NationStates Jolt Archive

Well after viewing a video on you tube, it made me want to make a forum to debate who is the greatest warrior of all time. This is between the samurai of Japan against the Knights of Medieval Europe. Of course, if you find another warrior you think supperior, please tell.

Well after viewing a video on you tube, it made me want to make a forum to debate who is the greatest warrior of all time. This is between the samurai of Japan against the Knights of Medieval Europe. Of course, if you find another warrior you think supperior, please tell.

In before a bunch of otaku's lame up the thread with "omg samereyezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz kawaii ^______^ <3<3<3" and totally skew the poll.

In before a bunch of otaku's lame up the thread with "omg samereyezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz kawaii ^______^ <3<3<3" and totally skew the poll.

So far I think I am the only Otaku on NS that I know of, but there could be more.

For most of those fellows, they fought with entirely different philosophies from the others, for example, a Roman Legionnaire was effective because of his discipline and the discipline of his comrades, who stood shoulder to shoulder with him, by the thousands. He was not meant to be used separate from his unit, and doing so would be to cripple his combat ability.

Gaah, not another one of these threads. They aren't comparable. Their fighting philosophies and styles differed so much, it'd be impossible to compare decently.

The only thing that might make a real difference is a really smart commander who is able to maximize his troop efficiencies and minimize their weaknesses against the other.

A free for all gladiator match would see the lucky schmuck who hides in the corner and remains unnoticed until he becomes the winner by default when everyone else is done slaughtering the other.

So far I think I am the only Otaku on NS that I know of, but there could be more.

Stop being reasonable it's not entertaining. :(

Gaah, not another one of these threads. They aren't comparable. Their fighting philosophies and styles differed so much, it'd be impossible to compare decently.

The only thing that might make a real difference is a really smart commander who is able to maximize his troop efficiencies and minimize their weaknesses against the other.

A free for all gladiator match would see the lucky schmuck who hides in the corner and remains unnoticed until he becomes the winner by default when everyone else is done slaughtering the other.

I know their philosphies are different and its hard to analyze, but I want to compaire who's fighting ability and weaponry.

Stop being reasonable it's not entertaining. :(

Kawaii------------

I know their philosphies are different and its hard to analyze, but I want to compaire who's fighting ability and weaponry.

Uh.. in that case, Jedi. Since, you know, magic fucking powers and a weightless weapon that can cut through anything.

Guan Yu

/thread

Kawaii------------

Better! :D

Guan Yu

/thread

I'll see your Guan Yu and raise you a Sun Wu Kong.

I'll see your Guan Yu and raise you a Sun Wu Kong.

Ah, but is he still honored as a god of war by some people?

Uh.. in that case, Jedi. Since, you know, magic fucking powers and a weightless weapon that can cut through anything.

Jedi was kind of a joke poll response.

Ah, but is he still honored as a god of war in parts of China?

Yeah, he is still thought as a god of war.

If you're going by weaponry, I'd really have to go with the 21st century American soldier. :p

English longbows ftw.

I'll see your Guan Yu and raise you a Sun Wu Kong.

I see your Sun Wu Kong and raise you a Cashew Guy Ding.

He delivered cashews during the day but by night he was the most formidable marshal arts expert the world had ever seen.

Klingons


or Pirates.

Klingons


or Pirates.

Arggggggg

Yeah, he is still thought as a god of war.

Yeah, I just realized that name sounded familiar.

Pardon me while I enjoy this tasty foot...

Jedi was kind of a joke poll response.

They win anyway.

Yeah, I just realized that name sounded familiar.

Pardon me while I enjoy this tasty foot...

Enjoy your foot.

Mongolian horse cavalry or possibly the White Death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_Häyhä).

Take your pick. :D

Enjoy your foot.

It needs salt.

It needs salt.

Want mustard with your salt

the HusCarl

I see your Sun Wu Kong and raise you a Cashew Guy Ding.

Sorry, Cashew Guy doesn't exist in any myth, lore or literature. Sun Wu Kong beats him by being mentioned.

A free for all gladiator match would see the lucky schmuck who hides in the corner and remains unnoticed until he becomes the winner by default when everyone else is done slaughtering the other.

That definitely favours the Ninja. "I hide behind an arena wall-coloured piece of cloth till the last guy has killed everyone else and is catching his breath with his back turned to me."

That definitely favours the Ninja. "I hide behind an arena wall-coloured piece of cloth till the last guy has killed everyone else and is catching his breath with his back turned to me."

Yeah, a ninja would do well till the fierce anime fanboy found him "look, it's Naruto, I must follow him"

The Europeans kicked the Samurai's arses when they met, a lot to do with the Samurai sword-fighting style.
And those Europeans were pissy foil fencers who wouldn't have stood a cat-in-hell's chance against your average Teutonic Knight.
Thus:
Knight>Fencer>Samurai.

Space Gorilla Ninja Pirate pwns all though.

Individual fight against any other combatant? I'd put my money on a knight. 15th century. For larger battles, I'd go with the Legions or the Hoplites (interesting note: the Spartans were Hoplites - just very good ones).

Although vikings do pwn.

The Europeans kicked the Samurai's arses when they met

Since when? By the time Europeans were mucking around in Japan, they'd pretty much converted to musket infantry formations and horse towed cannons. Japan did too, but in much smaller percentages.

Spartans got way more training than all the others, but in comparison their armour is less technologically advanced, and they were best when fighting in a group, rather than alone.

The Viking must be the best all-rounder!

If only you mentioned the berserker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker

Since I don't know what category these fit into I'll refrain from voting and give the greatest warriors by name: Morihei Ueshiba and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. They were by far the greatest warriors in recorded history.

If you're going by weaponry, I'd really have to go with the 21st century American soldier. :p


Yep, theres almost no third world country that can stand against them.

Because we haven't had enough rampant fanboyism yet...

Bruce Lee!

Edit: And/Or Chuck Norris.

Is there such a thing as a Jean Claude Van Damme 'fanboy' (or girl)?

Gaah, not another one of these threads.

Indeed. This is one of a set group of topics that every time it comes up has a fairly straight forward answer that can fairly well be canned and repeated monthly, but nobody ever seems to learn from.

Others in the group are topics like: Football vs Football vs Football, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "OMG! You can't lick yer elbow!", and the like.

Used correctly, all the mentioned groups are effective with the exception of the Spartans and Hopilites.

And most of those would easily kill a Ninja in a fair fight.

This is why I voted Jedi.

He who does not strike while all others fight shall be the greatest warrior...

This philosophy stuff is easy.

Sorry, Cashew Guy doesn't exist in any myth, lore or literature. Sun Wu Kong beats him by being mentioned.

Of course. He was such a proficient fighter that he killed all those who found out his secret identity. Of course, I am a descendant of the only man to fight Ding to a stalemate, so I was privy to this information when I reached adulthood.

For it is I that must stop him, should he ever return.

Hmmm... I'm not quite sure why the Ninja receives so little attention (less than the Pirate, I think), but personally, I voted for the Spartan.

As for the Knight VS Samurai thingy, I'd say while the Samurai has the better offensive powers (speed, reflexes, his Katana, which is way better than some rusty iron broadsword), the Knight beats the Samurai in defense. Even the toughest Samurai cannot penetrate the knight's superior, one-of-a-kind full body armor. So, while the Samurai dodges the Knight's blows, and the the Samurai's blows drip off the Knight's armor like water, the knight gets exhausted with attacking (heavy armor and stuff) and the samurai gets tired from having to jump and slide and sway to avoid being hit himself (he doesn't have the protective armor the knight has), they eventually end up in a draw. But does this show supreme fighting skills or only supreme technology?

Well, I'll still go for the Spartan. MAN!, did you see how they smacked that rhino real bad!?

Actually, I'm changing my vote to Spartan. Master Chief could kick any samurai's ass.

I'll see your Guan Yu and raise you a Sun Wu Kong.

Okay then, I'll see your Sun WU Kong and raise you a Lu Bu. What now, bitches!

Okay then, I'll see your Sun WU Kong and raise you a Lu Bu. What now, bitches!

Sorry, Lu Bu couldn't pull a pin out of his ear and extend it into a 40,000 foot tall pillar. He still loses.

Sorry, Lu Bu couldn't pull a pin out of his ear and extend it into a 40,000 foot tall pillar. He still loses.

So? He was still the most feared person in that region of his time until he started mistreating his troops and eventually got ganged up on by Cao Cao and his troops. Plus the fact that he had a pretty sweet looking spear and was called a demon.

EDIT: he was actually captured in his sleep.

As for the Knight VS Samurai thingy, I'd say while the Samurai has the better offensive powers (speed, reflexes, his Katana, which is way better than some rusty iron broadsword), the Knight beats the Samurai in defense. Even the toughest Samurai cannot penetrate the knight's superior, one-of-a-kind full body armor. So, while the Samurai dodges the Knight's blows, and the the Samurai's blows drip off the Knight's armor like water, the knight gets exhausted with attacking (heavy armor and stuff) and the samurai gets tired from having to jump and slide and sway to avoid being hit himself (he doesn't have the protective armor the knight has), they eventually end up in a draw. But does this show supreme fighting skills or only supreme technology?


You're selling the European smithies a bit short there.

So? He was still the most feared person in that region of his time until he started mistreating his troops and eventually got ganged up on by Cao Cao and his troops. Plus the fact that he had a pretty sweet looking spear and was called a demon.

EDIT: he was actually captured in his sleep.

Sorry, but after reading about Dong Zhuo chasing him around the courtyard with his own weapon I don't have a lot of fear left for the mighty Lu Bu. Not to mention he was nearly defeated by Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Liu Bei.

Ehhhhhh... after seeing an episode of Human Weapon, assuming we're talking comparitively 1v1 fight ability, I'd have to go with a Muay Thai fighter. They're essentially spartans, in Thailand, that can kick ass without having 299 other spartans around helping him.

Ehhhhhh... after seeing an episode of Human Weapon, assuming we're talking comparitively 1v1 fight ability, I'd have to go with a Muay Thai fighter. They're essentially spartans, in Thailand, that can kick ass without having 299 other spartans around helping him.

I saw a few fights in Bangkok and i'd have to agree. They're the leanest guys i've seen and the fights are pretty brutal

Assassin, Lone Wolf and Cub!

Prepare to die!

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/764/lonewolf01ja6.jpg

The SAS. Tada!

The knight. Better weaponry (Fun fact, the folding process used to make katana had been discarded years before by the Europeans because they found better techniques), better armor (Full plate provided better coverage than the metal armor used by the samurai, and since it was made to fit, little to no mobility was sacrificed), and equivalent training.

Full plate provided better coverage than the metal armor used by the samurai, and since it was made to fit, little to no mobility was sacrificed.
Not that I'm a military buff, but wouldn't covering yourself in metal reduce your mobility quite a lot?

Y'know, metal? The heavy stuff.

Not that I'm a military buff, but wouldn't covering yourself in metal reduce your mobility quite a lot?

Y'know, metal? The heavy stuff.

You'd be surprised at how well articulated the plates are. Full plate really is a work of art.

But yes, there is some loss of mobility, but not as much as one would think.

Not that I'm a military buff, but wouldn't covering yourself in metal reduce your mobility quite a lot?

Y'know, metal? The heavy stuff.

Not if it's made to fit. If the weight is distributed over the entire body, then it's really not that different from wearing clothes.

Not to mention he was nearly defeated by Guan Yu, Zhang Fei, and Liu Bei.
And I've kicked his ass several times in different versions of Dynasty Warriors.

Which means I am the greatest warrior ever!

*is killed by low-flying pig*

Not if it's made to fit. If the weight is distributed over the entire body, then it's really not that different from wearing clothes.
I find that hard to believe (is there really no difference between wearing, say, a fitted cotton t-shirt and one made out of steel?), but, as I say, I'm no military buff.

The SAS. Tada!

Agreed. Although you'd have to include most Western forces of that nature, since they cross train so much there's actually very little difference among them. However, the SAS does, as an institution, have more experience than any other organization of it's kind.

And I've kicked his ass several times in different versions of Dynasty Warriors.

Which means I am the greatest warrior ever!

*is killed by low-flying pig*


So have I...with Zhang He no less.


I find that hard to believe (is there really no difference between wearing, say, a fitted cotton t-shirt and one made out of steel?), but, as I say, I'm no military buff.

It's a bit of an exaggeration, you always sacrifice some mobility with armor. But the idea that someone in full plate is clumsily clanking around like someone with a huge stick up their ass is very much false.

There's an episode of Stargate: SG1 that has Mitchell fighting someone in full plate. It's more or less accurate to how someone in full plate would be able to move around.

I find that hard to believe (is there really no difference between wearing, say, a fitted cotton t-shirt and one made out of steel?), but, as I say, I'm no military buff.

There is a difference. There just isn't much of one.

There is a difference. There just isn't much of one.
It's a bit of an exaggeration, you always sacrifice some mobility with armor. But the idea that someone in full plate is clumsily clanking around like someone with a huge stick up their ass is very much false.
Interesting.

*investigates*

There's an episode of Stargate: SG1 that has Mitchell fighting someone in full plate. It's more or less accurate to how someone in full plate would be able to move around.
Forgive me if I don't use Stargate as a scientific guide. :p

I think the greatest warrior would have to be a Mongolian horse archer. Back in the day, those guys were invincible (though you have to give a lot of credit to their horses). They could ride horses and fire a bow as children, as adults they were already masters of both. They helped forge many massive empires would their bows. They could cover more ground then just about any army before the modern era and they were simply invincible in combat(at the time). So I say they were the greatest warriors of all time.

The knight would win. They had the best armor and superb skills with all kinds of weaponry. Samurai or Viking would come in second. The Romans and Spartans were all more unit oriented in fighting, but each would still be able to hold their own in single combat. However, knights were trained from boyhood to be warriors, and were better armored than the samurai. The cutting edge of a katana is very brittle, and would be useless several swings against plate mail or the knight's sword or shield.

I'd personally want the viking to win, but logically I think the knight would win.

Interesting.

Forgive me if I don't use Stargate as a scientific guide. :p

Just because the model came from a TV show, doesn't make it any less accurate. It was meant to be an example, not the be all and end all. :p

Entertainment or not, the actor in the plate is a pretty good representation of just how mobile you really were in full plate.

Agreed. Although you'd have to include most Western forces of that nature, since they cross train so much there's actually very little difference among them. However, the SAS does, as an institution, have more experience than any other organization of it's kind.
They just are the best of their type. SEALS, Rangers, the Austrian Jagdkommandos, even GSG-9 hardly compare.

They just are the best of their type. SEALS, Rangers, the Austrian Jagdkommandos, even GSG-9 hardly compare.

By a matter of degrees. From what I was told by some ODA guys and an Aussie SAS guy when I was in Iraq all of the Western commando type units train together constantly, and as such there is only a small degree of difference in their tactical procedures. Of course, things that aren't the "nuts and bolts" of being a commando is where I'd expect the UK SAS to shine, given their wealth of practical experience.

Also, the Rangers shouldn't be in that list, they're light infantry of the Foreign Legion sort rather than commandos. Superb light infantry, but "just" light infantry nonetheless.

The most effective: The Armored Cavalry.
However, they are the most recent on the time line and have an advantage over all the other categories. Being that they came after, and learned, from all of them.

