NationStates Jolt Archive

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.
And you yell at others for not knowing what the hell they're talking about. Samurai armor was not just a bunt of iorn plates stitched together.

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.
Still so, so very wrong.

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.
Oh good, so is a samurai.

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.
No, samurai armor was quite good actually. Sorry.

Samurai's never, or very rarely, encountered shields in combat. They would be at a huge disadvantage fighting against it.
Where did you get that idea from? The standard European shield would be novel to the samurai (Well, depending on the time period), but they did encouter and get past a wide range of things ment to block and break a sword in Japan (There's quite a number of them, go look at something called a war fan).

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.
Or until said samurai armed with a 10 long spear chopes the plate'ed knight into giblits. Those spears acted remarkeably like a a European pike... you remember them, the bain of fully armored knights, right?

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
No, they didn't. Japanese tactics and weaponry continued to devlope at a breakneck pace up until the closing of Japan and the start of the Edo Era. That wasn't to keep the martial arts alive, but due to political decisions made by the Tokugawa Shougunate. When Japan closed itself off though, it had the best guns in the world. Think upon that.

Katana vs. man in full plate, with a proper shield?
Considering a samurai would not be using a katana...

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.
Yeah, let's look at this. By the time Japan had closed itslef off, its guns were far BETTER than what the Europeans were using. Japan had already figured out how to bore its rifles and managed a neat trick, namely getting matchlocks to fire in the bloody rain (Something Europeans never did figure out). They knew how to use those gun armies with devestating force and had no qualms about it when it came to win a battle. Look at the battle of Sekigahara where such gun troops were used. You seem to have it stuck in your head that samurai were like what they became later in the Edo Era, that would be rather akin to me assuming that all the knights fought and were like the knights of the 1800's, not the mideval warror they actually were.

Spear vs. Plate = no contest.
Think more like pike. Pike vs knight. Bye-bye knight.

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.
Hey, that's ok. I'll take my nice bow, and shoot your knight with some arrows that will go through the armor. They did make some nice selection of such arrowheads and samurai were VERY good archers.

Where are the Mongols?

Where are the Mongols?
In Mongolia of course. ;)

Sir John Moore's Shorecliffe boys

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.

Was the spear your thinking of called a naginata?

Beatrice Kiddo from kill bill. shes like a ninja jedi pirate Mongol.

Hmph. Now medieval Janissaries (Yeniceri) were kick ass hand to hand fighters before adopting fire arms. I think in a 1v1 fight the Janissary would best a European knight for the reason that he is trained from childhood to be a soldier. Plus all that armor does little against a huge halbeard or any of the dozens of different weapons each Janissary was trained to be a master in the use of. Samurai vs. Janisarry would be cool. But in the end the Jedi wins.

Humor: how long would a tank platoon hold out in a medeival battlefield?

Was the spear your thinking of called a naginata?
Could also be a yari.

Humor: how long would a tank platoon hold out in a medeival battlefield?


Until it runs out of ammo and fuel.

Lets see........ How about... the Knights Templar?

No, they didn't. Japanese tactics and weaponry continued to devlope at a breakneck pace up until the closing of Japan and the start of the Edo Era. That wasn't to keep the martial arts alive, but due to political decisions made by the Tokugawa Shougunate. When Japan closeditself off though, it had the best guns in the world. Think upon that.


The arquebus, a matchlock gun, was introduced by the Portuguese via a Chinese pirate ship in 1543 and the Japanese succeeded in assimilating it within a decade. Groups of mercenaries with mass-produced arquebuses began playing a critical role.

Not that difficult to develop at a breakneck pace when you're given a technological improvement that is so vast that it assimilated within a decade.

As for the keeping martial arts alive, it was a joke.:rolleyes: Progress in Japan pretty much stopped when Japan closed itself off, so the end result is the same, they where far behind when the western nations came knocking.

In your opinion the samurai we're throwing against the knight should be from between 1543 and 1641 then? You talk about guns, so the samurai must be one from the period after the arquebus was introduced, but before the Edo Era, since you stop there with the best guns in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai

Think more like pike. Pike vs knight. Bye-bye knight..The pike only works when you have alot of pikes, creating a wall of pointy death. Pikes are not meant to be used in a duel, they're far to cumbersome, atleast if you're talking about the 6 meter long pikes. They have alot of reach, but you only need to get within that 6 meter radius and the pike is practically useless. Then the pikeman has to defend himself using something other than the pike, most often a short sword.

Yari overtook the popularity of the daikyu for the samurai, and foot troops (ashigaru) used them extensively as well. But by the Edo period the yari had fallen into disuse: with the greater emphasis on small-scale close quarters combat and the convenience of swords (as opposed to long battlefield weapons), polearms and archery lost their practical value. During the peaceful Edo era, yari were still produced, sometimes even by good swordsmiths. They existed as a ceremonial weapon for most of this era.

Spears and pikes are not as useful as swords in small scale encounters, and with all the duel encounters people use to "prove" their case it seems that it's what we're talking about here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yari

Lets see........ How about... the Knights Templar?Hmm, I think you just brought the final nail in the coffin for anyone not supporting knights, since wealth is the greatest superpower there is, just look at Batman, and the templars where loaded.

Uh, Roman Legionaries and Spartans are both sub classes of "Hoplite"

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.

If he's in front of you.

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'm saying unarmed samurai vs unarmed knight = samurai wins. Unarmed samurai vs knight using a greatsword = likely the samurai will win. Unarmed samurai vs knight with shortsword/shield = likely the knight will win.


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.

Untrue. While, to be fair, I don't recall if there were any samurai using this, I remember large mallots and clubs were a viable weapon used in Japan as well.

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.

Incorrect assumptions, driven by your need to disqualify samurai by believing the only decent samurai come from anime. Bad form.

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.

Sure, you could do it, in a muscular sense, but again, heat exhaustion does kick in.


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.

Well, arrows and halberds could make work of plate armor quite well. Granted, the katana and other swords were essentially the exact thing plate armor was created to protect against.

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.

Chinese swords are more flexible than you think. From the straight sword to the broadsword, they bent and flopped when pushed. I doubt they would actually "fracture", because of this flexibility.

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.

The katana isn't nearly as curved as, say, a scimitar. It's able to effectively stab. The armpits of plate armor had protectives added later on, so we'll assume the knight in question has those - the helmet is still a viable weakpoint, if he chooses to go directly at the knight, rather than wear him down with heat exhaustion.

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.

They're trained against peasantry, not samurai spears. Difference in skill level and technique.

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.

And it's justified to assume such about the skill of the samurai?

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.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a difficult fight, but I'd still place my bets with a skilled samurai over a skilled knight.

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.

... The chinese invented gunpowder.


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 ;)

Riight.

If he's in front of you.

Of course he's in front of me. Is the samurai supposed to have superhuman speed, where he disappears and reappears behind the knight in a split-second? Or perhaps the knight just turns around to be sporting? Or perhaps you are still so caught up on knights being immobile, lumbering buffoons that you assume that a samurai can run around and around a knight?

You go on and on about how the knight will get tired of overheat. Well, running and dodging around the battlefield tires one out a good deal quicker than swinging a sword.

I'm saying unarmed samurai vs unarmed knight = samurai wins. Unarmed samurai vs knight using a greatsword = likely the samurai will win. Unarmed samurai vs knight with shortsword/shield = likely the knight will win.

Except that as knights carried several weapons with them, it's highly unlikely that one would be unarmed. Pretty sure it's the same thing for the samurai. Even if they both did become unarmed, the knight is still wearing steel plates. Just because the samurai has his unbeatable jujitsu doesn't mean he wont get punched in the face by a metal fist.

If the knight has a greatsword...well, you try and fight some guy waving a big sword with your bare hands. Contrary to popular belief, knights actually knew how to use weaponry. One would not just swing his sword around furiously at a samurai. Samurai can of course win, but rarely.

You keep saying that we're being unfair to the samurai. That we're just assuming that he is worthless and that the knight will clobber him. Well it seems that you are automatically assuming that the samurai is some sort of unrivaled fighting machine with no equal. You have to realize that both knight and samurai have extensive training in fighting. And so, the prize goes to the one with the biggest guns; or in this case, the best technology. And that is the knight.

You keep saying that we're being unfair to the samurai. That we're just assuming that he is worthless and that the knight will clobber him. Well it seems that you are automatically assuming that the samurai is some sort of unrivaled fighting machine with no equal. You have to realize that both knight and samurai have extensive training in fighting. And so, the prize goes to the one with the biggest guns; or in this case, the best technology. And that is the knight.Meh, actually, I'd say you're both likely wrong. At the level of skill this thread seems to be assuming is involved (that is, each combatant is a master of his respective style), and considering that the combatants are martial combatants (projectile warfare can't really be compared to people fighting with swords and spears), it'd all just boil down to luck of the moment, as usually happens when highly trained and conditioned fighters come to blows with each other.

There are just too many variables in combat to say that everything is considered exactly equal. Anything from the age of the souls of a fighter's shoes combined with the moisture on the ground to what they ate last night will have an effect on one's performance in combat. I say the dude who doesn't have the unfortunate luck to blink at the exact wrong moment is the most likely to win.

