mar 16, 2009 13:15:02 GMT -5
I don't think a knight could hit a samurai in one on one combat. A katana is uber sharp and could cut through a knight's armor with ease. I don't think most knight could fight toe to toe with a samurai. A samurai would be able to dodge a knight's blows.
Also if we are getting into mass warfare knight win no argument there. lol
|
|
|
Post by Eldrin the Black on Mar 16, 2009 13:20:01 GMT -5
For some reason, I think everyone under estimate a knights ability to fight. We're not talking court Knights, we're talking real, martial, trained since youngins' Knights. I don't think anyone gives them credit for fighting ability and assumes that every samurai was BA fighter, which wasn't necessarily so either.
Mushashi even talks about some of the pathetic "samurai" of some of the other schools.
|
|
|
Post by driabtheindextrous on Mar 16, 2009 14:11:04 GMT -5
really skieth plate steal and a samurai sword cutting through it is proposterous.
|
|
|
Post by Skeith, the Forsaken on Mar 16, 2009 14:40:32 GMT -5
Knights didn't wear full plate. Full plate was used when the first guns started being used. Ringmail and brigandine was the most common armor real knights wore.
|
|
Demose
Soldier of Fortune
Supreme Tyrant of the Arcani
Posts: 86
|
Post by Demose on Mar 17, 2009 1:50:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by igitgreen on Mar 17, 2009 2:22:01 GMT -5
even if they could cut the kinghts amor a 45lbs broad sword is not quite as easy to block as a katana so a samurai would be a lil out of his place and a shield was common for lots of kinghts so a sword is not going to go cut that
|
|
Cyodie Centrawoven
Board Imp
Master of Catgirls
Your friend is the man who knows all about you, and still likes you
Posts: 525
|
Post by Cyodie Centrawoven on Mar 17, 2009 2:30:37 GMT -5
I beleive a Katana could cut through a knights plate, if he got a good swing in, however it all comes down to who the more experienced fighter is. That is it. If it is a serious battle, with seriously bad arse fighters, its all on luck of the strike. thats my honest opinioin.
|
|
deamos
Heroic Adventurer
Posts: 132
|
Post by deamos on Mar 17, 2009 18:43:25 GMT -5
It would depend on what century you pulled the knight out of, a fighter in plate would be destroyed due to the speed of a samurai. The armor would not be to much trouble to bypass using the weapon as a can opener and slicing the openings at the underarms and the slots between the arm canons ect. But really I think it would depend to much on the skill level of the two fighters to just say one over the other.
|
|
|
Post by rhia on Mar 17, 2009 22:00:50 GMT -5
Ok.. if we go with the stereotypical idea of a samurai, as well as a knight... and this is one on one.. I have to say Samurai on close combat because of the dexterity and agility factor which is much more hindered in European armor(ask Martus). Due to that factor, the samurai would also probably have more endurance due to the lighter nature of japanese armor. And lest we forget, Samurai were not just masters of katana, but also of other weapons (Naginata, etc.) So if you went in for further range on the combat, that leaves the knight with the advantage as it takes less energy for him from that distance, its harder to penetrate said armor, and though the samurai may be able to dodge all day, the point of said combat is kill or be killed and, by brute force alone, a knight could probably take him.
I dunno. its all kinda fuzzy.
|
|
|
Post by Buddha on Mar 18, 2009 12:23:50 GMT -5
On the basis of weapons each had access to... Crossbow, bamf.
|
|
|
Post by rhia on Mar 18, 2009 15:35:29 GMT -5
Japanese long bow or hun bow. bamf
AND they were quicker to reload. Crossbows took forever to reload.
|
|