The most skilled: Spartans.
Obvious choice is obvious.

The best unit soldier: Legionnaire
Took everything the Greeks knew about warfare and +1'ed it.

Overall Winner. (http://www.w-uh.com/images/USSReagan.jpg)

By a matter of degrees. From what I was told by some ODA guys and an Aussie SAS guy when I was in Iraq all of the Western commando type units train together constantly, and as such there is only a small degree of difference in their tactical procedures. Of course, things that aren't the "nuts and bolts" of being a commando is where I'd expect the UK SAS to shine, given their wealth of practical experience.
Well they have the advantage of 60-odd years' almost constant battle experience, and their extremely rigorous selection process, in addition to the ability of Being British, which is proven to make you a better warrior. Yes.
Also, the Rangers shouldn't be in that list, they're light infantry of the Foreign Legion sort rather than commandos. Superb light infantry, but "just" light infantry nonetheless.
Ah right, OK. Thought they were a touch more elite than that, but fair enough.

Since when? By the time Europeans were mucking around in Japan, they'd pretty much converted to musket infantry formations and horse towed cannons. Japan did too, but in much smaller percentages.

And Europe had a much larger population and thus could field more soldiers, plus they had more resources to equip them.

If you're going by weaponry, I'd really have to go with the 21st century American soldier. :p


Yeah... ok... if we go down that drain, I say: 31st century cyborg superhuman tank-man ... or I'll just go for the Jedi.

The knight. Better weaponry (Fun fact, the folding process used to make katana had been discarded years before by the Europeans because they found better techniques), better armor (Full plate provided better coverage than the metal armor used by the samurai, and since it was made to fit, little to no mobility was sacrificed), and equivalent training.

The europeans didn't make light, insanely sharp swords - they made thick swords, able to cut through armor through sheer force and weight rather than sharpness or skill. If they made katanas, yet still switched methods of swordcrafting, then you would have a point, but longswords/greatswords/rapiers are just too different from katanas.

Also, that I know of, there's no art to wielding a longsword in full plate armor, as opposed to many different arts and styles of wielding eastern weapons.

So have I...with Zhang He no less.



It's a bit of an exaggeration, you always sacrifice some mobility with armor. But the idea that someone in full plate is clumsily clanking around like someone with a huge stick up their ass is very much false.

There's an episode of Stargate: SG1 that has Mitchell fighting someone in full plate. It's more or less accurate to how someone in full plate would be able to move around.

The helmet always seemed constricting to me. I couldn't imagine seeing very well, especially peripherally, or hearing something come up behind me in that thing, unless maybe he was wearing a suit of armor as well.

Also, people have a hard time moving effectively in just chainmail - if I remember correctly, full plate had a type of chainmail underneath, as well as leather padding.

The knight would win. They had the best armor and superb skills with all kinds of weaponry. Samurai or Viking would come in second. The Romans and Spartans were all more unit oriented in fighting, but each would still be able to hold their own in single combat. However, knights were trained from boyhood to be warriors, and were better armored than the samurai. The cutting edge of a katana is very brittle, and would be useless several swings against plate mail or the knight's sword or shield.

I'd personally want the viking to win, but logically I think the knight would win.

Muay Thai fighters start training at age 6, and begin fighting at age 8. In modern Muay Thai sport in Thailand, the average 15 year old fighter will have had about 100 or so professional fights (compared to an average of 40 for the modern American boxer) and will retire at around age 25.

Of course you wouldn't want to cut plate armor with the edge of a katana, but stabbing is always an option, especially if you can get it inside the joints of the metal in the arm or waist or neck.

The europeans didn't make light, insanely sharp swords - they made thick swords, able to cut through armor through sheer force and weight rather than sharpness or skill. If they made katanas, yet still switched methods of swordcrafting, then you would have a point, but longswords/greatswords/rapiers are just too different from katanas.

European smithies did fold blades, just not (to my knowledge anyway) to the same extent Japanese ones would. Other than that quibble, you're pretty much right.

Also, that I know of, there's no art to wielding a longsword in full plate armor, as opposed to many different arts and styles of wielding eastern weapons.

Not exactly. There are different "schools" of European swordfighting: German and Italian being two of the largest. They're just not styles in the Japanese sense of the word (with philosophy and other spiritual elements built in) and were phased out as they became less useful.

The helmet always seemed constricting to me. I couldn't imagine seeing very well, especially peripherally, or hearing something come up behind me in that thing, unless maybe he was wearing a suit of armor as well.

This is all pretty much true, though it would vary from helm to helm. It's kinda like wearing a football helmet.

Also, people have a hard time moving effectively in just chainmail - if I remember correctly, full plate had a type of chainmail underneath, as well as leather padding.

All of the weight with chain mail hangs from the shoulders, plate is more evenly distributed. But yes, as I've said, you will lose some mobility, just not nearly as much as many people think.

If course you wouldn't want to cut plate armor with the edge of a katana, but stabbing is always an option, especially if you can get it inside the joints of the metal in the arm or waist or neck.

If you only have a sword and you're against plate, stabbing is pretty much your only option. Your sword will probably wear down to uselessness (esp. if it was a katana) before you battered your way thru the plate.

If you only have a sword and you're against plate, stabbing is pretty much your only option. Your sword will probably wear down to uselessness (esp. if it was a katana) before you battered your way thru the plate.

But you wouldn't be aiming for the plate itself, you'd be aiming for the joints, where it was weakest. At the most, you'd be attempting to stab through chainmail under the plate where the pieces interlock.

And if worse comes to worse, the samurai would still have martial arts. Judo would be rather powerful against a person wearing full plate, if you can dodge the swing of the sword and grab the arm.

But you wouldn't be aiming for the plate itself, you'd be aiming for the joints, where it was weakest. At the most, you'd be attempting to stab through chainmail under the plate where the pieces interlock.

Something you wouldn't be able to do effectively by slashing. Which is what I was getting at. But, yeah, you're right.

And if worse comes to worse, the samurai would still have martial arts. Judo would be rather powerful against a person wearing full plate, if you can dodge the swing of the sword and grab the arm.

Very true. Once you're inside someone's guard, they become your personal plaything. :evil grin:

And if worse comes to worse, the samurai would still have martial arts. Judo would be rather powerful against a person wearing full plate, if you can dodge the swing of the sword and grab the arm.
Keep in mind that full plate was crafted by masters of its art for around 2 years per set. It was supremely well made, and was fitted to the user to the extent that you could do cartwheels in it.

Something you wouldn't be able to do effectively by slashing. Which is what I was getting at. But, yeah, you're right.



Very true. Once you're inside someone's guard, they become your personal plaything. :evil grin:
Or an easy target for a wazikashi to the throat.

Very true. Once you're inside someone's guard, they become your personal plaything.

Unless you're fighting someone who's using Muay Thai, in which case, you can't ever get "inside" their guard, because the normal close-range you'd consider "inside" is what they call "elbow range".

It'd be interesting to see a Muay Thai fighter vs someone in full plate - they can smash concrete blocks like they're clay, they can create two tons of force by using a double-fisted uppercut, and they can give the effect of having been hit in the stomach with a sledgehammer by using their knee.

Course, they do those things against flesh. Dunno if the limbs could withstand putting such force to a metal opponent.

Keep in mind that full plate was crafted by masters of its art for around 2 years per set. It was supremely well made, and was fitted to the user to the extent that you could do cartwheels in it.
That doesn't make you magically experienced in hand to hand combat.

Keep in mind that full plate was crafted by masters of its art for around 2 years per set. It was supremely well made, and was fitted to the user to the extent that you could do cartwheels in it.

*shrugs* No matter how evenly the weight is distributed, it increases their overall weight and therefore their overall momentum and force of impact if they're thrown to the ground.

Or an easy target for a wazikashi to the throat.

Yeah I forgot they had those. They carry like three swords, don't they? Wakizashi, Tanto, and Katana?

I remember them adapting one of them to be specifically made to puncture and drive through armor.

That doesn't make you magically experienced in hand to hand combat.

When it comes down to it, if the knight gets the sword taken from him, he's screwed. He has no backup weapon, no martial arts, and is not as easily able to dodge a blow as the opponent, who wears little to no armor in comparison.

Or an easy target for a wazikashi to the throat.

True, but that's hand-to-hand for you, there are no absolutes.

Unless you're fighting someone who's using Muay Thai, in which case, you can't ever get "inside" their guard, because the normal close-range you'd consider "inside" is what they call "elbow range".

Interesting. It always seemed to me that if you could just get ahold of a Muay Thai fighter, they'd be in trouble. But I admit my knowledge of the style is very limited.

It'd be interesting to see a Muay Thai fighter vs someone in full plate - they can smash concrete blocks like they're clay, they can create two tons of force by using a double-fisted uppercut, and they can give the effect of having been hit in the stomach with a sledgehammer by using their knee.

Course, they do those things against flesh. Dunno if the limbs could withstand putting such force to a metal opponent.

I'm thinking broken fingers, at least. It's possible to generate enough concussive force to kill someone without penetrating armor (pole-hammer, etc), but I'm not sure the human body could withstand hitting a sheet of tempered steel that hard.

Comically the three top at the moment are Spartans, Samurai and Jedi, the three best choices (the three only choices really...) Spartans and Samurai were hard to choose between, and I did not pick Jedi for the reason of fiction vs. reality, though the Jedi would rock pretty hardcore....

Interesting. It always seemed to me that if you could just get ahold of a Muay Thai fighter, they'd be in trouble. But I admit my knowledge of the style is very limited.



I'm thinking broken fingers, at least. It's possible to generate enough concussive force to kill someone without penetrating armor (pole-hammer, etc), but I'm not sure the human body could withstand hitting a sheet of tempered steel that hard.

Yeah, but as shown in the episode of Human Weapon I watched, a good MT fighter knows when to keep someone away. They use their kicks like boxers use the jab - it's the long-range attack, and a kick that's followed through delivered by an MT fighter, aimed at the chest, is enough to hold most grapple-wishers at bay.

Comically the three top at the moment are Spartans, Samurai and Jedi, the three best choices (the three only choices really...) Spartans and Samurai were hard to choose between, and I did not pick Jedi for the reason of fiction vs. reality, though the Jedi would rock pretty hardcore....

I'm just going on the assumption that we're talking 1v1 fight, in which case I'd put my money on the samurai.

Yeah I forgot they had those. They carry like three swords, don't they? Wakizashi, Tanto, and Katana?

I remember them adapting one of them to be specifically made to puncture and drive through armor.

Not sure about one being made for penetrating armor, but the standard set is Katana and Wakizashi. Though I could be wrong.

When it comes down to it, if the knight gets the sword taken from him, he's screwed. He has no backup weapon, no martial arts, and is not as easily able to dodge a blow as the opponent, who wears little to no armor in comparison.

Not quite, those schools of swordfighting would also have techniques for wrestling and grappling. He'd be severely disadvantaged, but not helpless.

That doesn't make you magically experienced in hand to hand combat.

True, although part of Knighthood in Medieval Europe was the strong emphasis on combat in general, to assume a trained knight would be incapable of hand to hand skill would be a rediculous and unstudied assumption. Were they kung fu masters? Well, no, but they definatly would have known how to fight hand to hand.

True, although part of Knighthood in Medieval Europe was the strong emphasis on combat in general, to assume a trained knight would be incapable of hand to hand skill would be a rediculous and unstudied assumption. Were they kung fu masters? Well, no, but they definatly would have known how to fight hand to hand.
Light training in hand to hand is not competence in a martial art, much less Judo.

EDIT: Has anyone with Firefox noticed you can search for words you highlight in the search engine that is set as the current active one in the search bar?

Light training in hand to hand is not competence in a martial art, much less Judo.

Exactly. Mr Knight would probably be on his ass before he knew what hit him if he got disarmed and/or grappled.

EDIT: Has anyone with Firefox noticed you can search for words you highlight in the search engine that is set as the current active one in the search bar?

*Is stuck with IE right now* :(

I should go anyway. I'm falling behind in my work.

Light training in hand to hand is not competence in a martial art, much less Judo.



I'd be very surprised to see the Samurai using Judo against Knights (assuming we're comparing them at equal time periods) what with it only being developed in the late 19th century. Maybe you mean Ju-Jitsu instead

I'd be very surprised to see the Samurai using Judo against Knights (assuming we're comparing them at equal time periods) what with it only being developed in the late 19th century. Maybe you mean Ju-Jitsu instead
Something like that, but like I said, regardless of the discipline, a martial art trained Samurai would easily out do a knight in hand to hand.

True, although part of Knighthood in Medieval Europe was the strong emphasis on combat in general, to assume a trained knight would be incapable of hand to hand skill would be a rediculous and unstudied assumption. Were they kung fu masters? Well, no, but they definatly would have known how to fight hand to hand.

I'm assuming they knew how to fight hand to hand with no armor on. With armor, as fitted as it was, it changes the way you move, and unless you train with armor on as well, the knight would be screwed there too. Well, he's screwed anyway, but he's reduced to mostly swinging gauntlet-covered fists, methinks.

The Jannisaries were elite holy warriors, taught from birth that the only family they'd ever had was their fellow Jannisaries. They helped bring the Ottoman empire from a tin-pot middle eastern dictatorship to a major world player. They were there when Constantinople fell.
They even had guns, demonstrating an ability to evolve with the times.
Now let's see some Japanese pretty boy with top that.

And if hoplites (and therefore the Spartans who used them) had been worth shit when compared to any other option on the list, there would have been some effort to bring them back after the fall of Greece.
They're outdated, hilariously so when compared to a musket totting Janissary.

The Jannisaries were elite holy warriors, taught from birth that the only family they'd ever had was their fellow Jannisaries. They helped bring the Ottoman empire from a tin-pot middle eastern dictatorship to a major world player. They were there when Constantinople fell.
They even had guns, demonstrating an ability to evolve with the times.
Now let's see some Japanese pretty boy with top that.

And if hoplites (and therefore the Spartans who used them) had been worth shit when compared to any other option on the list, there would have been some effort to bring them back after the fall of Greece.
They're outdated, hilariously so when compared to a musket totting Janissary.

Right, but we've seen before how basing judgement on technology is an invalid form of gauging fighters worth.

The Jannisaries were elite holy warriors, taught from birth that the only family they'd ever had was their fellow Jannisaries. They helped bring the Ottoman empire from a tin-pot middle eastern dictatorship to a major world player. They were there when Constantinople fell.
They even had guns, demonstrating an ability to evolve with the times.
Now let's see some Japanese pretty boy with top that.

And if hoplites (and therefore the Spartans who used them) had been worth shit when compared to any other option on the list, there would have been some effort to bring them back after the fall of Greece.
They're outdated, hilariously so when compared to a musket totting Janissary.

Where are the Janissary now?

They even had guns, demonstrating an ability to evolve with the times.
Now let's see some Japanese pretty boy with top that.
OK then, going by technological superiority, I say current special forces are the greatest warriors. M16 > Janissary black powder guns.

Either Spartans or Samurai.

OK then, going by technological superiority, I say current special forces are the greatest warriors. M16 > Janissary black powder guns.

Ssshh you'll ruin Fiddle's godlike imagine of himself.