Uh, Roman Legionaries and Spartans are both sub classes of "Hoplite"

Rubbish. The Roman Legionary was not a hoplite.
Hoplites were aristocracy, Roman legionaries were just citizens who need have nothing other than their papers.
Hoplites were talented amateurs, legionaries were trained professionals.
Hoplites fought from March to September and then went home, Legionaries fought all year round and might never see their home town again.
Hoplites had round or oval shields, legionaries used a curved rectangular shield*.
Hoplites used spears, the legionary's primary weapon was a stabbing short sword.

* in the later Imperial Period Roman units (no longer legions) did begin to use round shields.

Meh, actually, I'd say you're both likely wrong. At the level of skill this thread seems to be assuming is involved (that is, each combatant is a master of his respective style), and considering that the combatants are martial combatants (projectile warfare can't really be compared to people fighting with swords and spears), it'd all just boil down to luck of the moment, as usually happens when highly trained and conditioned fighters come to blows with each other.

There are just too many variables in combat to say that everything is considered exactly equal. Anything from the age of the souls of a fighter's shoes combined with the moisture on the ground to what they ate last night will have an effect on one's performance in combat. I say the dude who doesn't have the unfortunate luck to blink at the exact wrong moment is the most likely to win.
THANK YOU! Someone FINALLY says something that makes sense in this thread!

Of course he's in front of me. Is the samurai supposed to have superhuman speed, where he disappears and reappears behind the knight in a split-second? Or perhaps the knight just turns around to be sporting? Or perhaps you are still so caught up on knights being immobile, lumbering buffoons that you assume that a samurai can run around and around a knight?

No, you're exaggerating. It's quite possible to maneuver behind someone. You don't need superspeed or for your opponent to be a moron.

You go on and on about how the knight will get tired of overheat. Well, running and dodging around the battlefield tires one out a good deal quicker than swinging a sword.

Sure, but he won't be nearly as hot.



Except that as knights carried several weapons with them, it's highly unlikely that one would be unarmed. Pretty sure it's the same thing for the samurai. Even if they both did become unarmed, the knight is still wearing steel plates. Just because the samurai has his unbeatable jujitsu doesn't mean he wont get punched in the face by a metal fist.

There you go again with your patronizing. By "unarmed" I mean "disarmed" - for the time it takes for him to recover from a disarm and get another weapon, many things could happen.

If the knight has a greatsword...well, you try and fight some guy waving a big sword with your bare hands. Contrary to popular belief, knights actually knew how to use weaponry. One would not just swing his sword around furiously at a samurai. Samurai can of course win, but rarely.

I'm not suggesting he would swing his sword like a dumbass, but the greatsword has certain flaws and leaves certain openings for attack that faster, one-handed swords do not.

You keep saying that we're being unfair to the samurai. That we're just assuming that he is worthless and that the knight will clobber him. Well it seems that you are automatically assuming that the samurai is some sort of unrivaled fighting machine with no equal. You have to realize that both knight and samurai have extensive training in fighting. And so, the prize goes to the one with the biggest guns; or in this case, the best technology. And that is the knight.

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying the samurai wins an unarmed match, and could win against the greatsword knight (but could also lose) and would most likely lose against the 1-h sword/shield knight. He's by no means whatsoever a "unrivaled fighting machine", but neither is the knight.

And it's a fairly cheap cop-out to just say "knight has better technology (armor) so he'd win", because that just brings us back to the overheating/exhaustion topic. I could say the equivalent of what you said by saying "So the prize goes to the one with the biggest guns, or in this case, the one that's able to use chopsticks. And that is the samurai.", but I won't be any more correct than you are.

Meh, actually, I'd say you're both likely wrong. At the level of skill this thread seems to be assuming is involved (that is, each combatant is a master of his respective style), and considering that the combatants are martial combatants (projectile warfare can't really be compared to people fighting with swords and spears), it'd all just boil down to luck of the moment, as usually happens when highly trained and conditioned fighters come to blows with each other.

True. To really have an undebated outcome, we would have to get several knights and samurai to fight eachother, paired up against someone with roughly equivalent skill in his respective talents.

There are just too many variables in combat to say that everything is considered exactly equal. Anything from the age of the souls of a fighter's shoes combined with the moisture on the ground to what they ate last night will have an effect on one's performance in combat. I say the dude who doesn't have the unfortunate luck to blink at the exact wrong moment is the most likely to win.

Does a knight's helmet keep hair out of his eyes? I'm not sure, I've never put one on.

THANK YOU! Someone FINALLY says something that makes sense in this thread!

Yeah but if we just kept saying things that made sense, we'd just be agreeing with eachother all the time and the thread would die. Screw that. =)

Rubbish. The Roman Legionary was not a hoplite.

Yes, you're right. BUT your support for that claim is flawed, at some points:


Hoplites were aristocracy, Roman legionaries were just citizens who need have nothing other than their papers.


Wikipedia:

They were a citizen-militia, and so were armed as spearmen, and assumed a phalanx formation, which are relatively easy to equip and maintain; they were primarily drawn from the middle class, who could afford the cost of the armaments. Almost all the famous men of ancient Greece, even philosophers and playwrights fought as hoplites at some point in their lives.


Now, let's see. You didn't deny the Spartan was a hoplite, so Wikipedia says:

The most well-known hoplites were the Spartans, who were trained from childhood in combat and warfare to become an exceptionally disciplined and superior fighting force.


Talented amateurs, huh?

I may start a petition to ban and lock these threads. I'm too lazy though. *eats a handful of doritos*

Bear Grylls

...
Think more like pike. Pike vs knight. Bye-bye knight.
If the knight were mounted yes...
If the knight were dismounted the scenario changes to lightly armoured pikeman with short sword against enraged knight (the pikeman killed his loved steed instead of him).
I can agree that the naginata, being shorter and lighter than the standard pike would give the samurai a little more chances than the pikeman has.

Pikemen were devastating in formation, when formation was broken light cavalry (lancers, dragoons) minced them pretty well.

Hey, that's ok. I'll take my nice bow, and shoot your knight with some arrows that will go through the armor. They did make some nice selection of such arrowheads and samurai were VERY good archers.

Bushido would not allow you to do such a dishonorable move whilst the knight can take his light crossbow and pierce about any kind of armour you could field.

Which is why the ninja class developed, they are not bound by a honour oath.

Bushido would not allow you to do such a dishonorable move whilst the knight can take his light crossbow and pierce about any kind of armour you could field.
...and looking cool doing it.

Also, another thing I don't understand about this thread: what "knight" are we talking about?
European armoured cavalry has undergone great modifications through space and time. A German knight dashing across the iced lake towards Prince Nevskij's host is very different from a French knight in Milanese plate armour at the Battle of Pavia.

Yes, you're right. BUT your support for that claim is flawed, at some points:

Flawed? So what's your evidence?


Rubbish! The Roman Legionary was not a hoplite.


No counterclaim there? So you agree with me then? You then pick me up on...


Hoplites were aristocracy, Roman legionaries were just citizens who need have nothing other than their papers.

Wikipedia:They (hoplites)were a citizen-militia, and so were armed as spearmen, and assumed a phalanx formation, which are relatively easy to equip and maintain; they were primarily drawn from the middle class, who could afford the cost of the armaments. Almost all the famous men of ancient Greece, even philosophers and playwrights fought as hoplites at some point in their lives.

Um..and?
I know what a hoplite was. If you're picking up on the 'middle class' from Wikipedia then I suggest that the phrase is taken out of context. At the time of the emergence of the hoplite there was no middle class, they came later with the various Athenian Empires. Other than that I don't understand why you used that quote as it does nothing to refute anything I wrote.

Now, let's see. You didn't deny the Spartan was a hoplite, so Wikipedia says: The most well-known hoplites were the Spartans, who were trained from childhood in combat and warfare to become an exceptionally disciplined and superior fighting force. Talented amateurs, huh?

Why would I deny that Spartans were hoplites? But yes, they were amateurs. A professional gets paid for what they do and they dedicate their lives to its pursuit. An amateur does it for pleasure, sport or any other reason and it is not their principal activity.

The Roman Army after Marius stayed on active service all year round, they were properly paid and trained to be soldiers. The Spartan hoplite remained an aristocratic landowner and did warmongering on the side for prestige and boasting rights. In fact the Spartans' continued refusal to admit anyone else to their ranks hastened their demise as a fighting force. Whilst the rest of the world moved over to a working class professional army, the Spartans maintained their pure-blooded aristocratic model way after it had passed its 'best-by' date. Imperial Rome kept a Sparta reserve where tourists could go and gawp at 'Ye Olde Sparta'.

So, 'talented amateurs, huh?' YES! I'm not denying they were good at what they did. Many of history's heroes have been aristocratic amateurs who had the cash to pursue a hobby and who became leaders in their fields whether motor sport, horse racing, astronomy, physics or war. Spartans fought for glory, legionnaires fought for cold hard cash and woe betide any Emperor who failed to pay the army.

Which is why the ninja class developed, they are not bound by a honour oath.

Then i trumph your ninja with my ashasin.

Anyway this thread is missing many of the historically tough guys...
Where are:
The Sacred Band of Thebes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes)
Genoese crossbowmen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genoese_crossbowmen)
Hussites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars)
to name just a few.

For instance notice that:
The Sacred Band under Pelopidas fought the Spartans at Tegyra in 375 BC, vanquishing an army that was at least three times their number. It was also responsible for the victory of Leuctra in 371 BC, called by Pausanias the most decisive battle ever fought by Greeks against Greeks.

or

The presence of the Genoese crossbowmen was highly feared, due to the efficiency of their weapons and their organization. Often, the simple presence of their banner was enough to lead the opponent to change his battle plans.

or

A large German army entered Bohemia and in August 1421 laid siege to the town of Zatec. After an unsuccessful attempt of storming the city, the crusaders retreated somewhat ingloriously on hearing that the Hussite troops were approaching.