To answer this question, a few points need to be analyzed.

First, are we assuming each warrior is left to his own resources, including armor, weapons, and whatever skills he may possess, and nothing else?

It bears mentioning that a medieval European knight's main advantage was the shock value of a fully armed and armored warrior atop a thousand-pound charger. Ground combat was certainly not preferred and only a last recourse after losing a mount, or in certain cases, tournaments mainly but occasionally if a knight felt a particular respect for his opponent, to fight "fairly" on the ground after dislodging his opponent. Knocked off a horse, your average knight was hindered by his armor plating. Given the much harder times said warrior grew up in, it is not a large stretch to assume that the weight of a well-made suit of armor would not provide much hindrance. However, plate mail is not known for its breathability or thermostatic properties. Heat exhaustion can stop even the hardest, most disciplined armored warrior. Even given ideal conditions, cool, dry weather, you have to account for maybe, oh, an hour (liberally) before body heat from exertion transforms that protection into a slow-roasting oven. This is why most battles in Europe during the medieval period were relatively short, conducted in spurts of heavy fighting with constant periods of rest.

Now given the drawbacks of the veritable tanks of olden times, the knight had considerable merits. The term "Men of Iron," encapsulated in the classic novel, aptly describes the figurative and physical condition of the medieval knight. To have survived past childhood betrays a very strong constitution, especially considering the nutrient-deficient diet (by today's standards). Given the tremendous resilience of the body, this natural advantage is followed by, for a knight, a period of about ten years of martial skills training and servitude during squireship. Beatings and lashings were commonplace, and on the training field lessons were literally learned the "hard way." Reflexes were developed and trained, and the body was hardened both from discipline and rigorous training. Even sleeping on a rush mat or, more commonly, a plain wood floor goes a way toward making the body tougher. So simple living conditions, training, and natural constitution combine to create a formidable warrior.

Now my knowledge of samurai is not nearly adequate to really make an informed opinion on the matter, but from what I know conditions must have been similar. Only, in Japan, the culture was more health-conscious and focused more on training the inner self, primarily through self-control exercises and finesse (read: bushido, judo, Buddhist self-control). So there was that advantage. To guess, I would say that an average samurai would beat an average knight, if only because the quality of the katana was far superior to your typical long sword. Other reasons as well, most notably bushido, while the European knight really wasn't trained to understand himself, but relied more on instinct and reflex.

Turns out I'm actually ahead in my work...

To answer this question, a few points need to be analyzed.

First, are we assuming each warrior is left to his own resources, including armor, weapons, and whatever skills he may possess, and nothing else?

-snip Knight analysis-


Nice analysis. Though a knight could very well be trained for foot combat (arming sword and shield). Though you are right that mounted combat was very much preferred.


Now my knowledge of samurai is not nearly adequate to really make an informed opinion on the matter, but from what I know conditions must have been similar. Only, in Japan, the culture was more health-conscious and focused more on training the inner self, primarily through self-control exercises and finesse (read: bushido, judo, Buddhist self-control). So there was that advantage. To guess, I would say that an average samurai would beat an average knight, if only because the quality of the katana was far superior to your typical long sword. Other reasons as well, most notably bushido, while the European knight really wasn't trained to understand himself, but relied more on instinct and reflex.

You're selling European smithies short. Those swords were made to last.

Concerning average samurai vs average knight: to my knowledge the armour of a typical samurai was not the equal to that of plate (larger gaps, weaker material). Add that to the fact that European swords were weighted to add power to cuts, and blocking with the katana would be a good way to damaged the katana, and the samurai is at a bit of a disadvantage. However, you are correct in pointing out their training would definitely lend itself to the samurai being more able to dodge the blade than parry or block (first rule of swordfighting: dodge before parry, parry before block).

I think a knight would probably be at a bit of an advantage, if only because of his superior protection that a samurai would have to circumvent. Though it would most definitely be a close-run thing.

There was a very good programme on UK TV called "Storm From The East" which covered the assault on Europe by the Mongol Hordes. There was a good segment comparing a Knight Templar and a Mongol. The Templars got thrashed. Absolutely walloped. The cream of Europe's military, they were out-thought, out-fought, out-maneuvered and generally out-classed by illiterate peasants. Hehehe.

Illiterate peasants trained from birth at fighting from horseback...

The greatest individual warrior was obviously Cu Chulainn, who was unbeatable. As for various members of various armies, I'd have to go with my old favourite the Roman Legionary. They were only beatable when under bad leadership (Varus) or when faced with someone brilliant (Hannibal). Otherwise they were the mincing machine of the ancient world and all fell before them.

There was a very good programme on UK TV called "Storm From The East" which covered the assault on Europe by the Mongol Hordes. There was a good segment comparing a Knight Templar and a Mongol. The Templars got thrashed. Absolutely walloped. The cream of Europe's military, they were out-thought, out-fought, out-maneuvered and generally out-classed by illiterate peasants. Hehehe.

The Jannisaries were elite holy warriors...They were there when Constantinople fell.

It was the Venetian 'Christians' that broke Constantinople in 1204 as part of their long-standing religious and economic struggles. The Janissaries weren't there. In 1453 a limping and essentially broken Constantinople succumbed. The Ottoman Turks did not take on Constantinople at its best.

And if hoplites (and therefore the Spartans who used them) had been worth shit when compared to any other option on the list, there would have been some effort to bring them back after the fall of Greece.

Don't confuse the Spartan military with the classical Greek hoplite or its successor the Macedonian Phalanx. Despite their obvious successes, the Spartan army was limited by population. You could only fight as a Spartan if you were from Sparta and there were precious few full-blood Spartan males knocking about. They only had around 1500 at a time. Mind you 1500 Spartans could do a lot of damage. They were (as the Greeks were) essentially gifted amateurs. They were a land-owning aristocracy who fought during the growing season and who went home for the harvest. The Greeks had a Campaign Season and only fought between sowing and reaping. So you see how easily they might fall to the full-trained, professional, all-year-round Roman Legions (and assorted Allied nations).

The greatest individual warrior was obviously Cu Chulainn, who was unbeatable. .

So we're including mythical warriors now?

Fine i'll choose Thor then

You're selling European smithies short. Those swords were made to last.

They blunted fairly easily. Though, it may have been primarily circumstantial factors--repetitive hittings on different degrees of hard surface against dozens of enemies. One on one, it's probably a much different story.

Concerning average samurai vs average knight: to my knowledge the armour of a typical samurai was not the equal to that of plate (larger gaps, weaker material). Add that to the fact that European swords were weighted to add power to cuts, and blocking with the katana would be a good way to damaged the katana, and the samurai is at a bit of a disadvantage. However, you are correct in pointing out their training would definitely lend itself to the samurai being more able to dodge the blade than parry or block (first rule of swordfighting: dodge before parry, parry before block).

Another difference: The samurai, ergo his primary weapon, relied more on finesse. The katana was made light, and of tempered steel that kept an edge and was designed for sweeping strokes. The European long swords, on the other hand, were designed more with crushing force in mind. A pertinent story is of a European knight, a huge bear of a man, in the Middle East who wielded a broad sword, and to display the force of his weapon he chopped a cow literally in half cross-ways with a single stroke. His audience, an Arab warrior, responded by tossing a silken scarf into the air, drawing his sword, and holding it vertical as the scarf fell onto the blade and slid down to his hand. The sword was sharp enough to pierce the scarf without making a noise and, more importantly, with no more force than that of the falling scarf. Substitute samurai for Arab and you have a rough comparison of two disciplines and styles of fighting: one based on physical strength, the other on self-restraint. Both are equally skilled in their particular style of fighting.

I think a knight would probably be at a bit of an advantage, if only because of his superior protection that a samurai would have to circumvent. Though it would most definitely be a close-run thing.

Close it would most certainly be. A knight accounts for his lack of speed with added protection; a samurai his less comprehensive protection with speed. Perhaps speed is not the correct term. Finesse, self-control, natural ability, training, quickness, reflex, concentrated power of will. All those are what I mean by speed. The plate armor would be tough to get through, but there are weaknesses. The armpits. The front of the neck, below the chin. The groin. And weaknesses in the armor itself. A samurai could well slice through solid plate mail--there are stories of the same being done to cannons and rifles.Add the trained inner control of a samurai, and I doubt a knight is a better warrior.

I find that hard to believe (is there really no difference between wearing, say, a fitted cotton t-shirt and one made out of steel?), but, as I say, I'm no military buff.

Might seem hard to believe, but a fully plated up knight could get onto his own house without assistance. Unlike what movies portray.

And for the most part - they wore in weight, less than a modern infantry soldier carries on him at any one time...

Main problem would just be heat ;)

Right, but we've seen before how basing judgement on technology is an invalid form of gauging fighters worth.


I read one of your posts earlier on European swords and swordsmanship. Its a suprisingly common view.

The europeans didn't make light, insanely sharp swords - they made thick swords, able to cut through armor through sheer force and weight rather than sharpness or skill. If they made katanas, yet still switched methods of swordcrafting, then you would have a point, but longswords/greatswords/rapiers are just too different from katanas.

Also, that I know of, there's no art to wielding a longsword in full plate armor, as opposed to many different arts and styles of wielding eastern weapons.

I suggest you take a look at this, for a small sample.
http://thearma.org/Videos/sword_test_cutting.mov

The greatest individual warrior was obviously Cu Chulainn, who was unbeatable. As for various members of various armies, I'd have to go with my old favourite the Roman Legionary. They were only beatable when under bad leadership (Varus) or when faced with someone brilliant (Hannibal). Otherwise they were the mincing machine of the ancient world and all fell before them.

There was a very good programme on UK TV called "Storm From The East" which covered the assault on Europe by the Mongol Hordes. There was a good segment comparing a Knight Templar and a Mongol. The Templars got thrashed. Absolutely walloped. The cream of Europe's military, they were out-thought, out-fought, out-maneuvered and generally out-classed by illiterate peasants. Hehehe.

The same Templars who are direct combat descendants of the Gothic warriors who ultimately broke the Roman legions for the last time?

They blunted fairly easily. Though, it may have been primarily circumstantial factors--repetitive hittings on different degrees of hard surface against dozens of enemies. One on one, it's probably a much different story.

That much is true. A long sword would blunt before a katana would.



Another difference: The samurai, ergo his primary weapon, relied more on finesse. The katana was made light, and of tempered steel that kept an edge and was designed for sweeping strokes. The European long swords, on the other hand, were designed more with crushing force in mind. A pertinent story is of a European knight, a huge bear of a man, in the Middle East who wielded a broad sword, and to display the force of his weapon he chopped a cow literally in half cross-ways with a single stroke. His audience, an Arab warrior, responded by tossing a silken scarf into the air, drawing his sword, and holding it vertical as the scarf fell onto the blade and slid down to his hand. The sword was sharp enough to pierce the scarf without making a noise and, more importantly, with no more force than that of the falling scarf. Substitute samurai for Arab and you have a rough comparison of two disciplines and styles of fighting: one based on physical strength, the other on self-restraint. Both are equally skilled in their particular style of fighting.

That the katana is made for slashing would be its undoing. More below.


Close it would most certainly be. A knight accounts for his lack of speed with added protection; a samurai his less comprehensive protection with speed. Perhaps speed is not the correct term. Finesse, self-control, natural ability, training, quickness, reflex, concentrated power of will. All those are what I mean by speed. The plate armor would be tough to get through, but there are weaknesses. The armpits. The front of the neck, below the chin. The groin. And weaknesses in the armor itself. A samurai could well slice through solid plate mail--there are stories of the same being done to cannons and rifles.Add the trained inner control of a samurai, and I doubt a knight is a better warrior.

We agree on the samurai having better dodging ability, not so much on his ability to penetrate plate mail. Those weak points are going to be hard to penetrate with slashes, which as you've said is what the katana is made for. This is not to say that the katana cannot stab, far from it, but that should be taken into consideration. I'm highly skeptical that, in a combat situation, a samurai could muster enough force to slash thru the tempered steel of plate mail. I think it's far more likely to either deflect off (and possibly ruin the blade) or maybe penetrate a bit and get stuck.

As to more skilled, I can't speculate too much. European fighters have historically been pragmatic with style, adopting new ones as old ones became obsolete. Japanese not so much. That there are still established schools or ancient martial arts is proof of this. So a Japanese fighter may well put much more time and focus into his style than a European one.

I think the best way to put it would be thus: If the samurai can circumvent his opponent's armor, his edge in skill would carry him to victory. If not, attrition would favor the knight.

So we're including mythical warriors now?

Fine i'll choose Thor then

Cu Chulainn should still win ;)

The same Templars who are direct combat descendants of the Gothic warriors who ultimately broke the Roman legions for the last time?

Indifference brought about the end of the Roman Legions. Economic success and stability meant that the Roman males no longer felt any desire to do something as potentially fatal as enlisting. The Empire was forced to look elsewhere for people stupid/desperate enough to sign up for the army and found a ready supply in Germans. This meant that over time the Roman Army became more German. It was the form of government that fell in 476 AD, not the military system. Franks, Goths, Suebi, and Vandals took political control over the Western Roman Empire. There was no pitch battle, no surrendering of Imperial Eagles. The Romans won their last great war before dissolution, that against Atilla.

The Knights Templar can't really be described as Gothic either. The core that formed the KT would have been descendants of Franks (or perhaps Alaric's Visigoths but they were long gone by the 11th Century).

I think the best way to put it would be thus: If the samurai can circumvent his opponent's armor, his edge in skill would carry him to victory. If not, attrition would favor the knight.

I admit I made a few inconsistent conclusions previously. Truth be told, I have no idea how full plate mail would fare, and even less how traditional samurai armor would. But that's not to say I don't have an opinion on the matter!

I would argue against your quoted statement (above) that a samurai would be able to wear down a plated knight fighting on foot; exhaustion, cramping, and lack of trained inner control would account for more than weapons and armor. I'm no samurai, or knight, but what I have gleaned from wrestling and cross-country is that natural ability can take you so far, training a little farther, but ultimately it is self-discipline and knowledge of what you can and cannot do at a particular moment in time that makes you come out on top more often than relying on instinct. Experience matters a bunch as well. How well can you read your opponent? He's been running the same race--is his body at the same limit? Is that a slight limp, or is it a feint? Has his stride been slowing down? Are his take-downs getting more relaxed? Dozens of things can determine victory or defeat. If you know yourself well enough, that frees your mind for learning your opponent and striking at the opportune time.

The europeans didn't make light, insanely sharp swords - they made thick swords, able to cut through armor through sheer force and weight rather than sharpness or skill. If they made katanas, yet still switched methods of swordcrafting, then you would have a point, but longswords/greatswords/rapiers are just too different from katanas.

You have no clue what you're talking about. A katana and an arming sword both weighed around one kilogram. And katana were no sharper than an arming sword. The idea that European weapons were heavy, slow, and dull is a myth that is not even remotely supported by the facts.

That much is true. A long sword would blunt before a katana would.

Nope. Arming swords were made out of steel that was far superior to that available to Japanese weaponsmiths. The first one to blunt would be the katana. Hell, the first one to break would be the katana.

Nope. Arming swords were made out of steel that was far superior to that available to Japanese weaponsmiths. The first one to blunt would be the katana. Hell, the first one to break would be the katana.

You're correct. I misused the term. However, katana's do keep their edge better than long swords due to how they are made. Or rather, it makes for a keener edge.

Also, arming sword != long sword. Arming swords are short swords.

Indifference brought about the end of the Roman Legions. Economic success and stability meant that the Roman males no longer felt any desire to do something as potentially fatal as enlisting. The Empire was forced to look elsewhere for people stupid/desperate enough to sign up for the army and found a ready supply in Germans. This meant that over time the Roman Army became more German. It was the form of government that fell in 476 AD, not the military system. Franks, Goths, Suebi, and Vandals took political control over the Western Roman Empire. There was no pitch battle, no surrendering of Imperial Eagles. The Romans won their last great war before dissolution, that against Atilla.

The Knights Templar can't really be described as Gothic either. The core that formed the KT would have been descendants of Franks (or perhaps Alaric's Visigoths but they were long gone by the 11th Century).

I tried to be careful about my phrasing. "Combat descendants" means that the basic knight--Templar, Teutonic, Frankish--all developed their heavy-armor fighting style from previous generations of Gothic and Gallic warriors, but primarily Goth and Visigoth. Not blood descendants.

And you have a valid point, I might add. It was the political system that fell, and the political "takeover"--I use the term loosely, though there was no particular point in time, but a period of generations culminating in the fifth century AD--led to the disconnect and schism with Byzantium. On the field of battle, the Roman war machine was, with few exceptions, and particularly after the Marian reforms (thought it was these reforms that paved the way for the dissolution of the Roman ranks), nigh invincible. A few battles, namely against Vercingetorix, Hannibal, and the blue-skinned warriors of Brittania, and also that Greek warlord, can't remember his name right now, are the exception--but if anything they prove the rule. It is also interesting to note that Roman style of military organization was loosely modeled after by Napoleon and provides a significant basis for many modern militaries until the advent of World War I, testament if not to the outmoded weaponry then the system of warfare perpetuated by the Romans.

You're correct. I misused the term. However, katana's do keep their edge better than long swords due to how they are made. Or rather, it makes for a keener edge.

Also, arming sword != long sword. Arming swords are short swords.

The term long sword wasn't used until extremely recently. Arming sword was the term applied to what would today be called a long sword, as well as a large number of other blades, but I've seen it most applied to swords with 30 inch or so blades, so that's how I apply it.

Has anyone mentioned the berserk(er)s?

Aside from them, the knights and samurais were both very well trained.

I'd say if he were real, Cuchulain of Ulster (the Hound of Ulster) would be tough to beat.

The term long sword wasn't used until extremely recently. Arming sword was the term applied to what would today be called a long sword, as well as a large number of other blades, but I've seen it most applied to swords with 30 inch or so blades, so that's how I apply it.

Fair enough.

Nope. Arming swords were made out of steel that was far superior to that available to Japanese weaponsmiths. The first one to blunt would be the katana. Hell, the first one to break would be the katana.

I'm no expert in steelmaking, but it is my understanding that katanas are made from folding the steel and hammering, while European swords, specifically long and broad, were made by casting and hammering. By it's nature, both would be durable, one through its temper, the other its composite strength. But, the katana is known for its edge--a good long sword might break one, but folded steel is better able to hold an edge.

[QUOTE=Telesha;12904123]So have I...with Zhang He no less.QUOTE]

Lol, I was sorta joking both times around, but still he was a pretty good and fearsome warrior, nevermind the fact that I got bored one day and decided to kick his ass with Da Qiao... eh... Zhang He though isn't bad in terms of attack and defense in that game, though he is a flamer.

[QUOTE=Telesha;12904123]So have I...with Zhang He no less.QUOTE]

Lol, I was sorta joking both times around, but still he was a pretty good and fearsome warrior, nevermind the fact that I got bored one day and decided to kick his ass with Da Qiao... eh... Zhang He though isn't bad in terms of attack and defense in that game, though he is a flamer.

Oi! wtf happened there?

[QUOTE=Telesha;12904123]So have I...with Zhang He no less.QUOTE]

Lol, I was sorta joking both times around, but still he was a pretty good and fearsome warrior, nevermind the fact that I got bored one day and decided to kick his ass with Da Qiao... eh... Zhang He though isn't bad in terms of attack and defense in that game, though he is a flamer.

So was I ;)

My tone seems to come off as either humourless or arrogant, I can't figure out which.

I would love to know where they got that character concept for Zhang He from. Everything I've read in the novel doesn't even begin to match that.

QUOTE=Cake vs Pie;12904997]

Oi! wtf happened there?

Indeed.

:confused::confused:

An angry (or ecstatic, doesn't really matter) football fan tanked with enough beer in the system.

I see Spartans are winning the poll because 300 was a popular and stylish movie.

I see Spartans are winning the poll because 300 was a popular and stylish movie.

Either that or the buffed and oily bodies of said spartans.

:confused: hard to tell, a warrior isnt just a warrior they all have deifferent qualities. but id sya ninja, due to tehir stealth and subterfuge. they are masters of the darkness and stealth. then again i liek pirates due to the terror they inspire in their enemies and their raids. a ninja pirate would b the ultimate warrior, lol.

And you have a valid point, I might add. It was the political system that fell, and the political "takeover"--I use the term loosely, though there was no particular point in time, but a period of generations culminating in the fifth century AD--led to the disconnect and schism with Byzantium.

but you miss out my favourite Emperor, Justinian. The last great Emperor of the Romans of the Ancient World. If it hadn't been for that pesky plague we might have had a fully restored Roman Empire and no troublesome Germans.

The Samurai is the greatest Warrior ever!

Ever? Really? If you compared them to other warriors of the same time period you might have an argument but i'm pretty sure warriors today could take them

The Samurai is the greatest Warrior ever!

Looks like the anime fanboys and Hollywood movie buffs are in firm control of the poll.

A knight would have a sizable advantage over a samurai simply due to his superior equipment. You go on until you're blue in the face about how the samurai is more mobile, but try dodging a close-range sword-swing. Maybe you can pull it off once of twice if you're good. But once the swords start clashing, a brittle katana would crack much quicker. Not that it really matters, as samurai did not use katanas all that often. Darn anime fanboys.

Looks like the anime fanboys and Hollywood movie buffs are in firm control of the poll.

A knight would have a sizable advantage over a samurai simply due to his superior equipment. You go on until you're blue in the face about how the samurai is more mobile, but try dodging a close-range sword-swing. Maybe you can pull it off once of twice if you're good. But once the swords start clashing, a brittle katana would crack much quicker. Not that it really matters, as samurai did not use katanas all that often. Darn anime fanboys.

Mongolian horse archer > Knight & Samurai

Mongolian horse archer > Knight & Samurai
Not so.

The Mongols didn't use bodkinned arrows, hence in a straight up fight, their shots would be complete crap against an armoured knight.

I'm also somewhat disappointed by the amount of wapanese stuff going on here.

"OMG YA KATANAS ARE SO COOL D00DZ, THEY HAVE THEM IN LYK NARUTO SO IT MUST BE COOL!"

Not so.

The Mongols didn't use bodkinned arrows, hence in a straight up fight, their shots would be complete crap against an armoured knight.

I'm also somewhat disappointed by the amount of wapanese stuff going on here.

"OMG YA KATANAS ARE SO COOL D00DZ, THEY HAVE THEM IN LYK NARUTO SO IT MUST BE COOL!"

It does not necessarily take bodkinned arrows to pierce armour. As well, the knight would never, never catch up to the archer, and therefore it is impossible for one to win. And I am certain that the Mongolian horse archers had arrows which could pierce armour in any case.

It does not necessarily take bodkinned arrows to pierce armour.
Ermm... it sort of does when you're talking about full plate. Bodkins or bolts, or better yet bullets. That's about it.
As well, the knight would never, never catch up to the archer, and therefore it is impossible for one to win.
Then it would be the lamest draw ever.
And I am certain that the Mongolian horse archers had arrows which could pierce armour in any case.
Chain, maybe, plate, no.

I'd like to point out that it's like comparing apples to oranges. Samurai generally speaking were infantry. Knights were calvary.

Ermm... it sort of does when you're talking about full plate. Bodkins or bolts, or better yet bullets. That's about it.

Then it would be the lamest draw ever.

Chain, maybe, plate, no.

Tempered steel being projected with immense force not good enough? Besides there is no way the Mongolian horse archer could lose, it's win or draw.

Klingons


or Pirates.

http://www.youdontevenrealize.com/pictures/pinguine.gif

omfg what idiots keep on saying spartans they came several hundred years before and there spears would stand no chance against the platemail of a knight. course jedi is the best hands down cuz of the psychic powers and the lightsabers that cut through anything but hey that could just be my opinion. Not to mention that the all powerful spartan warriors were eventually pwned by the roman legionaries, so therefore the romans would be the proper vote for those people.

Tempered steel being projected with immense force not good enough?
No, because they didn't make solid-metal arrows, did they?
Besides there is no way the Mongolian horse archer could lose, it's win or draw.
Unless the knight brought some serfs with crossbows with him, of course.

Unless the knight brought some serfs with crossbows with him, of course.

But thats not fair. How is a multiple peeps vs. one horse archer fair?

omfg what idiots keep on saying spartans they came several hundred years before and there spears would stand no chance against the platemail of a knight. course jedi is the best hands down cuz of the psychic powers and the lightsabers that cut through anything but hey that could just be my opinion.
... Yeah but they're not real.

On that list, the best by far is The Pirate. Outside of that, the SAS.

But thats not fair. How is a multiple peeps vs. one horse archer fair?
He also can bring friends if he so chooses. Knights and serfs with missile weapons > Mongol horse archers, by far.

... Yeah but they're not real.


Lies. Jedi are as real as you or me. They just live in a galaxy far far away remember?

No, because they didn't make solid-metal arrows, did they?

Unless the knight brought some serfs with crossbows with him, of course.

How do you know they weren't solid-metal?

How do you know they weren't solid-metal?
... because archaeology suggests otherwise, as does physics?

Looks like the anime fanboys and Hollywood movie buffs are in firm control of the poll.

A knight would have a sizable advantage over a samurai simply due to his superior equipment. You go on until you're blue in the face about how the samurai is more mobile, but try dodging a close-range sword-swing. Maybe you can pull it off once of twice if you're good. But once the swords start clashing, a brittle katana would crack much quicker. Not that it really matters, as samurai did not use katanas all that often. Darn anime fanboys.

Not surprising, really, considering people vote what they know. How many cool knights have you seen recently? A Knight's Tale was probably the last one. Compare that to modern hits like 300 and the Last Samurai. Not to mention that knights are just too cliche. I realize I'm working two different, technically paradoxical points here, but just bear with me. Now Spartans, those guys are tough. And Samurai are exotic, so they must be better than the romanticized knight.

I argued for the samurai because I don't know much about them, and I don't know near as much as I do about knights. It's a way to rationalize and think about an argument, by taking a different viewpoint. But I think that somewhere between the "katanas suck" and the "plate mail is too slow," there is some modicum of truth. Or I could be pulling this completely out of my ass, in which case, well, that's too bad I guess.

Lies. Jedi are as real as you or me. They just live in a galaxy far far away remember?

A long time ago. Or did you forget that part? ;)

He also can bring friends if he so chooses. Knights and serfs with missile weapons > Mongol horse archers, by far.

Yes. This is why ol' Genghis overran half of Europe in the thirteenth century.

Anyone want to match somebody against Kawakami Gensai, The number one most dangerous Hitikiri of the Bakamatsu.

How do you know they weren't solid-metal?

Try shooting a rod of steel from a bow. Oh, and put it on youtube.

... because archaeology suggests otherwise, as does physics?

So have you ever acquired a 12th century Mongolian arrow and shot it at 12th century European armour with a Mongolian recurve bow?

If anyone was wondering if some Spartan refered to Master cheif and his kind or the warriors from Sparta, it the Warriors from Sparta. I should have made it more clear than some spartan. Of course the MC would be a good choice!

He also can bring friends if he so chooses. Knights and serfs with missile weapons > Mongol horse archers, by far.

Which is why they manifestly failed to beat the Mongols every time.

Which is why they manifestly failed to beat the Mongols every time.

Come to think of it, I don't think the Mongols were ever really beaten. They conquered China, Europe, the vast majority of Eurasia...

If anyone was wondering if some Spartan refered to Master cheif and his kind or the warriors from Sparta, it the Warriors from Sparta. I should have made it more clear than some spartan. Of course the MC would be a good choice!

Master Chief? Spartan? :confused:

The arrow head could be made of steel and still shoot well though couldn't it?

Of course. That's the way these things usually work. However, an arrow made of steel is quite different than an arrowhead.

Also samurai trained in the art of unarming an opponient, so I see if the samurai couldn't hit a soft spot on the armor he could focus on disarming the knight. He would get him on his back and then be able to finish him.

Try shooting a rod of steel from a bow. Oh, and put it on youtube.

The arrow head could be made of steel and still shoot well though couldn't it?

Master Chief? Spartan? :confused:

From Halo

Come to think of it, I don't think the Mongols were ever really beaten. They conquered China, Europe, the vast majority of Eurasia...

Usually they just went back home when there was nothing valuable to pillage or conquer.

Usually they just went back home when there was nothing valuable to pillage or conquer.

Well, can't argue with that logic.

Got the gold, the women, the nice teapot from Buckingham palace...time to retire!

Yes. This is why ol' Genghis overran half of Europe in the thirteenth century.
Erm also because Russia and Eastern Europe was a complete shithole and its troops were unarmoured?
Try shooting a rod of steel from a bow. Oh, and put it on youtube.
Quite.
So have you ever acquired a 12th century Mongolian arrow and shot it at 12th century European armour with a Mongolian recurve bow?
Surprising as this may sound, no.

Tempered steel being projected with immense force not good enough? Besides there is no way the Mongolian horse archer could lose, it's win or draw.

archers =/= warriors.

I also see a lot of bitching on behalf of the europeans in the form of: "Spartans gave buttsecks to each other and japanese fathead fanbois!@! Articulated mail is invincible!!!"

Knights would win in battle because they have the edge of technology. As far toughness, Spartans were raised in a warrior culture. Knights were poets, aristocrats, and wealthy landowners.

Erm also because Russia and Eastern Europe was a complete shithole and its troops were unarmoured?


A technicality. Easily ignored in the face of PWNAGE.

I'm out of my depth, here, I'll be honest. I have no idea about the details of Mongolian conquests, just the end results. So, um, yes, well in Civ4 a knight is stronger than a horse archer.

Warrior-
One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict.

Therefore an archer is a warrior.

This is a thread for the grunts of ancient warfare. (Knights, Samurai, etc.)

That definition opens up any modern troop. Including a single man armed with a 40mm fully automatic grenade launcher. Go make an archer/gunner thread.

*votes for the Parthinians* :D

archers =/= warriors.

I also see a lot of bitching on behalf of the europeans in the form of: "Spartans gave buttsecks to each other and japanese fathead fanbois!@! Articulated mail is invincible!!!"

Knights would win in battle because they have the edge of technology. As far toughness, Spartans were raised in a warrior culture. Knights were poets, aristocrats, and wealthy landowners.