The almost uninterrupted series of victories of the Hussites now rendered vain all hope of subduing them by force of arms.

Pirates, because if you kill them you cause climate change and all die.

Incidentally...

What about your standard issue British soldier? When skillfully led they are capable of the most extraordinary feats..

Rorke's Drift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift)

140 men, 10 hours, 6000-strong attacking force, 11 Victoria Crosses and only 15 dead.

"Here they come, thick as grass and black as thunder" - Sgt Henry Gallagher

Samurai Standard force. Tended to fight amongst themselves. When fighting against others - Koreans and Chinese in actual warfare, Portugueses in duels - they tended to get raped. Unimpressive. Additionally hindered by the poor quality of the Japanese iron, the relatively inferior metallurgy, a pointless honour code... Very unimpressive.

Knight Standard Force. Tended to fight amongst themselves. When fighting against others - Arabs, Turks, not so much the Mongols, but the latter are an exception on the basis that they were in a league on their own - things tended to depend on the local conditions - the knights could easily beat them on their home turf, were they didn't suffer numerical disadvantages and didn't suffer from obscene heat. In Palestine... this was different. Very dependent on weather - at moderate temperatures and in dry conditions, they were nigh-invincible. If it rained... Not so much. All in all, rather respectable.

On a side note, full, fitting plate mail didn't come about until mercenary armies were already ruling the battlefields. The classic 'Knight' would be more likely to use somewhat more cumbersome 'Plate' and/ or chainmail. Not the pretty things from the 16th/ 17th century.

Hoplite[b] Raped Persians. Got raped by Romans. Outdated by the time the latter arrived. A good deal of their superiority over the Persians stemmed from superior equipment - outranging their opponents was a nifty thing to do.

[b]A Spartan See hoplite. On a side note, Sparta was rather more prone to losing battles than is usually considered - one notes that Greece was never subjugated by them. That were the Macedons.

Viking Rather effective for their time, but still hardly invincible. Still, vaguely impressive. Although it is worth noting that being mobile thanks to their ships made it hard to catch them in their weak moments...

Pirates More impressive than one might think - they managed to screw up the Spanish quite a bit. They get a 'Considerably impressive'.

Janissaries Initially elite infantry, later on a standard force. Vaguely impressive.

Roman Legionary Suffering a bit froim relatively poor equipment - particularly in later years -, and not a particularly impressive individual fighter. But well-led, a helluva force.

Ninja Fuck Naruto.

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.

The Maccabees of ancient Israel were great military strategists.

Ninja Fuck Naruto.

Me: "So they're all ninjas?"
Friend: "Yup. It's really cool."
Me: "...Why is he wearing a bright orange jacket?"

... The chinese invented gunpowder.
Yes. This is true. However Japan didn't really get its hands on it until the Portugeuse brought them the arquebus. Which is what I was referring to.

If we're going with 16th/17th century as upper limits, I pick a battery of Korean heavy Hwacha and fortified positions.

Actually, I was thinking about this some more and, as has been said before, this poll is missing something (well, a few things, but the thing I'm thinking of trumps them all :p). In terms of pure physical capability, I would definitely say an 18th century Muay Thai (Muay Boran, think I'm spelling that right) fighter has any option on this poll beat. I've done martial arts for the majority of my life and nothing has impressed me more than Muay Thai; not only is it effective, masters of the martial art have to be in near perfect physical condition due to the nature of its training. And being able to break bats over your shins doesn't hurt in fighting capability, either. :p

Counter to that, Capoeira, though incredibly ineffective, sure looks pretty. So even if a Capoerista loses the fight, they look a lot cooler losing than the other guy does winning, so, really, they still win the fight!

I may start a petition to ban and lock these threads. I'm too lazy though. *eats a handful of doritos*

What, you mean, the popular, fun threads?

Ninja Fuck Naruto.

I love you.

Hussites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussite_Wars)


...nu-nu-nu, you nationalist...;)

Incidentally...

What about your standard issue British soldier? When skillfully led they are capable of the most extraordinary feats..

Rorke's Drift (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rorke%27s_Drift)

140 men, 10 hours, 6000-strong attacking force, 11 Victoria Crosses and only 15 dead.

"Here they come, thick as grass and black as thunder" - Sgt Henry Gallagher

140 men with rifles (and cannot remember if they had cannons) entrenched against 6000 men, armed with spears, attacking without cover.

The Brits fought very bravely, but Rorke's Drift isn't exactly one of the most impressive feats of arms of all times.

I'd say that the Romans against Boedicea's uprising performed better - the equipment and the training was about the same, or, at least, comparable; most of the Roman and Briton force were civilians - the real difference was made by infantry tactics and better Roman strategy. The Romans won despite the initial 10:1 in favour of the Britons.

Me: "So they're all ninjas?"
Friend: "Yup. It's really cool."
Me: "...Why is he wearing a bright orange jacket?"
The bright orange jacket is there to make it look like he wants people to notice him, so they immediately assume it is a trick and look the other way, close their eyes, cover their ears and start singing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!"
Or maybe everyone involved in that show is just an idiot.

The bright orange jacket is there to make it look like he wants people to notice him, so they immediately assume it is a trick and look the other way, close their eyes, cover their ears and start singing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!"
Or maybe everyone involved in that show is just an idiot.

You know, since ninja, and most other intelligence agencies, were big on distraction, you might be onto something.

Wear something so garish that any victim upon seeing it claps his hands across his eyes and goes "My eyes! They're melting!".

And then you stab them.

Either that or its so garish they can't help but look. And then your friend comes up and bludgeons them with a coffee table.

The bright orange jacket is there to make it look like he wants people to notice him, so they immediately assume it is a trick and look the other way, close their eyes, cover their ears and start singing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!!!"
Or maybe everyone involved in that show is just an idiot.

'Because Lord Winstanleigh has some interesting theories on the art of concealment, Downey,' said the reader.
'Huh? Black and orange tiger in green trees?' said Downey, turning the pages roughly. 'Big red ape in green forest?
Black and white zebra in yellow grass? What's this, a manual on how not to do it?'
Again there was a round of chuckles, but they were forced. Downey had friends because he was big and rich, but sometimes he was embarrassing to have around.
'As a matter of fact Lord Winstanleigh also has an interesting point to make on the dangers of intuitive—'
‘This a Guild book, Dog-botherer?' Downey demanded.
'No, Downey. It was privately engraved some years ago and I succeeded in tracing a copy in—'
Downey's hand shot out. The book whirled away, causing a table full of younger boys to scatter, and landed at the back of the fireplace. The diners on the top tables looked round, and then turned back in disinterest. Flames licked up. For a moment, the tiger burned brightly.
'Rare book, was it?' said Downey, grinning.
'I think it may now be said to be non-existent,’ said the one known as Dog-botherer. 'That was the only extant copy. Even the engraved plates have been melted down.'
'Don't you ever get upset, Dog-botherer?'
'Oh yes, Downey,' said the reader. He pushed his chair back and stood up. 'And now, I believe, I will have an early night.' He nodded at the table. 'Good evening, Downey, gentlemen . . .'
'You're a scag, Vetinari.'
'Just as you say, Downey.'

On the other hand i have to agree... Naruto IS THE EVIL!!!!

What's with all the spartan groupies? The battle of Thermopylae has had thousands of years of myth added to it. Their greatest battle was a defeat by holding a small pass which is just common sense against a larger force. If anything people who love the greek soldier should prefer Thebans. They decisively spanked the Spartans on an open field.

What's with all the spartan groupies? The battle of Thermopylae has had thousands of years of myth added to it. Their greatest battle was a defeat by holding a small pass which is just common sense against a larger force. If anything people who love the greek soldier should prefer Thebans. They decisively spanked the Spartans on an open field.
Yes, but there hasn't been a movie glorifying the Thebans produced recently, has there? On the other hand The 300 has garnered the Spartans almost as many obnoxious fanboys as decades of anime has garnered for the Samurai/Ninja.

And Janissaries are still the best. Go Ottomans!

Meh, I voted Spartans solely for the fact that the Battle of Thermopylae is arguably one of the most singularly important battles in the development of Western political theory. Granted, Democratic theory would have probably still evolved, regardless, but it would have been very different. After all, Xerxes' father (Sargon, I think? Not the original Sargon, of course, as he was about a thousand years earlier than Xerxes, but one of the myriad Sargon namesakes? Dunno, my history on the region is rusty...to say the least) was democratically elected, to an extent.

But, anyway, I realize that doesn't make them the "best" warriors, but it certainly makes them one of the most influential, which is the same as being the best, as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, the kind of fight you're all imagining would come down to dumb luck more so than anything else.

What's with all the spartan groupies? The battle of Thermopylae has had thousands of years of myth added to it. Their greatest battle was a defeat by holding a small pass which is just common sense against a larger force. If anything people who love the greek soldier should prefer Thebans. They decisively spanked the Spartans on an open field.

The Thebans under Epaminondus (sp?), I think it was, did defeat the Spartans by massivly reinforcing their right flank, but that was after the Spartans dominated the battlefield for hundreds of years, through actual strength and reputation.

Also, wouldn't the Macedonian phalangists be the pinnacle of hopilite-ish, phalanx fighting? The went to the ends of the known world in their time.

140 men with rifles (and cannot remember if they had cannons) entrenched against 6000 men, armed with spears, attacking without cover.

Not quite. No Cannons and the Zulu had rifles a-plenty, mostly flintlocks, and knew how to use them.

The British had...(From wikipedia, emphasis concerning Zulu gunfire is mine)

...140 men, of which only the 80 of 'B' Company could be considered a cohesive unit and 30 of whom were incapacitated. Chard immediately realised the need to shorten the perimeter, and gave orders for a new line bisecting the post to be constructed, with the hospital being evacuated. As the natives disappeared, Private Fredrick Hitch, posted as lookout atop the storehouse, reported a Zulu column of four to six thousand approaching. Almost immediately after the Zulu vanguard, 600 men appeared from behind Oscarberg and attacked the south wall which joined the hospital and the storehouse. It was now that the most famous quote of the battle was uttered, as Sergeant Henry Gallagher yelled "Here they come, as thick as grass and as black as thunder!"

Immediately, a hot fire was opened at 500 yd, and while at first ragged, the British fire soon steadied, piling up the Zulu dead. The majority of the attacking force swept around the wall, while a few took cover, from where they were either pinned by continuing British fire or retreated to the terraces of Oscarberg, where they began a harassing fire of their own. As this occurred, a large force swept onto the hospital and northwest wall, and those on the barricades - including Dalton and Bromhead - were soon engaged in fierce hand to hand fighting. The British wall was too high for the Zulus to scale, so they resorted to crouching under the wall, trying to get hold of the defenders' rifles, slashing at British soldiers with assegai or firing their weapons through the wall. At places, they clambered over each others' bodies to drive the British off the walls, but a "peculiar aversion to the bayonet" defeated these breaches.

Zulu fire, both from those under the wall and around Oscarberg, began to find its mark. Corporal Schiess was shot in the leg, and then lost his hat to a Zulu shot; Commissary Dalton, leaning over the parapet to shoot a Zulu, was wounded in the shoulder by a bullet and dragged out of the line to have his wound dressed; Keefe, 'B' Company's drummer, suffered a skin wound to the head; Corporal Scammel, of the NNC, was shot in the back, and Private Byrne, attempting to help him, was killed by a shot to the head, as was 'Old King' Cole, another private in 'B' Company. The fire from the mountain only grew worse; Privates Scanlon, Fagan and Chick were slain.

It became clear to Chard that the front wall, under almost constant Zulu attack, could not be held, and at 6 o'clock Chard pulled his men back into the yard, abandoning the front two rooms of the hospital in the process. The hospital was becoming untenable; the loopholes had become a liability, as rifles poked through were grabbed at by the Zulus - but if the holes were left empty the enterprising warriors stuck their own weapons through to fire into the rooms.

As it became clear that the front of the building was being abandoned, John Williams began to hack his way through the wall dividing the central room and the back of the hospital. As he made a passable hole the door into the central room came under furious attack from the Zulus, and Williams only had time to drag two bedridden patients out before the door gave way, pitting Joseph Williams against the Zulus. Williams managed to kill several before being overwhelmed. The remaining men in the room, Private Horrigan, Adams, and two more patients, were stabbed to death by the rampaging Zulus. Williams then dragged his patients into one of the corner rooms, where he linked up with Private Hook and another nine patients.

The previous scene was played out again; Williams hacked at the wall to the next room with his pick-axe, as Hook held off the Zulus. A firefight erupted as the Zulus fired through the door and Hook returned the compliment - but not without a bullet smashing into his helmet and stunning him. Williams made the hole big enough to get into the next room, occupied only by Private Waters, and dragged the patients through. The last man out was Hook, who killed the Zulus who had knocked down the door before diving through the hole. Williams once again went to work, spurred by the knowledge that the roof was now on fire, as Hook defended the hole and Waters continued to fire through the loophole. After fifty minutes, the hole was large enough to drag the patients through, and the men - save Private Waters, who hid in the wardrobe - were in the last room, being defended by a pair of privates going by the name Jones. From here, the patients clambered out a window and then ran across the yard to the barricade. Of the eleven patients, nine survived the trip, as did all the able-bodied men.

The evacuation of the hospital completed the shortening of the perimeter. As night fell, the Zulu attacks grew stronger as the snipers on Oscarberg - now devoid of targets - joined the attack. The cattle kraal came under renewed assault and was evacuated by ten o'clock, leaving the remaining men in a small bastion around the storehouse. Throughout the night, the Zulus kept up a constant assault against the British positions; Zulu attacks only began to slacken after midnight, and finally ended by two o'clock, instead being replaced by a constant harassing fire from the Zulu firearms and assegai - a fire that in turn only ended at four o'clock. Chard's force had lost fifteen dead, eight more - including Dalton - seriously wounded, and virtually every man had some kind of minor wound. They were all exhausted, having fought for the better part of ten hours, and were running low on ammunition as well.

As dawn broke, the British could see that the Zulus were gone; all that remained were the vast piles of dead - over 370 bodies were counted. Patrols were dispatched to scout the battlefield, recover rifles, and look for survivors. At roughly 7am, an impi of Zulus suddenly appeared, and the weary redcoats manned their positions once again. But no attack materialized. The Zulus were utterly spent, having been on the move for six days prior to the battle and having not eaten properly for two. In their ranks were hundreds of wounded, and they were several days march from any supplies. Soon after their appearance, the Zulus left the way they had come.


so, yes they were entrenched but it wasn't at all one-sided. They should have all died in minutes. It should have just been a side-note mentioned in passing after Isandlwana. Only 15 dead after fighting for 10 hours against a vastly superior force.

To go with the original two, Im going to have to go with the knight. Of course, it would be decided by the skill of the individual warrior, but I think the knight is going to have more advantages.

Really, Im also rather depressed with the recent view of knights as "brutes in suits". Its like our education of them went straight from the romantic ideal to the serverely retarded version without some sort of balance between.

I went to see 300. I was troubled with all of the rousing speeches with fascist flavor. The line i had the most issue with was when the other greeks came to help the spartans and the spartans insulted them for having trades besides spear poking.

The poll is bogus, does not include the Magyar warriors who much like the mongol horde before them conquered much of europe in 890AD

No, you're exaggerating. It's quite possible to maneuver behind someone. You don't need superspeed or for your opponent to be a moron.

You really still think of knights as clumsy lumbering ogres, don't you? I'd like to see you try dodge behind a knight and hit him in the back in a straight up 1vs1 fight. Go and do some research on mobility before you make such fanciful exaggerations.

Sure, but he won't be nearly as hot.

No, as he would be running and jumping around like a regular mongoose, he would be a good deal hotter. Feel free to test this out on your own.

There you go again with your patronizing. By "unarmed" I mean "disarmed" - for the time it takes for him to recover from a disarm and get another weapon, many things could happen.

And how am to know that? When you say "unarmed," it conjures to mind the combatants throwing down their weapons and slugging it out. And just how is the samurai supposed to disarm him without getting bashed, anyways? And you wonder why I patronize you.

I'm not suggesting he would swing his sword like a dumbass, but the greatsword has certain flaws and leaves certain openings for attack that faster, one-handed swords do not.

Yeah. Thing is that a weapon is still a significant advantage over no weapon, otherwise, why would people even use weapons?

"Hey Bob, you forgot your sword."

"Screw the sword. Why chop some guy's head off when I can punch him in the face?"

I'm doing no such thing. I'm saying the samurai wins an unarmed match, and could win against the greatsword knight (but could also lose) and would most likely lose against the 1-h sword/shield knight. He's by no means whatsoever a "unrivaled fighting machine", but neither is the knight.

And I'm saying that the knight has an advantage in the first one, and a significant advantage in the second two.

And it's a fairly cheap cop-out to just say "knight has better technology (armor) so he'd win", because that just brings us back to the overheating/exhaustion topic. I could say the equivalent of what you said by saying "So the prize goes to the one with the biggest guns, or in this case, the one that's able to use chopsticks. And that is the samurai.", but I won't be any more correct than you are.


No. Believe it or not, technology matters. If it were really so insignificant, people would not have constantly developed better weaponry throughout the ages. And in a fight, if you are unarmed and I have a nightstick, I have the advantage. If I have the nightstick and you have a loaded gun, you have the advantage. It's just that simple.

And really, you have to give up on your overheating diatribe. It's getting old. As has been shown many times on this thread, knights could fight for hours on end in plate armour.

Oh, and your chopsticks example is just bad. Guns are for killing. Chopsticks are for eating. Superior technology does give an edge.

And in a fight, if you are unarmed and I have a nightstick, I have the advantage. If I have the nightstick and you have a loaded gun, you have the advantage. It's just that simple.


Not all the time. In close quarter combat, the nightstick/knife tends to be better cause you can stick/club someone faster than he can get a bead on somewhere important assuming equal speeds.

Tech matters yes, but so does skill, circumstance and use.

Otherwise IEDs and suicide bombs wouldn't be doing so much damage in Iraq eh?

Bushido would not allow you to do such a dishonorable move whilst the knight can take his light crossbow and pierce about any kind of armour you could field.
That would have been news to the samurai who used their bows far, far more than their swords.

Please remember that the oh so holy Bushido code was followed in actual warfare about as much as the Code of Chivalry was by various knights, in orther words, not much.

Makes a very lovely story, and it supposedly makes the samurai somehow honorable, but most of them were right bastards and did what it took to kill the other person.