Warrior-
One who is engaged in or experienced in battle.
One who is engaged aggressively or energetically in an activity, cause, or conflict.
Therefore an archer is a warrior.

This is a thread for the grunts of ancient warfare. (Knights, Samurai, etc.)

That definition opens up any modern troop. Including a single man armed with a 40mm fully automatic grenade launcher. Go make an archer/gunner thread.

*votes for the Parthinians* :D

A Mongolian horse arher is much faster than a single man armed with a 40mm fully automatic grenade launcher. So it would be a draw!

A Mongolian horse arher is much faster than a single man armed with a 40mm fully automatic grenade launcher. So it would be a draw!

...wow

Pointless. Thread. Again.

Yet it sucked me in anyway. D:

Pointless. Thread. Again.

Pointless. Thread. Again.

YES! I love acronyms! I try to make them whenever I see capital letters. PTA. Like Parent-teacher conference.

A Mongolian horse arher is much faster than a single man armed with a 40mm fully automatic grenade launcher. So it would be a draw!

If by "much faster" you mean "dead," then yes.

...wow



Yet it sucked me in anyway. D:

Indeed, much as I can no longer resist putting in my two penn'orth.

A Samurai was the sole constituent element of a Japanese feudal army; hence, it is be necessity trained in both ranged and close combat.

A knight is little more than the shock unit of a feudal latin army, and invariably fought only with lance, sword and axe, and hence should not be compared to the ranged qualities of a samurai.


In any case, what knights are being discussed? Do men-at-arms qualify as "knights" given that they fought mounted, or are we dealing only in sons of the nobility?

Moreover, a "knight" in the aristocratic, feudal sense of the term was not a landowner, poet or magistrate who donned armour when necessary. The latin nobility were educated with the sole intention of creating efficient warriors and rulers; to this end their lives were dedicated to warfare from an early age, with statecraft delegated to ministers, retainers and priests.

A Samurai was the sole constituent element of a Japanese feudal army; hence, it is be necessity trained in both ranged and close combat.
Er... not... quite right. Depending upon the time period in question, you saw a lot of the peasentry armed and mobilized into some very effective armies. Futher more, samurai of various rank would often times focus in on a weapon (Usually lower ranking samurai would be the Japanese equivlent of pikemen).

That being said, they did all practice archery.

Chuck Norris.










has somebody already said that yet?

The Roman Legionary was a not actually a warrior but a soldier. Warriors fight as individuals. Soldiers fight as part of a team. Training, discipline, tactics, mutual support, these are the key factors. As an example: the battle of Watling Street (or Paulersury), in 60 A.D. the Romans under Suetonius Paulinus, though greatly out numbered, completely crushed the Iceni warriors lead Queen Boudica;
or at Assaye, India on 23 September 1803 6000 troops of the British East India Company (many Highland Scots, traditionally fierce warriors in their own right among them) overwhelmed 50,000 better armed though much less disciplined soldiers of the Maratha Confederacy, and took effective control of India.
I might go with the Vikings, who roamed the known & unknown world far & wide. But then again the Native American warriors or "Skraelings" gave them so much grief.

Er... not... quite right. Depending upon the time period in question, you saw a lot of the peasentry armed and mobilized into some very effective armies. Futher more, samurai of various rank would often times focus in on a weapon (Usually lower ranking samurai would be the Japanese equivlent of pikemen).

That being said, they did all practice archery.

I saw a documentary upon the repulsion of a mongol invading fleet (1215 if memory serves) that suggested that Samurai of differing ranks were the primary militray units of the day. It was probably incorrect....:p

You're correct. I misused the term. However, katana's do keep their edge better than long swords due to how they are made. Or rather, it makes for a keener edge.

Also, arming sword != long sword. Arming swords are short swords.

Shorter swords (I think they're called 'small swords') are better in duels as they allow for 'double time': Immediate parry/riposte (knights fighting on the field are a different thing though from European duels).

However in case of a fully armored knight vs. samurai the the chosen weapon of the knight is almost irrelevant as the samurai enters the combat practically 'unarmed':
The katana's razor-edge was so hard that upon hitting an equally hard or harder object, such as another sword's edge, chipping became a definite risk. As such, blocking an oncoming blow blade-to-blade was generally avoided. In fact, evasive body maneuvers were preferred over blade contact by most, but, if such was not possible, the flat or the back of the blade was used for defense in many styles, rather than the precious edge. (Wikipedia on Katana).

Knowing that and considering the knight is sitting behind 20 kgs of surprisingly mobile steel (+ weapon + shield) the samurai willingly wouldn't strike the knight using his katana as that would in all likelyhood destroy the blade before penetrating through the armor...Also depending a bit on the weapon and/or shield used the knight would have no qualms in blocking the blow with a blade/mace/hammer/axe/shield of his own. Ultimately though the knight probably wouldn't win as the samurai can probably run faster. :D

Though, any cavalry unit would still the mow the lawn with elite footed soldiers (ie not peasants with spears ;)), be they knight or samurai (Mongols & Hakkapeliitat FTW!).

I dont think you can choose one warrior as the best ever because they were all trained to fight different types of enemies. None of them were trained to fight another with the exception of ninja being trained to be able to fight a samurai.

I gotta go with knights. They worked together, were highly trained and physically fit, and had better equipment than just about everything in that poll.

My co- number ones: As a unit, from a performance standpoint its hard to argue against the Spartans. They were the elite of the elite capable of fighting and winning against tremendous odds. Hoplites were typically non-Spartan Greek infantry which were really quite good and much better trained and organized than anything else that was being done at the time.

Samurai and Ninja typically do their things as individuals and not as a unit.

Vikings and Pirates are more or less raiders. While Vikings were particularly GOOD fighters often taking on many times their numbers, Pirates were usually very, very bad and looked for soft targets.

Janissaries were a special case. They were usually Christian children or youths seized by Muslims and raised to fight as Jihadists. They were so brain washed, that they were fanatical fighters and had to be killed to the last man.

Roman Legionaries, while quite successful, were more or less, mercenaries. It took two things to make a Legion move: supplies and gold. Legions were not very well run and were successful typically because they were so much larger than any formations that Rome's competitors could field.

_______________________________________

Best units/leaders not mentioned:

Nathan Bedford Forrest's Calvary: NBF was a Confederate Cavalry Commander who operated in the Western Confederacy (AR, MS, LA). Rather than line up and trade shots with larger, more powerful Union formations, Forrest used the speed and mobility of his calvary troops to "to git thar fust with the most men". Despite being a particularly odious personage, Forrestt's tactics were very influential to generations of calvary commanders to come(McArther, sr and jr and George Patton). In the early 1930s, a young German officer named Erwin Rommel toured Forrest's battlefields on a motorcycle.

Heinz Guderian: architect of the Panzer Divisions and Blitzkrieg. In the 20s and 30s, Guderian was the German officer most responsible for designing the modern armored division complete with tanks, Grenadiers [mounted infantry] and artillery: all capable of high mobility.

Erwin Rommel: After studying the tactics of Forrestt and other famed calvary commanders, Rommel wrote Panzer greift (Tank Attacks): a very influential book inside the German army. In 1940 Rommel took command of the 7th Panzer division and took all the theories of armored warfare and ran over the French and British with them.

Georgy Zhukov: the most successful Soviet General of the Great Patriotic War, Zhukov took the lessons learned in the early years of the war fighting the Blitzkrieg and created three important doctrines that would influence warfare for generations. The first was scorched earth: by destroying everything of strategic value before retreating, the Red Army denied the Germans the spoils of war. Upon occupying that land, the Germans had no infrastructure to support themselves. Second: Defense in Depth- rather than creating one line of defense which could be broken through and exploited, the Russian defenses had multiple lines of defense which would deny the German's the breakthroughs that they counted on. Finally Zhukov took the ideas of the blitzkrieg and gave them a Russian spin called military calculus- the first time in which an entire force structure from logistics to recon squads was packaged and integrated for the battlefield. This doctrine was independently developed in the West and was eventually called Combined Arms.

I saw a documentary upon the repulsion of a mongol invading fleet (1215 if memory serves) that suggested that Samurai of differing ranks were the primary militray units of the day. It was probably incorrect....:p
During that time, it would be correct. The problem is that Japan's fedual period was a lot longer than Europe's and different things were going on at different times.

Real Ninjitsu is some pretty crazy stuff...

But Vikings were all man, so they get my vote.

I read one of your posts earlier on European swords and swordsmanship. Its a suprisingly common view.



I suggest you take a look at this, for a small sample.
http://thearma.org/Videos/sword_test_cutting.mov

Can't right now, I'm at work.

I compared the european swords to the oriental swords because they existed in the same timeframe. I'm not fully educated on the entire timeline of the existence and evolution of the samurai in Japan, so I can't say for how long they'd been there by that time, and therefore won't attempt to compare them to the Spartans.

The term long sword wasn't used until extremely recently. Arming sword was the term applied to what would today be called a long sword, as well as a large number of other blades, but I've seen it most applied to swords with 30 inch or so blades, so that's how I apply it.

Surely the 30-inchers weigh more than the shorter swords. If you are going to argue semantics, such as weapon class, then you have to separate them into smaller groups.

:confused: hard to tell, a warrior isnt just a warrior they all have deifferent qualities. but id sya ninja, due to tehir stealth and subterfuge. they are masters of the darkness and stealth. then again i liek pirates due to the terror they inspire in their enemies and their raids. a ninja pirate would b the ultimate warrior, lol.

Ninja would most likely not win a head-to-head 1v1 fight, as we're assuming this situation entails. They were good at traps, good at surprises, good at explosives, good at running away when they lost the advantage of all of the above. The hand-to-hand styles of ninjutsu are a last resort to a ninja, when in the rare cases that he cannot run away. As such, he is not as dependant on his martial art as a samurai, and if one were to be unable to run away, unable to use trickery, unable to sneak attack from the shadows, then he would lose.

Looks like the anime fanboys and Hollywood movie buffs are in firm control of the poll.

A knight would have a sizable advantage over a samurai simply due to his superior equipment. You go on until you're blue in the face about how the samurai is more mobile, but try dodging a close-range sword-swing. Maybe you can pull it off once of twice if you're good. But once the swords start clashing, a brittle katana would crack much quicker. Not that it really matters, as samurai did not use katanas all that often. Darn anime fanboys.

It's been said in this thread before: close range dodge = ju-jutsu flipping the knight to the ground, possibly followed by a scramble to get his helmet off, and then a stab or slash to the head if he did it right. The katana was not really meant to clash, and therefore was not used to do so. Also, the samurai could, if he so chose, simply stay just out of range of the knight's attacks, and allow him to overheat and overexert himself over time.

archers =/= warriors.

I also see a lot of bitching on behalf of the europeans in the form of: "Spartans gave buttsecks to each other and japanese fathead fanbois!@! Articulated mail is invincible!!!"

Knights would win in battle because they have the edge of technology. As far toughness, Spartans were raised in a warrior culture. Knights were poets, aristocrats, and wealthy landowners.

Which technology is that? It's already been stated how the platemail could become more hazard than protection. Also: Knights were poets, aristocrats, landowners - samurai were warriors. If you wanted to get technical, we should refer to the Shogun in this comparison - they were the aristocrats, the higher-ups. I'm not entirely sure if they were exactly more 'skilled' than their samurai underlings, but they were in charge.

really depends on what you mean by greatness. efficiency of mass slaughter vs any sort of genuinely deserved and earned honor.

a knight was, for the most part, some spoiled bloody bastard in a tin can who'se family was able to afford the tin can when hardly anybody else was able to.

every kind of warrior there has ever been, at least beyond those of hunting and gathering societies, has had to violate their own conscounse as a person as part of their stock in trade.

that samurai were willing to take their own swords to themselvs in times of extreme recognition of this, i think, says something more about honor, then any degree of killing efficiency.

but since i was never in any of those times and places, have only read, and heard and seen dramatisations of such things, i would not take any of my own speculations as holy writ either.

personally i would consider the greatest warriors the hippie organic small scale farmers who are ostracized for 'fighting' to feed people by far the greater 'warriors'.

not to mention the engineers, artists, and tecnologists that build things everyone can be creative and explore with.

=^^=
.../\...

Had to think about this carefully. Overall, I'm going to assume you'd have to choose from the very best of each category. I feel that a knight would prevail, but as the saying goes, "He may be the best, until someone better comes along."

There's always a possibility that someone will trump said knight.

Janissaries can put holes in Knight armor...XD

And I love their military music. *hums*

Knight.

Jedi Knight.

It's been said in this thread before: close range dodge = ju-jutsu flipping the knight to the ground, possibly followed by a scramble to get his helmet off, and then a stab or slash to the head if he did it right. The katana was not really meant to clash, and therefore was not used to do so. Also, the samurai could, if he so chose, simply stay just out of range of the knight's attacks, and allow him to overheat and overexert himself over time.

You honestly think you can just "dodge" a close-range sword swing and then flip a knight on his back? Does "reality" not mean anything to you?

Which technology is that? It's already been stated how the platemail could become more hazard than protection. Also: Knights were poets, aristocrats, landowners - samurai were warriors. If you wanted to get technical, we should refer to the Shogun in this comparison - they were the aristocrats, the higher-ups. I'm not entirely sure if they were exactly more 'skilled' than their samurai underlings, but they were in charge.

By technology, I mean technology. It's already been pointed out several times that well-made plate armour allows quite good mobility and protection. And don't give me that garbage about knights not knowing how to fight. Yes, they were spoiled brats, but they were also trained to fight just as samuria were. Learn some history before you make silly remarks.

You honestly think you can just "dodge" a close-range sword swing and then flip a knight on his back? Does "reality" not mean anything to you?


Depending on the type of cut and just how close or far away you are, it's very doable. Hell, it's prefered over parry or block. Anything other than a side-slash is easily dodged by a simple sidestep. All you'd have to do after that is trip your opponent. It's all a matter of timing and watching your opponent's movements.

Depending on the type of cut and just how close or far away you are, it's very doable. Hell, it's prefered over parry or block. Anything other than a side-slash is easily dodged by a simple sidestep. All you'd have to do after that is trip your opponent. It's all a matter of timing and watching your opponent's movements.

Anything other than a side-slash? Go for it. In fact, we could try this out. I get a sword and shield and swing at you. You dodge and throw me on my back.

Surely the 30-inchers weigh more than the shorter swords. If you are going to argue semantics, such as weapon class, then you have to separate them into smaller groups.
They don't weigh that much, having held a replica. In the region of 4 or 5 kilograms (about 10 pounds) tops, very nicely weighted, too.

They were extremely well-crafted weapons, good at parrying as well as going on the attack.
It's been said in this thread before: close range dodge = ju-jutsu flipping the knight to the ground, possibly followed by a scramble to get his helmet off, and then a stab or slash to the head if he did it right. The katana was not really meant to clash, and therefore was not used to do so. Also, the samurai could, if he so chose, simply stay just out of range of the knight's attacks, and allow him to overheat and overexert himself over time.
I'd have thought that a Samauri would prefer to draw a short sword for close combat, rather than go immediately for the whole judo thing, mainly because you might be able to leap around and all that, but if you're in your samauri gear, which was by no means particularly light or manouverable, then trying to judo flip someone over is a bit of a lost cause if you haven't got your sword out ready to parry their blows, instead of getting your right arm lopped off.
Which technology is that? It's already been stated how the platemail could become more hazard than protection. Also: Knights were poets, aristocrats, landowners - samurai were warriors. If you wanted to get technical, we should refer to the Shogun in this comparison - they were the aristocrats, the higher-ups. I'm not entirely sure if they were exactly more 'skilled' than their samurai underlings, but they were in charge.
Ermm... the Samauri were into Bonsai and poetry, as well as fairly extreme religious goings-on. Both groups were almost exactly the same in a great many ways, really.