That would have been news to the samurai who used their bows far, far more than their swords.

Please remember that the oh so holy Bushido code was followed in actual warfare about as much as the Code of Chivalry was by various knights, in orther words, not much.

Makes a very lovely story, and it supposedly makes the samurai somehow honorable, but most of them were right bastards and did what it took to kill the other person.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic...
But still... Codes of honor would have a role in the fight if it were a formal challenge.
What i'm trying to point out, however, is that for what concernes choice of weaponry the knight has the same, if not better, choices of the samurai.
In fact knights were skilled in the use of bow and crossbow, poleaxe, horseman flail, morning star, mace, military pick, et cetera...
Actually the weapon least used in warfare by both knights and samurai was the sword although it remained as a badge of honor for both of them.

Not quite. No Cannons and the Zulu had rifles a-plenty, mostly flintlocks, and knew how to use them.

Maybe as individuals. I doubt that they were able to implement firearms in their tactics.

Anyway, I stand corrected, sah.



As dawn broke, the British could see that the Zulus were gone; all that remained were the vast piles of dead - over 370 bodies were counted.


Just 370 casualties on the Zulu side? That's not much over a force of about 6000 men.


Patrols were dispatched to scout the battlefield, recover rifles, and look for survivors. At roughly 7am, an impi of Zulus suddenly appeared, and the weary redcoats manned their positions once again. But no attack materialized. The Zulus were utterly spent, having been on the move for six days prior to the battle and having not eaten properly for two. In their ranks were hundreds of wounded, and they were several days march from any supplies. Soon after their appearance, the Zulus left the way they had come.
Ah-ha...

so, yes they were entrenched but it wasn't at all one-sided. They should have all died in minutes. It should have just been a side-note mentioned in passing after Isandlwana. Only 15 dead after fighting for 10 hours against a vastly superior force.

Totalling it up, I'd still say that the Zulu were just numerically superior, but their attack tactics and logistics were painfully inadequate. Also, their main weapon was still the assegai, wasn't it?

Again, the Brits fought well, but it isn't that impressive - I'd say that Crecy is still a far more impressive British victory, don't you?

some other impressively though guys from Late Middle-Age/Renaissance:

the Milanese/Alessandrini at the Siege of Alessandria
the Lombard League's "Company of Death" around Milan's Carroccio at the Battle of Legnano
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Legnano

Meh, I voted Spartans solely for the fact that the Battle of Thermopylae is arguably one of the most singularly important battles in the development of Western political theory. Granted, Democratic theory would have probably still evolved, regardless, but it would have been very different. After all, Xerxes' father (Sargon, I think? Not the original Sargon, of course, as he was about a thousand years earlier than Xerxes, but one of the myriad Sargon namesakes? Dunno, my history on the region is rusty...to say the least) was democratically elected, to an extent.

But, anyway, I realize that doesn't make them the "best" warriors, but it certainly makes them one of the most influential, which is the same as being the best, as far as I'm concerned. Like I said, the kind of fight you're all imagining would come down to dumb luck more so than anything else.

Ignoring the fact that Spartans were fascist warhawks.

To go with the original two, Im going to have to go with the knight. Of course, it would be decided by the skill of the individual warrior, but I think the knight is going to have more advantages.

Really, Im also rather depressed with the recent view of knights as "brutes in suits". Its like our education of them went straight from the romantic ideal to the serverely retarded version without some sort of balance between.

*shrugs* I've suggested no 'brutes in suits'.

You really still think of knights as clumsy lumbering ogres, don't you? I'd like to see you try dodge behind a knight and hit him in the back in a straight up 1vs1 fight. Go and do some research on mobility before you make such fanciful exaggerations.

Again: You need not be against a dumbass to find a way to get behind him. If you think it's simply impossible to get behind someone unless they're either mentally retarded or extremely restrained, you have issues with mobility, possibly issues with intelligence and tactics.

No, as he would be running and jumping around like a regular mongoose, he would be a good deal hotter. Feel free to test this out on your own.

I don't see where he'd be doing much running/jumping. Just stay out of range. However much running he'd have to do, the knight would have to do just as much, and he'd be in a metal suit while doing it.

And how am to know that? When you say "unarmed," it conjures to mind the combatants throwing down their weapons and slugging it out. And just how is the samurai supposed to disarm him without getting bashed, anyways? And you wonder why I patronize you.

I'll give you that. I used the wrong word with 'unarmed'. I apologize.

*shrugs* These are 'ifs'. If he were to disarm. I'm not a master of ju-jutsu, I haven't trained with samurai, I haven't fought someone armed as a knight. I can only speculate. If he cannot disarm, he is at a disadvantage, I would think.

Yeah. Thing is that a weapon is still a significant advantage over no weapon, otherwise, why would people even use weapons?

"Hey Bob, you forgot your sword."

"Screw the sword. Why chop some guy's head off when I can punch him in the face?"

Of course it's an advantage, but you must also take into account other factors, such as how skilled the user is, how skilled the opponent is, if either can be disarmed, if either can be worn down, etc, etc... you simply can't say "This guy has this, it's big and sharp and pointy, therefore he wins.".



And I'm saying that the knight has an advantage in the first one, and a significant advantage in the second two.

Which is debateable, which is why I'm still here.


No. Believe it or not, technology matters. If it were really so insignificant, people would not have constantly developed better weaponry throughout the ages. And in a fight, if you are unarmed and I have a nightstick, I have the advantage. If I have the nightstick and you have a loaded gun, you have the advantage. It's just that simple.

It's really not. Distance, skill, combat experience, and a number of other factors must all be taken into account, and even then it's difficult to say for sure.

And really, you have to give up on your overheating diatribe. It's getting old. As has been shown many times on this thread, knights could fight for hours on end in plate armour.

'Has been shown'? No. It's been said, but I don't know of anyone citing a study or wiki article as proof of their claims. It's also been said that a knight could -not- last for more than an hour or so in heat, by people that were still arguing for the side of the knight, so who am I to believe?


Oh, and your chopsticks example is just bad. Guns are for killing. Chopsticks are for eating. Superior technology does give an edge.

You didn't mention guns, you were talking about armor. You said they had better technology, referring to their metal armor, and that that would be the main reason they'd win. I countered, saying the metal armor has flaws that could be taken advantage of. You countered that by... saying the knights have guns?

Ignoring the fact that Spartans were fascist warhawks.No...it wasn't ignoring that fact. It's just that that fact doesn't matter at all as regards to what I was saying. Spartans were instrumental in holding off Xerxes' army. This allowed a rallying of the Greek states and an eventual successful defense, allowing for Western democracy to continue its development. How, in any way, does Sparta's system of government play into that? I mean, I agree that I think their culture and society was outright insane. It was cruel, abusive and premised entirely on a slave economy. That has nothing to do with the result of the particular battle I am talking about, however. :rolleyes:

No...it wasn't ignoring that fact. It's just that that fact doesn't matter at all as regards to what I was saying. Spartans were instrumental in holding off Xerxes' army. This allowed a rallying of the Greek states and an eventual successful defense, allowing for Western democracy to continue its development. How, in any way, does Sparta's system of government play into that? I mean, I agree that I think their culture and society was outright insane. It was cruel, abusive and premised entirely on a slave economy. That has nothing to do with the result of the particular battle I am talking about, however. :rolleyes:

Ah. I thought you were inferring otherwise. Carry on, then, as long as you realize they're complete whackjobs.

'Has been shown'? No. It's been said, but I don't know of anyone citing a study or wiki article as proof of their claims. It's also been said that a knight could -not- last for more than an hour or so in heat, by people that were still arguing for the side of the knight, so who am I to believe?

If I may, I would like to get some issues with the armour out of the way. Firstly, we need to compare the average weight and construction of 'typical' knightly armour (if there could be such a thing described) to that of the armour 'typically' worn by the samurai.

There are problems with this of course, as which era are we going to be looking at? The later into the renaissance we get the heavier the breastplates and helms become in order to deflect bullets. Compare these two suites of armour from the appendix of Claude Blair's European Armour Circa 1066-Circa 1700.

Field armour, German, c. 1525: 41 lbs. 13.5 oz.
Cuirassier armour, Augsburg, c. 1620-30: 69 lbs. 5 oz.

There are also other armours listed:

Field armour, Italian, c. 1450: 57 lbs.
Field armour, Italian, c. 1550-60: 45 lbs. 13.5 oz.
Field armour, Greenwich, c. 1590: 71 lbs. 14 oz.

Other armours from other books:

Peter Finer's 1995 catalogue:
German Maximilian Burgonet, ~1520: 3 1/2 lb
German breastplate with tassets, ~1540: 12 lb
German breastplate with tassets, ~1560: 12 lb
English burgonet, ~1620: 2 lb
French Cuirassier 3/4 harness & burgonet, ~1620: 66 lb
German Cuirassier 3/4 harness & burgonet, ~1620: 60 lb
English Lobster Tail helmet, ~1620: 3 lb
Hungarian Zischagge, ~1620: 3 1/2 lb
English Pikeman's cuirass and pot helm, ~1625: 16 lb
German burgonet, ~1640: 4 lb

Peter Finer's 1999 catalogue:
Ostrogothic Spangenhelm, ~1500: 4 1/2 lb
German Sallet, ~1480: 5 1/2 lb
German haubergeon, ~ 1480: 18 lb
German Sallet for joust, ~1490: 2 1/2 lb
Composite German Maximilian Field Armour, ~1515: 40 lb
Horse armour for above harness: 64 lb
Italian Maximilian-style breastplate, ~1520: 5 lb
Italian close helmet/burgonet, ~1575: 6 lb

Peter Finer's 2001 catalogue:
German Sallet, ~1475: 51/2 lb
Associated bevor for above, ~1475: 14 oz
South German Black Sallet, ~1490: 51/2 lb
Flemish Armet, ~1500: 6 lb
German Haubergeon, ~1500: 20 lb
Italian Morion, ~1585: 2 lb

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_gothic_armour.html

From these weights we can see that the weight of armour was between 40-70 lbs. To put this in perspective, the average american solider will carry between 90 and 120 lbs on his back alone. When that is spread evenly over the body, it is not exactly restrictive as a good piece of quality armour would be fully articulated and versatile. The plate armour itself would rest over some areas of maille which would protect areas like the crotch, inside of the elbows and under the helm.

So, lets have a look at japanese armour (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_jpn_armour.html) which was worn on the battlefield by samurai.

http://www.sengokudaimyo.com/katchu/katchu.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-yoroi

According to the wiki source the o-yoroi armour weighed in at around 65 lbs
although it was used slightly earlier than the european armour. As written in the other link on japanese armour it is safe to assume that this weight was redeuced and further progress was made in making the armour more articulated. Therefore, given this similar weight, I would hasten to suggest that neither the samurai nor the knight would gain any particular advantage from the armour, or indeed suffer any particular set backs.

.Snip.

Except that heat would take its toll on someone wearing full plate, as well as their peripheral vision being diminished.

Except that heat would take its toll on someone wearing full plate, as well as their peripheral vision being diminished.

It would be about the same as the armour the Samurai was wearing given that that armour was so supremely well padded it would act like a giant tea cosy. The vision arguement is also pretty void. Look at the Kabuto and Menpo that the examples of Japanese armour have and then examine the european armour on the links I put in.

The helmets that are used in battle have a great allowance for vision than those used in tournament (such as the bottom helm in the gotic armour pictures).

Both types of armour would reduce peripheral vision somewhat, therefore still not making any difference between the two practically.

It would be about the same as the armour the Samurai was wearing given that that armour was so supremely well padded it would act like a giant tea cosy. The vision arguement is also pretty void. Look at the Kabuto and Menpo that the examples of Japanese armour have and then examine the european armour on the links I put in.

The helmets that are used in battle have a great allowance for vision than those used in tournament (such as the bottom helm in the gotic armour pictures).

Both types of armour would reduce peripheral vision somewhat, therefore still not making any difference between the two practically.

But I suppose again, it depends on what kind of helmet you're wearing.

Also, as I've said before, I assumed from the start that the samurai wasn't wearing any armor, which is why I think the heat and extra weight would wear down on the knight faster than general fatigue would wear down the samurai.

But I suppose again, it depends on what kind of helmet you're wearing.

Also, as I've said before, I assumed from the start that the samurai wasn't wearing any armor, which is why I think the heat and extra weight would wear down on the knight faster than general fatigue would wear down the samurai.

Yes and no. If, indeed, the samurai wasn't wearing armour, he'd have to concentrate much more on dodging and defense while the (presumably) armoured knight would be able to just shrug off some blows and concentrate more on offense.

Yes and no. If, indeed, the samurai wasn't wearing armour, he'd have to concentrate much more on dodging and defense while the (presumably) armoured knight would be able to just shrug off some blows and concentrate more on offense.

The assumed strategy to take advantage of the knight's armor would be to tire him out or overheat him, while having to simply stay out of range of the knight, which could be done with either dodging or running away every so often.

But I suppose again, it depends on what kind of helmet you're wearing.

Also, as I've said before, I assumed from the start that the samurai wasn't wearing any armor, which is why I think the heat and extra weight would wear down on the knight faster than general fatigue would wear down the samurai.

Okay then, take the knight out of his armour too. Knights were well trained in duelling methods: Hence this webpage (http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm) at the ARMA website. Knights were well trained with long sword, sword and buckler, dagger and messer (large single edged fighting knives) not to mention pugelism and wrestling. The martial skills of the knight were no lesser than that of the samurai.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

That short essay is a pretty decent summary of this arguement although some points of it have now been made null and void by more research.

Okay then, take the knight out of his armour too. Knights were well trained in duelling methods: Hence this webpage (http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm) at the ARMA website. Knights were well trained with long sword, sword and buckler, dagger and messer (large single edged fighting knives) not to mention pugelism and wrestling. The martial skills of the knight were no lesser than that of the samurai.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

That short essay is a pretty decent summary of this arguement although some points of it have now been made null and void by more research.

Ooo, interesting. Hadn't considered the knight outside of plate armor.

The major argument people have had is that the katana couldn't easily damage the knight when he has a large shield and wearing plate, but I'd say the samurai definitely has the advantage if both people are armorless.

Again: You need not be against a dumbass to find a way to get behind him. If you think it's simply impossible to get behind someone unless they're either mentally retarded or extremely restrained, you have issues with mobility, possibly issues with intelligence and tactics.

Sigh. As Kellarly, pointed out, there is no mobility issue. Both knight and samurai are about equal for mobility.

I suppose the samurai were infinitely smarter and more tactical than knights?

[QUOTE=Szanth;12924242]I don't see where he'd be doing much running/jumping. Just stay out of range. However much running he'd have to do, the knight would have to do just as much, and he'd be in a metal suit while doing it.

And what does staying out of range entail? As the samurai is retreating, he has to watch himself to make sure the knight doesn't get too close. Thus, he is exerting himself more.

I'll give you that. I used the wrong word with 'unarmed'. I apologize.

*shrugs* These are 'ifs'. If he were to disarm. I'm not a master of ju-jutsu, I haven't trained with samurai, I haven't fought someone armed as a knight. I can only speculate. If he cannot disarm, he is at a disadvantage, I would think.

Indeed. And for all of Hollywood's movies, disarming is no mean feat.

Of course it's an advantage, but you must also take into account other factors, such as how skilled the user is, how skilled the opponent is, if either can be disarmed, if either can be worn down, etc, etc... you simply can't say "This guy has this, it's big and sharp and pointy, therefore he wins.".

So you are assuming that the samurai is far more skilled than the knight? I'm assuming equal skill here, but if you think that knights were inept while samurai were military masters, then just say it.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I am not saying that the knight automatically wins, I am saying he has an advantage. Do you need me to show you the definition of advantage?

It's really not. Distance, skill, combat experience, and a number of other factors must all be taken into account, and even then it's difficult to say for sure.

If you really think samurai were so much better fighters than knights, show me why. For most fights though, we assume equal strength, skill, experience, et cetera.

'Has been shown'? No. It's been said, but I don't know of anyone citing a study or wiki article as proof of their claims. It's also been said that a knight could -not- last for more than an hour or so in heat, by people that were still arguing for the side of the knight, so who am I to believe?

Thanks, Kellarly. You saved me from doing extra work.

You didn't mention guns, you were talking about armor. You said they had better technology, referring to their metal armor, and that that would be the main reason they'd win. I countered, saying the metal armor has flaws that could be taken advantage of. You countered that by... saying the knights have guns?

It's called an example. Do you not know what an example is? Or I suppose you were saying earlier that samurai fight with chopsticks? As has been said time and again, plate mail was extremely efficient, and a samurai's armour is not exactly perfect. All armour has flaws. Which exactly were you referring to?

Also, as I've said before, I assumed from the start that the samurai wasn't wearing any armor, which is why I think the heat and extra weight would wear down on the knight faster than general fatigue would wear down the samurai.

If your samurai is really so stupid that he will not wear armour to a fight, then he will most likely lose. As you said, intelligence and tactics matter, and not wearing armour means that any stray arrow or glancing hit can be potentially fatal.

Sigh. As Kellarly, pointed out, there is no mobility issue. Both knight and samurai are about equal for mobility.

You're an idiot. I said YOU have issues with tactics and mobility if you think it's impossible to get behind someone without being insanely fast. Regardless of whether or not the armor affects the knight, he can be gotten behind. It wouldn't require magic, either.

I suppose the samurai were infinitely smarter and more tactical than knights?

Where'd I say that?

And what does staying out of range entail? As the samurai is retreating, he has to watch himself to make sure the knight doesn't get too close. Thus, he is exerting himself more.

That makes -no- sense at all. They're both moving the same amount - one moves forward, the other moves backward or to the side. Both the same - except for one variable: the armor, and the heat it causes.

Indeed. And for all of Hollywood's movies, disarming is no mean feat.

Never said it was, but it's far from impossible.

So you are assuming that the samurai is far more skilled than the knight? I'm assuming equal skill here, but if you think that knights were inept while samurai were military masters, then just say it.

Yes, I'm assuming roughly equal skill, but it's hard to imagine "skill" and "tactics" as tangible things you can measure, so there will be variances, as well as which is generally better to be: skilled with samurai weapons, or skilled with knight weapons. That's basically what it comes down to, and all we can do is speculate.

And stop putting words in my mouth. I am not saying that the knight automatically wins, I am saying he has an advantage. Do you need me to show you the definition of advantage?

Fine. You're saying he has an advantage, I'm saying he doesn't. Glad we got that outta the way.

If you really think samurai were so much better fighters than knights, show me why. For most fights though, we assume equal strength, skill, experience, et cetera.