I'm really sure that refering to shogun is a really poor idea. They were exactly the same as Dukes. They organised things and fought a bit, had lots of money and a fair bit of training. Not really comparable, because you didn't get whole armies of them.

Anything other than a side-slash? Go for it. In fact, we could try this out. I get a sword and shield and swing at you. You dodge and throw me on my back.

I have, actually. It's difficult, but not impossible by any means. You start with wooden replicas, which are meant to be used at less than full combat speed, and move up to lighter, padded replicas which can be used at full speed. You learn exactly when and how you can dodge certain attacks (thrusts being easiest, side-slashes (as in those parallel to your opponent's waistline) being hardest) and how to take advantage. If you're unarmed, you would close the distance and attempt to either disarm your opponent or put him on the ground. If you're armed, you counter-strike.

I have, actually. It's difficult, but not impossible by any means. You start with wooden replicas, which are meant to be used at less than full combat speed, and move up to lighter, padded replicas which can be used at full speed. You learn exactly when and how you can dodge certain attacks (thrusts being easiest, side-slashes (as in those parallel to your opponent's waistline) being hardest) and how to take advantage. If you're unarmed, you would close the distance and attempt to either disarm your opponent or put him on the ground. If you're armed, you counter-strike.

Ask any good sword fighter how easy it is to dodge a close-range sword swing. It's hard. Yes, it can be done of course, but in such a fight, the one with the sword has a massive advantage. You need to give the knight more credit; they aren't complete fools.

Ask any good sword fighter how easy it is to dodge a close-range sword swing. It's hard. Yes, it can be done of course, but in such a fight, the one with the sword has a massive advantage. You need to give the knight more credit; they aren't complete fools.

And if you'd read my prior posts in this thread concerning a traditional Knight vs a Samurai, you'd know that's exactly what I've been saying.

Of course dodging is hard, but when it's done right, the advantage shifts considerably while your opponent has to recover their blade.

You have, then, also tried this? Sword and shield or two-handed long?

They were extremely well-crafted weapons, good at parrying as well as going on the attack.
As opposed to katana which generally wasn't used for parrying direct hits.

Besides, knights have access to other weapons and a shield. :)

Having studied and practiced (vaguely with friends) Longsword combat I'll tell you, if they move as fast as we did (untrained amateurs usinf relatively light sticks but from what I've seen trained fighters were FASTER) then closing is NOT easy.

Not to mention that longswords could be used as shortspears if an opponent tries to close (a technique taught by the germans I know) making it even harder to get 'inside'.

Knights may not be the best in this poll but they were trained, motivated and equipped to the absolute hightest level available. I'd give them a 50-50 chance against anything but light missile cavalry (The bane of most fighting forces be they Roman, Teutonic or anyone else up until the breechloading rifle).

(In actual WARFARE their effectiveness could be hampered by a smart enemy using terrain and good tactics to their advantage - see Agincourt - but that goes for anyone)

Ask any good sword fighter how easy it is to dodge a close-range sword swing. It's hard. Yes, it can be done of course, but in such a fight, the one with the sword has a massive advantage. You need to give the knight more credit; they aren't complete fools.

*shrugs* I say the knight, in his full plate, would be restricted enough to where the person who's been trained in Ju-jutsu could take advantage of a badly executed swing.

They don't weigh that much, having held a replica. In the region of 4 or 5 kilograms (about 10 pounds) tops, very nicely weighted, too.

They were extremely well-crafted weapons, good at parrying as well as going on the attack.

I'd have thought that a Samauri would prefer to draw a short sword for close combat, rather than go immediately for the whole judo thing, mainly because you might be able to leap around and all that, but if you're in your samauri gear, which was by no means particularly light or manouverable, then trying to judo flip someone over is a bit of a lost cause if you haven't got your sword out ready to parry their blows, instead of getting your right arm lopped off.

Samurai don't have 'short swords', per se, they have wakizashis, and I'm pretty sure they carried around tantos as well, though that may have been a ninja thing. Waki's are basically shorter katanas, and I believe they were better suited for stabbing.



Ermm... the Samauri were into Bonsai and poetry, as well as fairly extreme religious goings-on. Both groups were almost exactly the same in a great many ways, really.

Same, yet different, yes.

I'm really sure that refering to shogun is a really poor idea. They were exactly the same as Dukes. They organised things and fought a bit, had lots of money and a fair bit of training. Not really comparable, because you didn't get whole armies of them.

Yes, which is why I said they more closely resemble the aristocratic side of the knights.

Anything other than a side-slash? Go for it. In fact, we could try this out. I get a sword and shield and swing at you. You dodge and throw me on my back.

Actually sideslashes would be hard to use your weight against you with, I would think. I was thinking more a downward slash, maybe a diagonal slash. Get inside the attack, grab the arm, kick the feet off-balance and throw.

You honestly think you can just "dodge" a close-range sword swing and then flip a knight on his back? Does "reality" not mean anything to you?

A sword is not a bullet. You can dodge a sword.

By technology, I mean technology. It's already been pointed out several times that well-made plate armour allows quite good mobility and protection. And don't give me that garbage about knights not knowing how to fight. Yes, they were spoiled brats, but they were also trained to fight just as samuria were. Learn some history before you make silly remarks.

Maybe you misunderstood me - I recognize that they knew how to fight, but I argue that their mastery of whatever training they've gone through is not enough to overcome the training of a samurai's hand-to-hand.

Also, while allowing "good" mobility, plate armor -does- slow you down. Even if a little bit, every little bit matters when you're against an opponent who's already most likely faster than you are without the armor on. The protection can be circumvented through weak points in the armor stabbed at with the Wakizashi.

As opposed to katana which generally wasn't used for parrying direct hits.

Besides, knights have access to other weapons and a shield. :)

Not -on- them, I don't think. Maybe packed onto their horse, or someone else holding their other weapons and following them around, but I doubt they carried around a longsword, a shortsword, a mace, and a flail all on their person.

Having studied and practiced (vaguely with friends) Longsword combat I'll tell you, if they move as fast as we did (untrained amateurs usinf relatively light sticks but from what I've seen trained fighters were FASTER) then closing is NOT easy.

We used hickory replicas. Expensive, but durable. As to closing: and how! I can't tell you the number of bruises I got from trying to learn that skill.

Not to mention that longswords could be used as shortspears if an opponent tries to close (a technique taught by the germans I know) making it even harder to get 'inside'.

Half-swording. That was another set of bruises. Better for offense.

A sword is not a bullet. You can dodge a sword.Even if that sword is a katana wielded by a samurai.

Though blocking the blow would be much more damaging to the samurai.

Even if that sword is a katana wielded by a samurai.

Though blocking the blow would be much more damaging to the samurai.

Oh yes. I'd much rather use the heavier European blade to hopefully damage or even break the incoming katana. Less risky than attempting to dodge.

Even if that sword is a katana wielded by a samurai.

Though blocking the blow would be much more damaging to the samurai.

*shrugs* This is true, but there's not a whole lot of blocking ability given, considering the samurai would most likely be stabbing. The knight could possibly parry the blow, though, so I suppose it depends.

Oh yes. I'd much rather use the heavier European blade to hopefully damage or even break the incoming katana. Less risky than attempting to dodge.

Personally I find the tonfa batons, weapons of the armed Muay Thai warrior of olde, to be more interesting. They can block with the batons, and then flip them around and whack the opponent with them or keep them in defensive position (covering the bottom of the wrist and lower arm) and throw a punch which would be augmented by the weight and added momentum of the tonfas being gripped in the fist.

Oh yes. I'd much rather use the heavier European blade to hopefully damage or even break the incoming katana. Less risky than attempting to dodge.But the samurai would have used his superior fighting skill and planned for his katana to be broken. He would attack in such a way that the broken of end of the blade would continue towards the bumbling knight and cut his head off. Samurais were just that skilled, the movies tell us that. /end sarcasm

While I'm sure that not every knight would be a shining example on how to prepare for war, the very real possibility of being send to war meant that they actually did train for it, they didn't just put on a suit of armor and sword and go to war. If you know that there's a high likelyhood of you ending up in battle, logic demands that you train for it. Yes, they probably had alot of other things to do aswell, but a knight isn't just a big bafoon in a clunky piece of hand-me-down armour with a rusty sword. He is a trained fighter, learned in various martial arts(yes, martial arts) with a custom made armour that doesn't restrict movement as much as you would think.

What knights need to do is to find whoever does the samurais PR and feed them to their horse. And then get better PR people for themselves.

Wish I could vote for the viking, but I can't recall anything ever portraying them as superb fighters with the best weapons available at the time. Unless we're talking about a duel in the North Atlantic, a viking shouldn't have that much of a problem with a seasick samurai or knight. :p

This poll is lacking one key choice...

ME

Ahahaha. *pose*

But the samurai would have used his superior fighting skill and planned for his katana to be broken. He would attack in such a way that the broken of end of the blade would continue towards the bumbling knight and cut his head off. Samurais were just that skilled, the movies tell us that. /end sarcasm

While I'm sure that not every knight would be a shining example on how to prepare for war, the very real possibility of being send to war meant that they actually did train for it, they didn't just put on a suit of armor and sword and go to war. If you know that there's a high likelyhood of you ending up in battle, logic demands that you train for it. Yes, they probably had alot of other things to do aswell, but a knight isn't just a big bafoon in a clunky piece of hand-me-down armour with a rusty sword. He is a trained fighter, learned in various martial arts(yes, martial arts) with a custom made armour that doesn't restrict movement as much as you would think.

What knights need to do is to find whoever does the samurais PR and feed them to their horse. And then get better PR people for themselves.

Wish I could vote for the viking, but I can't recall anything ever portraying them as superb fighters with the best weapons available at the time. Unless we're talking about a duel in the North Atlantic, a viking shouldn't have that much of a problem with a seasick samurai or knight. :p

So which martial arts did they study?

This poll is lacking one key choice...

ME

Ahahaha. *pose*

Is it ridiculous that I imagined you as an anime character just now?

Is it ridiculous that I imagined you as an anime character just now?

Nope: this (http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/kof91/chars/dan.gif) came to mind

Bonus points if you get the joke.

*shrugs* I say the knight, in his full plate, would be restricted enough to where the person who's been trained in Ju-jutsu could take advantage of a badly executed swing.
Shite.

Full plate isn't actually very restrictive. It was made over several years and perfectly fitted, with leather and often splint mail underneath it to provide a bit of extra protection with little restriction of movement.

If you were wearing your own plate mail set, you could do cartwheels in it if you so wished. It weighed a couple of stone, yes, but on the other hand, if you'd have been training your entire life to build up resilience and strength, this wasn't a problem.



I also don't see how people get the idea that a Samauri is going to whip out some 1337 Judo skillz and have everyone fall over around him - a samauri's armour was a bunch of heavy plates stitched together, which is actually inferior in terms of manouvrability compared to full plate, which was, as previously mentioned, made to be extremely manouverable in addition to very tough.
Samurai don't have 'short swords', per se, they have wakizashis, and I'm pretty sure they carried around tantos as well, though that may have been a ninja thing. Waki's are basically shorter katanas, and I believe they were better suited for stabbing.
... this is what any short sword is for... it's a 'get yourself out of a fix, because it's preferable to use a weapon over none at all' kind of thing.

Same, yet different, yes.
Not different.

One wrote sonnets, the other wrote Haiku.
One did some casual gardening, the other did Bonsai.

This is hardly different at all.
Yes, which is why I said they more closely resemble the aristocratic side of the knights.
An individual knight didn't actually own that much land, something akin to a hamlet and a couple of fields was the height of it. Which isn't much to have to administer at all.

And a Shogun is simply a Japanese term for the group filled by the dukes. This is all. A samauri and a knight are pretty similar, a Shogun and a Duke are basically the same.
Actually sideslashes would be hard to use your weight against you with, I would think. I was thinking more a downward slash, maybe a diagonal slash. Get inside the attack, grab the arm, kick the feet off-balance and throw.
Or more likely - try and get under the guard, get battered back with a blow from the shield or a backhander from a spiked and plated glove, then get cut up.
A sword is not a bullet. You can dodge a sword.[QUOTE]
Yeah, go on then. I'll have a proper hand-and-a-half from the period, which was about 4 feet long and weighed about 8kg, you can have your samauri armour on, and we'll see who wins.

Because it will well and truly be me when you try and do some improbable judo kick and I take your legs out with a sword. And then cave your head with a quick Mordschlag when you're down.
[QUOTE]Maybe you misunderstood me - I recognize that they knew how to fight, but I argue that their mastery of whatever training they've gone through is not enough to overcome the training of a samurai's hand-to-hand.
What are you even the beginnings of on about?

Mainly a knight's on horseback - if you try and Ju-Jutsi him, he will laugh and lance you squarely in the face before crushing your head in under his steed's heels.

If on foot, he'll batter the crap out of you with his shield and cut you up nicely with a sword as you attempt to use your judo powers on you.
Also, while allowing "good" mobility, plate armor -does- slow you down. Even if a little bit, every little bit matters when you're against an opponent who's already most likely faster than you are without the armor on. The protection can be circumvented through weak points in the armor stabbed at with the Wakizashi.
Right. Keep in mind - Samauri armour = cumbersome and actually quite rubbish. And if you want to take on a heavily-armed man in plate mail without armour on to circumvent this - give it a try. You will perish horribly.
Not -on- them, I don't think. Maybe packed onto their horse, or someone else holding their other weapons and following them around, but I doubt they carried around a longsword, a shortsword, a mace, and a flail all on their person.
Usually a lance and a longsword, as well as a dagger, but it wasn't unknown for them to carry a longsword and a mace or flail as well as a shortsword in lieu of a lance if they were fighting on foot.

Keep in mind that they'd been being phyisically condtioned for the whole of their lives and wouldn't expect to be fighting for much more than an hour, tops, without a bit of respite.

Nope: this (http://members.fortunecity.co.uk/kof91/chars/dan.gif) came to mind

Bonus points if you get the joke.

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dan_SF.jpg ?

Your link is teh broek.

So which martial arts did they study?


Does it matter if they've had a formalised set of kata, stances, moves, etc taught to them as opposed to just practicing by fighting another person in any way they can?

You mean this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dan_SF.jpg ?

Your link is teh broek.

Yes. :D

Link works on my end. Not the best pic, but I just picked the first one that would work.

So which martial arts did they study?
A great many of the now-dead European styles, which we were smart enough to give up when we realised that spending years of time on how to get a man hand-to-hand were being wasted when you could simply stab / crush / lance / gut them and spend time on refining that instead.

They were heavily equipped, very strong, and mainly fought from horseback, and when they weren't on horseback, they'd be the best equipped men on the battlefield, ready to generally maul the crap out of you instead of going for your knees or something with a well-placed kick.

It wasn't until the second world war that hand-to-hand combat was taught again in Europe, and only then to our special forces.

Is it ridiculous that I imagined you as an anime character just now?

Maybe because in every anime, every villian claims to be the strongest warrior ever.

Shite.

Full plate isn't actually very restrictive. It was made over several years and perfectly fitted, with leather and often splint mail underneath it to provide a bit of extra protection with little restriction of movement.

If you were wearing your own plate mail set, you could do cartwheels in it if you so wished. It weighed a couple of stone, yes, but on the other hand, if you'd have been training your entire life to build up resilience and strength, this wasn't a problem.



I also don't see how people get the idea that a Samauri is going to whip out some 1337 Judo skillz and have everyone fall over around him - a samauri's armour was a bunch of heavy plates stitched together, which is actually inferior in terms of manouvrability compared to full plate, which was, as previously mentioned, made to be extremely manouverable in addition to very tough.

... this is what any short sword is for... it's a 'get yourself out of a fix, because it's preferable to use a weapon over none at all' kind of thing.


Not different.

One wrote sonnets, the other wrote Haiku.
One did some casual gardening, the other did Bonsai.

This is hardly different at all.

An individual knight didn't actually own that much land, something akin to a hamlet and a couple of fields was the height of it. Which isn't much to have to administer at all.

And a Shogun is simply a Japanese term for the group filled by the dukes. This is all. A samauri and a knight are pretty similar, a Shogun and a Duke are basically the same.

Or more likely - try and get under the guard, get battered back with a blow from the shield or a backhander from a spiked and plated glove, then get cut up.
[QUOTE]A sword is not a bullet. You can dodge a sword.[QUOTE]
Yeah, go on then. I'll have a proper hand-and-a-half from the period, which was about 4 feet long and weighed about 8kg, you can have your samauri armour on, and we'll see who wins.

Because it will well and truly be me when you try and do some improbable judo kick and I take your legs out with a sword. And then cave your head with a quick Mordschlag when you're down.

What are you even the beginnings of on about?

Mainly a knight's on horseback - if you try and Ju-Jutsi him, he will laugh and lance you squarely in the face before crushing your head in under his steed's heels.

If on foot, he'll batter the crap out of you with his shield and cut you up nicely with a sword as you attempt to use your judo powers on you.

Right. Keep in mind - Samauri armour = cumbersome and actually quite rubbish. And if you want to take on a heavily-armed man in plate mail without armour on to circumvent this - give it a try. You will perish horribly.

Usually a lance and a longsword, as well as a dagger, but it wasn't unknown for them to carry a longsword and a mace or flail as well as a shortsword in lieu of a lance if they were fighting on foot.

Keep in mind that they'd been being phyisically condtioned for the whole of their lives and wouldn't expect to be fighting for much more than an hour, tops, without a bit of respite.


Oh well said, well said! I don't see how a samurai's ju-jitsu would get him anywhere against a knight. The samurai would just break his hand on the plate male, or get his face bashed by a shield. Samurai's were great warriors, yes, but knight's were better. Besides, knight's also didn't wear dresses. ;)

Having better gear hardly makes you a better warrior.

Shite.

Full plate isn't actually very restrictive. It was made over several years and perfectly fitted, with leather and often splint mail underneath it to provide a bit of extra protection with little restriction of movement.

If you were wearing your own plate mail set, you could do cartwheels in it if you so wished. It weighed a couple of stone, yes, but on the other hand, if you'd have been training your entire life to build up resilience and strength, this wasn't a problem.



I also don't see how people get the idea that a Samauri is going to whip out some 1337 Judo skillz and have everyone fall over around him - a samauri's armour was a bunch of heavy plates stitched together, which is actually inferior in terms of manouvrability compared to full plate, which was, as previously mentioned, made to be extremely manouverable in addition to very tough.

... this is what any short sword is for... it's a 'get yourself out of a fix, because it's preferable to use a weapon over none at all' kind of thing.


Not different.

One wrote sonnets, the other wrote Haiku.
One did some casual gardening, the other did Bonsai.

This is hardly different at all.

An individual knight didn't actually own that much land, something akin to a hamlet and a couple of fields was the height of it. Which isn't much to have to administer at all.

And a Shogun is simply a Japanese term for the group filled by the dukes. This is all. A samauri and a knight are pretty similar, a Shogun and a Duke are basically the same.

Or more likely - try and get under the guard, get battered back with a blow from the shield or a backhander from a spiked and plated glove, then get cut up.
A sword is not a bullet. You can dodge a sword.
Yeah, go on then. I'll have a proper hand-and-a-half from the period, which was about 4 feet long and weighed about 8kg, you can have your samauri armour on, and we'll see who wins.

Because it will well and truly be me when you try and do some improbable judo kick and I take your legs out with a sword. And then cave your head with a quick Mordschlag when you're down.

What are you even the beginnings of on about?

Mainly a knight's on horseback - if you try and Ju-Jutsi him, he will laugh and lance you squarely in the face before crushing your head in under his steed's heels.

If on foot, he'll batter the crap out of you with his shield and cut you up nicely with a sword as you attempt to use your judo powers on you.

Right. Keep in mind - Samauri armour = cumbersome and actually quite rubbish. And if you want to take on a heavily-armed man in plate mail without armour on to circumvent this - give it a try. You will perish horribly.

Usually a lance and a longsword, as well as a dagger, but it wasn't unknown for them to carry a longsword and a mace or flail as well as a shortsword in lieu of a lance if they were fighting on foot.

Keep in mind that they'd been being phyisically condtioned for the whole of their lives and wouldn't expect to be fighting for much more than an hour, tops, without a bit of respite.

This may be a bit foolish of me, but I'd imagined the samurai to be in street clothes. Maybe I'm thinking more along the lines of a Ronin - I'm under the impression that most samurai did not have the armor you see in The Last Samurai.

Also, if the knight has a shield, it's a bit different. It makes things harder, but I must still insist that the samurai would be able to get behind or disarm the knight.

And I've said this before, but no matter how many weapons or shields or armors the knight has, he was not conditioned for long-term battle, and will overheat much quicker than a samurai. If the samurai waits him out, makes him give chase, tires him out, then I don't see how the knight could win.


Oh and forget the horse. This is 1v1. The horse is like having a backpack you don't have to carry, and wearing special shoes that make you faster. Makes all the difference, so to be fair and even the situations call for no horses.

Oh well said, well said! I don't see how a samurai's ju-jitsu would get him anywhere against a knight. The samurai would just break his hand on the plate male, or get his face bashed by a shield. Samurai's were great warriors, yes, but knight's were better. Besides, knight's also didn't wear dresses. ;)

I think you don't really know what ju-jutsu is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ju-jutsu

It's largely throws. You wouldn't break any bones from attacking because you exert almost no force of your own, instead, redirecting your opponent's force downward.

Having better gear hardly makes you a better warrior.

True. But having a katana and have thousands of rabid fanboys doesn't make you a better warrior either.

The average knight would have been taller, had more reach, and had more strength than the average samurai, as europeans were and are generally bigger than Japanese. No offense intended.

Does it matter if they've had a formalised set of kata, stances, moves, etc taught to them as opposed to just practicing by fighting another person in any way they can?

Well, yes. That's what a martial art is. Otherwise it's just brawling. There's a difference.

A great many of the now-dead European styles, which we were smart enough to give up when we realised that spending years of time on how to get a man hand-to-hand were being wasted when you could simply stab / crush / lance / gut them and spend time on refining that instead.

They were heavily equipped, very strong, and mainly fought from horseback, and when they weren't on horseback, they'd be the best equipped men on the battlefield, ready to generally maul the crap out of you instead of going for your knees or something with a well-placed kick.

It wasn't until the second world war that hand-to-hand combat was taught again in Europe, and only then to our special forces.

This is true, but it doesn't make it any more plausible that a knight could hold his own against a samurai if he'd been disarmed.

True. But having a katana and have thousands of rabid fanboys doesn't make you a better warrior either.

The average knight would have been taller, had more reach, and had more strength than the average samurai, as europeans were and are generally bigger than Japanese. No offense intended.

I'm a rabid anime fanboy, but old enough to know cartoons hardly portray reality. I found that out the hard way. :(

The entire culture of the Samurai was geared towards discipline. Knights as well, but they got sidetracked into being gentlemen and lovers. :p

True. But having a katana and have thousands of rabid fanboys doesn't make you a better warrior either.

The average knight would have been taller, had more reach, and had more strength than the average samurai, as europeans were and are generally bigger than Japanese. No offense intended.

I'll grant you that. They were physically stronger. But that doesn't mean they would win.

This may be a bit foolish of me, but I'd imagined the samurai to be in street clothes. Maybe I'm thinking more along the lines of a Ronin - I'm under the impression that most samurai did not have the armor you see in The Last Samurai.

Also, if the knight has a shield, it's a bit different. It makes things harder, but I must still insist that the samurai would be able to get behind or disarm the knight.

And I've said this before, but no matter how many weapons or shields or armors the knight has, he was not conditioned for long-term battle, and will overheat much quicker than a samurai. If the samurai waits him out, makes him give chase, tires him out, then I don't see how the knight could win.


Oh and forget the horse. This is 1v1. The horse is like having a backpack you don't have to carry, and wearing special shoes that make you faster. Makes all the difference, so to be fair and even the situations call for no horses.


Dude...

Samurai's never, or very rarely, encountered shields in combat. They would be at a huge disadvantage fighting against it. Their katanas edges would break when the knight blocks with his shield. I'm not trying to say that samurai's were horrible warriors, but the they would have too many disadvantages to win against knights. I'd wager that a knight would beat a samurai 7 out of 10 times. Dunno where that number came from, but seems reasonable to me.

This may be a bit foolish of me, but I'd imagined the samurai to be in street clothes. Maybe I'm thinking more along the lines of a Ronin - I'm under the impression that most samurai did not have the armor you see in The Last Samurai.
The samurai's in street clothes, eh?

Then he loses in about 9 nanoseconds because he's cut to pieces instantly, because the knight treats him like a peasant and pummels him with the shield and then in one downward blow either lops one of your arms off, or cuts you up.

Neither of which are much good for your ju-jitsu skills, I'm sure you'll agree.

Not very easy to put someone in a headlock or give them a decent throw if half of your armoury is lying bleeding on the ground.
Also, if the knight has a shield, it's a bit different. It makes things harder, but I must still insist that the samurai would be able to get behind or disarm the knight.
Pffft. Give it a try before you say it. Remember that these weren't glamourised shields in the history books, these things have spikes on, usually a large bit of metal sticking out in the middle that he'll get you in the gun or crotch with, and sharpened edges with which he can cut you up.
And I've said this before, but no matter how many weapons or shields or armors the knight has, he was not conditioned for long-term battle, and will overheat much quicker than a samurai. If the samurai waits him out, makes him give chase, tires him out, then I don't see how the knight could win.
I'd be surprised if an unarmoured samurai could survive for an hour, which is the kind of thing a knight in plate was trained for, without dying, in a 1 on 1 situation. Simply wouldn't happen.
Oh and forget the horse. This is 1v1. The horse is like having a backpack you don't have to carry, and wearing special shoes that make you faster. Makes all the difference, so to be fair and even the situations call for no horses.
Fair enough, in which case the knight has his usual on-foot kit of a hand-and-a-half, a short sword and a mace.

You get your head caved in or cut off within seconds, knight 1, samauri 0.


Now go and take your Wapanese fanboyism elsewhere, since you seemingly have no idea about what you're talking about. At all.

Dude...

Samurai's never, or very rarely, encountered shields in combat. They would be at a huge disadvantage fighting against it. Their katanas edges would break when the knight blocks with his shield. I'm not trying to say that samurai's were horrible warriors, but the they would have too many disadvantages to win against knights. I'd wager that a knight would beat a samurai 7 out of 10 times. Dunno where that number came from, but seems reasonable to me.

Samuras had more weapons than katanas alone. The spear they used, forgot the name of it, but it was a very effective weapon. Against shields you could keep your distance while still attacking.

Samuras had more weapons than katanas alone. The spear they used, forgot the name of it, but it was a very effective weapon. Against shields you could keep your distance while still attacking.
Fantastic until a plate-mailed man a foot taller and better armed than you pushes it out of the way with a shield and then breaks it up with a bastard sword, leaving you kind of defenceless at this point, other than, of course, your magical ju-jitsu.

Dude...

Samurai's never, or very rarely, encountered shields in combat. They would be at a huge disadvantage fighting against it. Their katanas edges would break when the knight blocks with his shield. I'm not trying to say that samurai's were horrible warriors, but the they would have too many disadvantages to win against knights. I'd wager that a knight would beat a samurai 7 out of 10 times. Dunno where that number came from, but seems reasonable to me.

I must reiterate, he would most likely -not- use a katana.

The samurai's in street clothes, eh?

Then he loses in about 9 nanoseconds because he's cut to pieces instantly, because the knight treats him like a peasant and pummels him with the shield and then in one downward blow either lops one of your arms off, or cuts you up.

"You're dead now, I cut you in a million pieces."
"Nuh uh, I used my super laser beam to kill your head."
"But I have anti-super laser beam shields!"

You realize how silly it seems to assume the whole fight - I'm going on generalizations, such as if the knight has this weapon, it would make it such and such harder because of such and such - as opposed to, "no, katana would cut through the armor, pieces, end." because that's ridiculous.


Neither of which are much good for your ju-jitsu skills, I'm sure you'll agree.

Not very easy to put someone in a headlock or give them a decent throw if half of your armoury is lying bleeding on the ground.

And if it isn't?

Pffft. Give it a try before you say it. Remember that these weren't glamourised shields in the history books, these things have spikes on, usually a large bit of metal sticking out in the middle that he'll get you in the gun or crotch with, and sharpened edges with which he can cut you up.

Right. He'd have to be careful to avoid it. I get what you mean.

I'd be surprised if an unarmoured samurai could survive for an hour, which is the kind of thing a knight in plate was trained for, without dying, in a 1 on 1 situation. Simply wouldn't happen.

Survive what? He can keep his distance, especially if, as another person has stated in this thread, the samurai was using a spear.

Fair enough, in which case the knight has his usual on-foot kit of a hand-and-a-half, a short sword and a mace.

You get your head caved in or cut off within seconds, knight 1, samauri 0.

"...jillion pieces... infinite slash... pew pew..."


Now go and take your Wapanese fanboyism elsewhere, since you seemingly have no idea about what you're talking about. At all.

I find you to be quite a bit more biased -against- samurai, and those who support them in particular, far more than I am -for- the samurai. Keep your own bias in check before you talk to me about it.

And if you'd read my prior posts in this thread concerning a traditional Knight vs a Samurai, you'd know that's exactly what I've been saying.

Of course dodging is hard, but when it's done right, the advantage shifts considerably while your opponent has to recover their blade.

You have, then, also tried this? Sword and shield or two-handed long?

Thank you, Yootopia and Trollgaard. At least some people here actually know what they're talking about...as I said, if you think you can just dodge well placed sword swings just because you've watched movies and cartoons which depict highly exaggerated characters doing ridiculous jujitsu junk, you need a reality check.