But again, those are intangible things we can't measure, and can barely imagine. Strength, yeah, but not skill or experience.

It's called an example. Do you not know what an example is? Or I suppose you were saying earlier that samurai fight with chopsticks? As has been said time and again, plate mail was extremely efficient, and a samurai's armour is not exactly perfect. All armour has flaws. Which exactly were you referring to?

The chopsticks thing was a metaphor. Do you not know what a metaphor is? Do you need me to show you the definition of metaphor? (Note: It could've been a simile, but I hate the distinction between the two only being the appearance or lack of 'like' or 'as', it seems so arbitrary and unneeded)

If your samurai is really so stupid that he will not wear armour to a fight, then he will most likely lose. As you said, intelligence and tactics matter, and not wearing armour means that any stray arrow or glancing hit can be potentially fatal.

There are no stray arrows when it's 1v1.

Tactics, being that if the samurai knows the knight wears a 50-pound metal-covered armor suit that, while it might not impede his mobility, could very well overheat him over time or certain types of the helmet could impair his peripheral vision, then he might consider it an advantage to not wear armor.

Then again, if it's cloudy and not humid and rather cool, the armor's negative could easily be neutralized, and the samurai's plan would be screwed.

Ooo, interesting. Hadn't considered the knight outside of plate armor.

The major argument people have had is that the katana couldn't easily damage the knight when he has a large shield and wearing plate, but I'd say the samurai definitely has the advantage if both people are armorless.

Why?

Then again, if it's cloudy and not humid and rather cool, the armor's negative could easily be neutralized, and the samurai's plan would be screwed.

I will say this as well, there is not every guarantee a knight will be in armour and the samurai will be without. What if it were the other way round, that is an equally valid state?

Why?

Well, again, we have to assume weapon situations as well. If it's katana vs longsword or greatsword, I would put my money on katana. It's designed to shred cloth and flesh easily, and is at its most advantageous when the opponent is not wearing armor. The long/greatsword would be weighted to carve through both armor and the opponent - it's thicker, and does more chopping damage than it does slicing damage. Glancing blows from a katana would most likely cause more damage than from the long/greatsword.

If the knight has the shield/shortsword combo, then he would have the defensive advantage against the katana, but I think the spear would be an effective counter if the knight wasn't wearing armor.

Of course, in such situations it depends heavily on skill level, and as I've said before, we're trying to assume they're relatively equal in their own rights, but while I'm not sure what the actual outcome would be, I'd put money on the samurai.

I will say this as well, there is not every guarantee a knight will be in armour and the samurai will be without. What if it were the other way round, that is an equally valid state?

I'm admittedly not all that knowledgeable about samurai armor, so I'd have to research the subject a bit before deciding what effect that would have vs an armorless knight.

Comparing their fighting styles or martial arts skills is ludicrous, since we don't really know how knights were taught to fight. For example, the schools of medieval fencing you see today are mostly reconstructions, meaning 'this is what we think it could have been like'. Knights and samurai came from the same roots, however, both being a pinnacle of their respective warrior culture which in turn was born out of centuries of warfare. I don't think it's unfair to assume that their combat techniques, both with or without weapons, were about as advanced.

A melee fighter is always at risk of losing their weapon, so knights had to be extensively trained in grappling and hand-to-hand combat. Just because we don't know a neat little name like 'jujutsu' for the style, doesn't mean it was inferior to it's eastern counterparts. Of course it doesn't automatically follow that it was superior either, but I think you're making a huge leap when you bluntly state 'if both were unarmed, samurai would kick ass'.

I have to say that a knight in a strong suit of armor would put the samurai at a disadvantage. The samurai fought with a sword, a spear and a bow, none of witch are particurlarly good against plate armor in one on one situation. There is a sort of clumsy technique called half-swording, where you grab your own blade with you other hand and guide it into your opponents visor, but the tools you really need are a battleaxe, a hammer, a mace or a crossbow. As for aiming for the joints with your sword: a well crafted suit of armor has precious few weak spots, and just try aiming at them while their owner is not only moving, but also knows how to protect them and is also trying to kill you.

Simply put, I think the knight has an advantage simply because of steel: European steel was more abundant and of better quality than Japanese, so a knight would most likely have better armor and better weapons. Other than that, there are just too many variables to give any kind of answer. Are they equally skilled? What are they equipped with? Are they fighting on horseback? Are they fighting on the hottest summer day or knee-deep in snow? Where and from what time period are they from? Are they familiar with eachother's fighting style?

Comparing their fighting styles or martial arts skills is ludicrous, since we don't really know how knights were taught to fight. For example, the schools of medieval fencing you see today are mostly reconstructions, meaning 'this is what we think it could have been like'. Knights and samurai came from the same roots, however, both being a pinnacle of their respective warrior culture which in turn was born out of centuries of warfare. I don't think it's unfair to assume that their combat techniques, both with or without weapons, were about as advanced.

A melee fighter is always at risk of losing their weapon, so knights had to be extensively trained in grappling and hand-to-hand combat. Just because we don't know a neat little name like 'jujutsu' for the style, doesn't mean it was inferior to it's eastern counterparts. Of course it doesn't automatically follow that it was superior either, but I think you're making a huge leap when you bluntly state 'if both were unarmed, samurai would kick ass'.

I have to say that a knight in a strong suit of armor would put the samurai at a disadvantage. The samurai fought with a sword, a spear and a bow, none of witch are particurlarly good against plate armor in one on one situation. There is a sort of clumsy technique called half-swording, where you grab your own blade with you other hand and guide it into your opponents visor, but the tools you really need are a battleaxe, a hammer, a mace or a crossbow. As for aiming for the joints with your sword: a well crafted suit of armor has precious few weak spots, and just try aiming at them while their owner is not only moving, but also knows how to protect them and is also trying to kill you.

Simply put, I think the knight has an advantage simply because of steel: European steel was more abundant and of better quality than Japanese, so a knight would most likely have better armor and better weapons. Other than that, there are just too many variables to give any kind of answer. Are they equally skilled? What are they equipped with? Are they fighting on horseback? Are they fighting on the hottest summer day or knee-deep in snow? Where and from what time period are they from? Are they familiar with eachother's fighting style?

Listen - you're new, so I'll cut you a break. Thing is, we're not supposed to make sensible concessions and respectable statements.

I pick Samurai, he pick Knight, we argue semantics until our dicks fall off. That's the fun of it. =)

the Poll is closed, so I am going to post my vote:
Jedi

:D

I bet a ninjitsu trained ninja could kill them both.

I bet a ninjitsu trained ninja could kill them both.

Are there any other kind?

The horse warriors of the Mongolian horde. Could kill you while running away. Shoot from a horse, fight from a horse, pillage from a hporse, give birth from a horse

The horse warriors of the Mongolian horde. Could kill you while running away. Shoot from a horse, fight from a horse, pillage from a hporse, give birth from a horse

It's funny because it's true!

Alright, here's the problem.

Both a knight and a samurai are extremely broad categories. Not every knight rides on a horseback and swings around a sword wildly. There were the hospitallers, templars, feudal enforcers during the Middle Ages, etc. Knights were built to fight heavy infantry and cavalry. They were hard hitters, and built to fight hard hitters. The harder they hit, the better.

Now, the weapons employed varied from region to region, and so did the armor. Now, knights employed usually help from around them - despite contrary belief, they did not work alone that much, nor that well. They were built to lead.

Though, I believe Hospitallers fall under Templars, so please someone confirm whether or not that's true. Too tired to think.

Samurai, on the other hand, are extremely broad. They include ninja (yes, ninja), assassins and bushi. Now, here's where Western Culture really fucks up regarding ninja and assassins. Ninjas are not assassins. Many act like assassins, but ninja are samurai that have adopted ninjutsu, a style that was made for poorer samurai and even peasants to fight on even levels against better equipped or prepared samurai. In simplest terms, the use of sneak attacks, manipulation and shadow art to gain an advantage against what is conventionally a stronger foe.

Assassins are hitokiri - manslayers. They were samurai who loosely have adopted the codes of bushido, and they're used more for inter-city disputes. They weren't armored at all, and relied mostly on the use of sword skills and semi-ninjutsu to achieve what they could. The shinsengumi were the most famous example; despite not really wearing virtually any armor, they were disciplined, skilled and well composed, and were one of the strongest modern forces in samurai history.

Bushi are warriors. They are the frontliners, the main attackers, the ones you see in movies in those plates of armor. Bushi, regularly, also serve as hitokiri.

Now, to chart them together;

Knight > Bushi.
If anyone has ever worn samurai armor, they'd know it's fairly flexible, but not as protected as one would think. It's mostly leather armor, with some instances of metals, but not much. They can be easily overpowered if caught off guard or not experienced enough.

Hitokiri > Knight.
Hitokiri do not strongly follow the honor system of the Samurai. Hence, they will not hesitate to retreat. Although many do, most do not follow. There's no need. You'll never find hitokiri in an open field. So it'll only be in enclosed spaces, and when you do, the knight will be quite restricted.

Ninja ?? Knight
I don't know. I don't know much about the ninja to provide an analysis on them.

But know that Samurai regularly use bows and arrows. And we've seen many times how proper use of bows and arrows can devastate columns of knights (Mongols). Knighthood is more ceremonial. Samurai is more dedicated to warfare.

I bet a ninjitsu trained ninja could kill them both.

Well yeah. Kill them in their sleep - not hard to do. But we're going on an open field, 1v1.