Now to Telesha, even if you do manage to dodge a swing, the advantage does not shift to you. Not unless your opponent is incompetent and puts all his weight behind the blow. No, a good swing is a quick one that allows for near-instant recovery.

And no, I have not taken part in any serious swordfighting (one or two casual ones), but I have seen it done. If you think an unarmed opponent can take on a good swordfighter with martial arts, you would be correct...5% or so of the time.

Thank you, Yootopia and Trollgaard. At least some people here actually know what they're talking about...as I said, if you think you can just dodge well placed sword swings just because you've watched movies and cartoons which depict highly exaggerated characters doing ridiculous jujitsu junk, you need a reality check.

Now to Telesha, even if you do manage to dodge a swing, the advantage does not shift to you. Not unless your opponent is incompetent and puts all his weight behind the blow. No, a good swing is a quick one that allows for near-instant recovery.

And no, I have not taken part in any serious swordfighting (one or two casual ones), but I have seen it done. If you think an unarmed opponent can take on a good swordfighter with martial arts, you would be correct...5% or so of the time.

This is borderline trolling, I daresay.

This is borderline trolling, I daresay.

It's not meant to be. My apologies if you interpret it as such.

Now to Telesha, even if you do manage to dodge a swing, the advantage does not shift to you. Not unless your opponent is incompetent and puts all his weight behind the blow. No, a good swing is a quick one that allows for near-instant recovery.

True enough. But a good counter takes advantage of the time your opponent spends recovering to attack at the openings created. You're either going to have to parry that counter or dodge it, that's what I mean when the advantage has shifted. You would be right if you said the advantage does not necessarily shift to you.


And no, I have not taken part in any serious swordfighting (one or two casual ones), but I have seen it done. If you think an unarmed opponent can take on a good swordfighter with martial arts, you would be correct...5% or so of the time.

I never said an unarmed opponent could take a good swordfighter unarmed, where you got the idea that I have is beyond me. I have engaged in some competitive swordfighting. Not with steel replicas, however.

True enough. But a good counter takes advantage of the time your opponent spends recovering to attack at the openings created. You're either going to have to parry that counter or dodge it, that's what I mean when the advantage has shifted. You would be right if you said the advantage does not necessarily shift to you.

Ah, and I forgot to mention that I would much prefer a longsword and shield to a two-hander. That way if you try and move in, I can bash you with my shield too.

I never said an unarmed opponent could take a good swordfighter unarmed, where you got the idea that I have is beyond me. I have engaged in some competitive swordfighting. Not with steel replicas, however.

I know someone was going on about how an unarmed samurai would still have an advantage over a knight because of martial arts...and as you were talking about dodging the sword, implemented that into the post. My bad. But the point is that dodging a sword is difficult and gives scanty rewards against a good opponent.

Sword and shield is the most basic and deadly martial art around. We've got some pretty serious saxon-era reenactors on the uni campus and the way they use thos things...

Smack in the face with the boss of the hield, stab through the gurs with the sword. Simple as. For all the fancy tricks and sowoffs they do with two swords or axes or whatever the speed and efficiency of that combination is incredible.

In a 'real' fight maces and hammers and suchlike would be a problem (seeing as they break your arm THROUGH the shield and all) but the Japanese had NO equivalent to the massive crushing weapons used by knights to solve the problem of hard-to-pierce armour.

I'm really not seeing a reliable and viable solution from the Samurai.

Hoplites in numbers would make a mess of knights simply because it's nigh-impossible to close with a phalanx unless you can flank it (which was of course it's downfall in the end) but on an individual basis I doubt there's anyone who caould go toe-to-toe with a knight with an outright winning chance.

Hoplites in numbers would make a mess of knights simply because it's nigh-impossible to close with a phalanx unless you can flank it (which was of course it's downfall in the end) but on an individual basis I doubt there's anyone who caould go toe-to-toe with a knight with an outright winning chance.

What happens when the knights see a useful tactic and realize they can do the same thing?

The question is...even with armor/weaponry as befitting of either side...who's stronger?

Who wants the trophy more?

It should also be noted that he's relying not just on the anime notion of the uber-badass samurai, but he's also relying on the clunky Holywood notion of a knight plodding around in a steel cage and swinging a massive club with points. The average longsword didn't weigh 8 kg; even the massive two-handed Zwiehanders in Germany in the late middle ages didn't weigh more than 8 pounds or so. Real knight armor was designed to be no more than about 70 pounds and, unlike chain, distributed evenly along the body. Now I'm pretty strong but not the strongest, but I guarantee you I could carry around 70 lbs of distributed weight and handle a 5 lb longsword all day long. If I could do that, I imagine a much better-conditioned knight could as well.

Secondly, you are forgetting that most of the samurai weapons are individually inferior to what the knight would use and are inappropriate for use against an armored opponent. A katana is actually pounded into multiple layers specifically to compensate for the fact that Japanese and Chinese steel was poor by comparison to European steel; a straight sword made of Chinese steel would simply fracture if you tried to hit something harder than a man with it, and it might very well fracture and break off in the guy if you stabbed him and pulled wrong. Moreover, katana's are devastating in unarmored combat, because their sharpness and curved design allows for easily drawing the blade along a wound and shearing the opponent apart. Against armor, however, it isn't going to do much, and a curved blade is very difficult to stab under the arms or through the visor, which were usually the weakest points on the knight's armor. Which is why the samurai is going to be far more likely to use the real traditional weapon of the samurai, the naginata or a kind of spear. Thing is, though, that knights are well-trained against spearmen, which were what the vast majority of peasantry and poor infantry were equipped with.

The point is not to say that the Europeans knights were unbeatable, although in close the Cataphracts from eastern Europe had that reputation. They could be overwhelmed, they could be beaten man to man, and they could be outreached by a well-trained spearman, which is what the traditional samurai was. But let's not for a minute presume that the product of quite literally a millenia or more of constant, close-proximity warfare isn't going to have some idea what the heck he's doing. Knights were feared even by people in other parts of the world, and justifiably so: they were tough, they were very well-equipped, and they were trained to make the most of their equipment and their natural advantages in size and strength.

Ah, and I forgot to mention that I would much prefer a longsword and shield to a two-hander. That way if you try and move in, I can bash you with my shield too.

Ah, makes things much clearer. I always used a two-hander. It's cheaper to start.


I know someone was going on about how an unarmed samurai would still have an advantage over a knight because of martial arts...and as you were talking about dodging the sword, implemented that into the post. My bad. But the point is that dodging a sword is difficult and gives scanty rewards against a good opponent.

I disagree about potential rewards, but as we've discovered you're talking sword and shield and I'm talking two-handers, it's not exactly relevent. When you're fighting with two-handers, dodging creates many more openings than if you're using a shield.

So which martial arts did they study?A great many of the now-dead European styles, which we were smart enough to give up when we realised that spending years of time on how to get a man hand-to-hand were being wasted when you could simply stab / crush / lance / gut them and spend time on refining that instead.

They were heavily equipped, very strong, and mainly fought from horseback, and when they weren't on horseback, they'd be the best equipped men on the battlefield, ready to generally maul the crap out of you instead of going for your knees or something with a well-placed kick.

It wasn't until the second world war that hand-to-hand combat was taught again in Europe, and only then to our special forces.Thank you. :)

The europeans discarded fighting styles when they became useless due to developments in tactics and weaponry, the japanese just decided to stop technological progress for a couple of hundred years so they could continue to use their martial arts.:p

Ah, makes things much clearer. I always used a two-hander. It's cheaper to start.

Cheaper? What are you talking about, some sort of game?

I disagree about potential rewards, but as we've discovered you're talking sword and shield and I'm talking two-handers, it's not exactly relevent. When you're fighting with two-handers, dodging creates many more openings than if you're using a shield.

Exactly, which is why I prefer the shield.

Cheaper? What are you talking about, some sort of game?


We used hickory replicas (from here: Purpleheart Armory (http://www.woodenswords.com/WMA/index.htm)). While an arming sword is cheaper initially, there's still the shield. So a two-hander comes out cheaper ($80 two-hander compared to over $150 for short sword and shield). Of course, you could make the shield, but I doubt you could make a decent one for $20 (the difference between the short sword and long sword).

We used hickory replicas (from here: Purpleheart Armory (http://www.woodenswords.com/WMA/index.htm)). While an arming sword is cheaper initially, there's still the shield. So a two-hander comes out cheaper ($80 two-hander compared to over $150 for short sword and shield). Of course, you could make the shield, but I doubt you could make a decent one for $20 (the difference between the short sword and long sword).

Oh I see. It looks easier (and cheaper) to just make a sword and shield. The shield can be made with a sort of frame and covered loosely in cloth.

Oh I see. It looks easier (and cheaper) to just make a sword and shield. The shield can be made with a sort of frame and covered loosely in cloth.

We call those boffers. I talked a little about them before when you first addressed me. Wooden replicas (wasters) are more accurate in heft and weight, but you're limited to half to 3/4 combat speed (to avoid serious injury). Boffers allow for full combat speed, but not necessarily accurate heft and weight (they tend to be a little lighter).

Ideally, you'd train with all three: waster, boffer, and actual steel. Boffers are great for full speed contact practice, wasters for technique, and steel for cutting.

Can't right now, I'm at work.

I compared the european swords to the oriental swords because they existed in the same timeframe. I'm not fully educated on the entire timeline of the existence and evolution of the samurai in Japan, so I can't say for how long they'd been there by that time, and therefore won't attempt to compare them to the Spartans..

Spartans used the spear primarily......thats a clip of a medieval long sword in action.


. Also: Knights were poets, aristocrats, landowners - samurai were warriors. If you wanted to get technical, we should refer to the Shogun in this comparison - they were the aristocrats, the higher-ups. I'm not entirely sure if they were exactly more 'skilled' than their samurai underlings, but they were in charge.

A knight was, in the original incarnation, a full time fighting man trained from an early age.

"You're dead now, I cut you in a million pieces."
"Nuh uh, I used my super laser beam to kill your head."
"But I have anti-super laser beam shields!"

You realize how silly it seems to assume the whole fight - I'm going on generalizations, such as if the knight has this weapon, it would make it such and such harder because of such and such - as opposed to, "no, katana would cut through the armor, pieces, end." because that's ridiculous.
Katana vs. man in full plate, with a proper shield?

Not a contest at all.

And if this man is unarmoured, he sure as hell is screwed if the Knight gets within four feet of the poor bastard. You can't pretend that's not the case.
And if it isn't?
Then you're not using your sword, or spear or whatever, because you're trying on your super ju-jitsu on a man who's been trained in how to completely maul anything, and has spent his entire life learning this.

In Europe, if a martial art was weak, then people using it got killed and it died out.

In Japan, it was ritualised and this meant that people trod the same ground in warfare for an extremely long time - see for example the issues that came when gunpowder was introduced by the Portuguese.
Right. He'd have to be careful to avoid it. I get what you mean.
Because that's super easy to do when you're trying to get in close enough to stab someone's weak points with a Wakizashi or do some kind of weird flip on them, right?
Survive what? He can keep his distance, especially if, as another person has stated in this thread, the samurai was using a spear.
Spear vs. Plate = no contest.

That was learnt by every army using the phalanx as soon as they came into contact with the Romans. Even truer when you can't just stab them in the knee and they don't have open-faced helmets to go at either.
"...jillion pieces... infinite slash... pew pew..."
...

It's not, to be honest, a misrepresentation of unarmoured, underequipped for the task man vs. Knight in full plate.

The battlefields of Europe showed that if you try and attack a man with full plate on with anything less destructive than a full-blooded halberd, or similar tool such as the billhook, you will die.

A spear does not cut it. A slashing sword doesn't really cut it. What you're going for is to kill them, instantly, at about 2 paces away.

Because if you don't, that's your end.
I find you to be quite a bit more biased -against- samurai, and those who support them in particular, far more than I am -for- the samurai. Keep your own bias in check before you talk to me about it.
That's OK, because since you actually don't know what you're talking about, I can wilfully ignore you most of the time anyway ;)

Pfft. All of these (well, maybe not the ninja or jedi, but the Jedi don't exist, and ninja are assassins, not straight fighters) fail when faced with a present-day Western soldier. Since we're talking straight fighters, I nominate the US Marines. Main reason: an M-16 will take down any of these guys. Also, Marines are just awesome.

But to prove my point, I'll face him off against all of the real head-on fighters (again, ninjas are assassins, and Jedi don't exist):

Marine v. Samurai
Samurai: Banzai!
M-16: Bang bang
*samurai dies*

Marine v. Knight
Knight charges. Marine shoots the horse. Horse falls to ground. Marine closes in, shoots knight at close range.

Marine v. Hoplite
Marine shoots Hoplite in the face. Hoplite dies.

Marine v. A Spartan
Assuming this is a Spartan from Sparta (if this is Master Chief, he doesn't exist), Marine shoots the Spartan. However, Spartan is charging fast (so headshots are hard), and his shield is at an angle, deflecting the bullets. Marine shoots him in the leg. Injured Spartan hurls spear at Marine. Spear does not penetrate body armor. Marine is impressed, and gets a recruiter who speaks Greek.

Marine v. Viking
Would end up similar to the Spartan, except a wooden shield won't stop a bullet. Marine wins.

Marine v. Pirates
Pirates only fight in ship-to-ship boarding. Marines are good at that anyway, so Marine agrees. Marine takes them down at point-blank range.

Marine v. Janissaries
Marine has the range advantage. He wins.

Marine v. Roman Legionary
Legionairre doesn't charge fast, picked off.

So the Marine wins, all others die (except the Spartan, who gets recruited to join the Marines).

*The US Marines
The UK's Royal Marines are oh so much better. Especially the Royal Marine Commandoes, and by extension, the SBS. Who are just great.

I picked US Marines because of the 'coolness' aura they have. For quality, I'll take an Israeli commando.

I picked Marines because of the 'coolness' aura they have. For quality, I'll take an Israeli commando.
The SAS are better. But then that's true in terms of comparison to everyone, ever.

This essay (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) may prove useful in this argument.

The big thing here is that katanas would be rather ineffective against decent quality European-style armor, plus knights would have a longer reach.

The SAS are better. But then that's true in terms of comparison to everyone, ever.

Eh, details. The point is, SAS, IDF, USMC, all are way superior to any of the warriors mentioned.

The only two who are really comparable are the samurai and the knight because they are the only ones with similar time periods and philosophies

In the knight v. samurai, that article has convinced me that there is too much variation (especially on the knight side) for one to have a clear advantage.

But I still maintain that a modern soldier (take your pick) would beat both of them.

but if you're in your samauri gear, which was by no means particularly light or manouverable
No more so than a knight's armor.

I'm really sure that refering to shogun is a really poor idea. They were exactly the same as Dukes. They organised things and fought a bit, had lots of money and a fair bit of training. Not really comparable, because you didn't get whole armies of them.
Uh... no. Very, very much wrong. The Shougun was the military ruler of Japan. They were, in effect, the actual emperor of Japan while the real emperor was powerless. Some of them had almost no military experience, but many of them have been great generals. I wouldn't want to face Tokugawa Ieyasu on the battle field. They were not the same as a duke because you could have a number of dukes, you only get one supreme ruler.

While I do like a good Jedi, I just can't say no to a Samurai