Alright, here's the problem.

Both a knight and a samurai are extremely broad categories. Not every knight rides on a horseback and swings around a sword wildly. There were the hospitallers, templars, feudal enforcers during the Middle Ages, etc. Knights were built to fight heavy infantry and cavalry. They were hard hitters, and built to fight hard hitters. The harder they hit, the better.

Now, the weapons employed varied from region to region, and so did the armor. Now, knights employed usually help from around them - despite contrary belief, they did not work alone that much, nor that well. They were built to lead.

Though, I believe Hospitallers fall under Templars, so please someone confirm whether or not that's true. Too tired to think.

Samurai, on the other hand, are extremely broad. They include ninja (yes, ninja), assassins and bushi. Now, here's where Western Culture really fucks up regarding ninja and assassins. Ninjas are not assassins. Many act like assassins, but ninja are samurai that have adopted ninjutsu, a style that was made for poorer samurai and even peasants to fight on even levels against better equipped or prepared samurai. In simplest terms, the use of sneak attacks, manipulation and shadow art to gain an advantage against what is conventionally a stronger foe.

Assassins are hitokiri - manslayers. They were samurai who loosely have adopted the codes of bushido, and they're used more for inter-city disputes. They weren't armored at all, and relied mostly on the use of sword skills and semi-ninjutsu to achieve what they could. The shinsengumi were the most famous example; despite not really wearing virtually any armor, they were disciplined, skilled and well composed, and were one of the strongest modern forces in samurai history.

Bushi are warriors. They are the frontliners, the main attackers, the ones you see in movies in those plates of armor. Bushi, regularly, also serve as hitokiri.

Now, to chart them together;

Knight > Bushi.
If anyone has ever worn samurai armor, they'd know it's fairly flexible, but not as protected as one would think. It's mostly leather armor, with some instances of metals, but not much. They can be easily overpowered if caught off guard or not experienced enough.

Hitokiri > Knight.
Hitokiri do not strongly follow the honor system of the Samurai. Hence, they will not hesitate to retreat. Although many do, most do not follow. There's no need. You'll never find hitokiri in an open field. So it'll only be in enclosed spaces, and when you do, the knight will be quite restricted.

Ninja ?? Knight
I don't know. I don't know much about the ninja to provide an analysis on them.

But know that Samurai regularly use bows and arrows. And we've seen many times how proper use of bows and arrows can devastate columns of knights (Mongols). Knighthood is more ceremonial. Samurai is more dedicated to warfare.

Ninja would beat a knight if given free-reign on how to kill him (bomb him in his sleep, poison, stab him in the neck in a crowded street where he can't see you coming...), but that's not the scenario here.

Same situation for Hitokiri, which is the type of samurai I was thinking about, hence no armor.

Listen - you're new, so I'll cut you a break. Thing is, we're not supposed to make sensible concessions and respectable statements.

I'm not that new. I'm just a slow learner.

Quite obviously: Modern Armo(u)r.


Samurai has slightly better armour than the knight. But since spearmen frequently beat tanks, there is everything to play for.

;)

Spartans.

Spartans were hoplites, so those two options are not mutually exclusive.

And what about the US Marine Corps? The French Foreign Legion? Temujin's Mongols or Napolean's Republican Guard? What a horridly incomplete list.

Spartans were hoplites, so those two options are not mutually exclusive.

And what about the US Marine Corps? The French Foreign Legion? Temujin's Mongols or Napolean's Republican Guard? What a horridly incomplete list.

The choice is -A- spartan. As in, ONE spartan. Not spartanS.

Also, we're going for 1v1 melee warriors, and doing our damndest to make technology a null issue so we're left with just skill or technique.

Spartans were hoplites, so those two options are not mutually exclusive.

And what about the US Marine Corps? The French Foreign Legion? Temujin's Mongols or Napolean's Republican Guard? What a horridly incomplete list.

The max poll options is ten. Those wouldn't fit.

Sardaukar and Freemen wouldn't fit too :(

Sardaukar and Freemen wouldn't fit too :(

Gordon Freeman would be a good addition. One-man army, that guy.

Janissaries=win

They will shoot holes in Knight armor....:D

Well, again, we have to assume weapon situations as well. If it's katana vs longsword or greatsword, I would put my money on katana. It's designed to shred cloth and flesh easily, and is at its most advantageous when the opponent is not wearing armor. The long/greatsword would be weighted to carve through both armor and the opponent - it's thicker, and does more chopping damage than it does slicing damage. Glancing blows from a katana would most likely cause more damage than from the long/greatsword.

If the knight has the shield/shortsword combo, then he would have the defensive advantage against the katana, but I think the spear would be an effective counter if the knight wasn't wearing armor.

Of course, in such situations it depends heavily on skill level, and as I've said before, we're trying to assume they're relatively equal in their own rights, but while I'm not sure what the actual outcome would be, I'd put money on the samurai.

I'm admittedly not all that knowledgeable about samurai armor, so I'd have to research the subject a bit before deciding what effect that would have vs an armorless knight.

Whoa whoa whoa... lets get the sword myths out of the way first.

The sword was NEVER meant to CUT through armour in any way. Stab at the gaps using half sword techniques, sure, but cut? Never. All you would end up doing is blunting a rather nice sword on your opponents plate. You could use it like a giant warhammer holding the blade in your hands and smashing your opponent with the pommel and the quillions (cross guard). Of course there would be some perscussive damage, but you wouldn't cut through plate.

Now for the bit the Katana fan boys will go ape shite about. A Katana's cutting ability was not that much greater than many longswords. This is entirely dependent on the type of blade on the longsword of course. A broad thin blade would cut just as well, a stiff thick blade with a diamond cross section would not cut as well, but it would certainly thrust better.

Besides, if you want a euro katana, you would look at types of falchion and swiss bastard sabre (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=43845) that were around during the medieval and renaissance.

If you wish to know more about medieval sword types, this typology is useful:

Oakeshott's Typology (http://www.algonet.se/~enda/oakeshott_eng.htm)

If you're going to have the 'fight' you would need to have them similarly armed to begin with.

Napolean's Republican Guard?

Russia 1812. Not all about being a soldier is about being able to fight, and if you or your boss is daft enough to invade Russia and not consider that the winter might slightly hinder your plans, means no matter how many volleys of musket fire you can absorb whilst chanting Vive Le Emperur (sp?) and , you're still not up there with the greatest.

And to be honest, they were so often held in reserve, their actual fighting capacity was never really fully known, other than at Waterloo, but by then they were well passed their sell by date...

You're an idiot. I said YOU have issues with tactics and mobility if you think it's impossible to get behind someone without being insanely fast. Regardless of whether or not the armor affects the knight, he can be gotten behind. It wouldn't require magic, either.

Didn't your mother ever tell you not to make assumptions? Stop trying to predict the fight. It is just as possible that the knight could dodge behind the samurai. It is also possible that one could step on a land mine, thus guaranteeing a win for the other side. But we don't take that into account, do we?

Where'd I say that?

You keep implying it.

That makes -no- sense at all. They're both moving the same amount - one moves forward, the other moves backward or to the side. Both the same - except for one variable: the armor, and the heat it causes.

In order to back away at an equal speed to the the knight's advancement, you will have to excert more energy.

Never said it was, but it's far from impossible.

For both sides. Stop making assumptions.

Yes, I'm assuming roughly equal skill, but it's hard to imagine "skill" and "tactics" as tangible things you can measure, so there will be variances, as well as which is generally better to be: skilled with samurai weapons, or skilled with knight weapons. That's basically what it comes down to, and all we can do is speculate.


So back up your speculations...

Fine. You're saying he has an advantage, I'm saying he doesn't. Glad we got that outta the way.

No, I am saying the knight has an advantage due to superior technology. What does the samurai have to nullify this?

But again, those are intangible things we can't measure, and can barely imagine. Strength, yeah, but not skill or experience.

So we'll say the two combatants are equal in those areas?

The chopsticks thing was a metaphor. Do you not know what a metaphor is? Do you need me to show you the definition of metaphor? (Note: It could've been a simile, but I hate the distinction between the two only being the appearance or lack of 'like' or 'as', it seems so arbitrary and unneeded)

Sigh. You applied my example literally. I applied your metaphor literally to show you how ridiculous you were being. Do you want me to show you definition of reductio ad absurdum?

There are no stray arrows when it's 1v1.

Stray arrows or glancing hits. Way to selectively respond.

Tactics, being that if the samurai knows the knight wears a 50-pound metal-covered armor suit that, while it might not impede his mobility, could very well overheat him over time or certain types of the helmet could impair his peripheral vision, then he might consider it an advantage to not wear armor.

Armour is an advantage. Why do you think people (even samurai) wore it?

Then again, if it's cloudy and not humid and rather cool, the armor's negative could easily be neutralized, and the samurai's plan would be screwed.

Either way, these fights don't last too long.

Listen - you're new, so I'll cut you a break. Thing is, we're not supposed to make sensible concessions and respectable statements.

I pick Samurai, he pick Knight, we argue semantics until our dicks fall off. That's the fun of it. =)

Is that your way of saying "I can't refute what you just said, so I'll dodge it"?

To Jenrak: Thanks for the informative lesson on samurai. This is supposed to be a 1vs1 fight though, so the Hitokori would probably be at a disadvantage (how does an enclosed space disadvantage a knight?).

I'd go with the celts. Any man who can fight butt-naked wins it for me.