Conquer Club

Blastshot wrote:Why is everyone saying mail? I thought the knights we were talking about had PLATE armor.

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

The1exile wrote:

Blastshot wrote:Why is everyone saying mail? I thought the knights we were talking about had PLATE armor.

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

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

it doesn't matter who wins. chuck norris could kill both of the 9 times before they hit the ground.

waradmiral wrote:it doesn't matter who wins. chuck norris could kill both of the 9 times before they hit the ground.

oh, shut up about chuck norris
anyways, as for me i don't know much about armor from around this time, but i misread the first post and thought that the knight would be sporting chain mail only, so i chose the samurai. nevertheless i've read this entire thread, and there are pretty convincing arguments in favor of the samurai.

Hitman079 wrote:

waradmiral wrote:it doesn't matter who wins. chuck norris could kill both of the 9 times before they hit the ground.

oh, shut up about chuck norris
anyways, as for me i don't know much about armor from around this time, but i misread the first post and thought that the knight would be sporting chain mail only, so i chose the samurai. nevertheless i've read this entire thread, and there are pretty convincing arguments in favor of the samurai.

could you point those out to me plz? I thought that a samurias sword was practically useless against the knight because of the amor and slash stlye blade.

Some thoughts on the subject.

http://www.samurai-archives.com/svk.html
- A discussion about the differences of Japanese Samurai and European Knights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDV5fontZbc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWCh1fWh13Y&NR=1

Two Youtube entries. It shows how the samurai is a lot faster than a knight, although I will point out, that's all I would count it for. I doubt either of those guys would really qualify for a trained Samurai or Knight.

Emperor Skippy wrote:Some thoughts on the subject.

http://www.samurai-archives.com/svk.html
- A discussion about the differences of Japanese Samurai and European Knights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDV5fontZbc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWCh1fWh13Y&NR=1

Two Youtube entries. It shows how the samurai is a lot faster than a knight, although I will point out, that's all I would count it for. I doubt either of those guys would really qualify for a trained Samurai or Knight.

They don't even come close to qualifing. Sad video, really.

A samurai wouldn't be stupid enough to strike the plate anyway. He would try to swing his sword throught the gaps anyway.

And since he got the advantage on speed, he would easily doge the knight sword and reach his goal. Or he just throws a shuriken right throught his helm..

freezie wrote:A samurai wouldn't be stupid enough to strike the plate anyway. He would try to swing his sword throught the gaps anyway.

And since he got the advantage on speed, he would easily doge the knight sword and reach his goal. Or he just throws a shuriken right throught his helm..

And then the unicorn comes around leading a dragon. Enough fantasy crap already!

Knight has armor, strength, and durability.

Samurai has speed, focus, and dexterity.

It's the classic match up of speedy vs. bruiser. While I think a fencer would whup them both, a samurai would win out over a knight primarily based on the ability of the samurai to move with greater agility.

vtmarik wrote:Knight has armor, strength, and durability.

Samurai has speed, focus, and dexterity.

It's the classic match up of speedy vs. bruiser. While I think a fencer would whup them both, a samurai would win out over a knight primarily based on the ability of the samurai to move with greater agility.

Yes a samuria has agility, but a knight could just sit there and w8 for the samuria to get tired, he would have a layer of plate armor, then a hauburk(Chain mail), then a leather outfit for comfort, ya he'll be slow, but there is no way a samuria could get his curved sword to slice him, maybe if the samuria could stab him, but the way those swords are made, it might break due to its already bent blade putting pressure on the curved blade when he goes to stab, not be able to stab as there is no point, or glance of because of the curved armor and blade.

vtmarik wrote:Knight has armor, strength, and durability.

Samurai has speed, focus, and dexterity.

It's the classic match up of speedy vs. bruiser. While I think a fencer would whup them both, a samurai would win out over a knight primarily based on the ability of the samurai to move with greater agility.

the knight would just run them down on his horse. game over.

Samurai also used longbow and long spears (yari). They also had polearms such as naginata with long blades that could be used to kill or disable horses as they galloped by.

Samurai had more weapons than the katana.

vtmarik wrote:Samurai also used longbow and long spears (yari). They also had polearms such as naginata with long blades that could be used to kill or disable horses as they galloped by.

Samurai had more weapons than the katana.

Other then the arrow and yari, they were all slashing weapons, and the knight's plated armor could deflect arrows, crossbow bolts, even early gunpowder weapons. Not to mention that many knights had armored steeds.

vtmarik wrote:Samurai also used longbow and long spears (yari). They also had polearms such as naginata with long blades that could be used to kill or disable horses as they galloped by.

Samurai had more weapons than the katana.

knights also used javelins, lances, and sheilds.

Blastshot wrote:

vtmarik wrote:Samurai also used longbow and long spears (yari). They also had polearms such as naginata with long blades that could be used to kill or disable horses as they galloped by.

Samurai had more weapons than the katana.

knights also used javelins, lances, and sheilds.

and maces, crossbows, and hand axes

static_ice wrote:viking beats them both

I CONCOUR, DOCTOR!!

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Blastshot wrote:

vtmarik wrote:Samurai also used longbow and long spears (yari). They also had polearms such as naginata with long blades that could be used to kill or disable horses as they galloped by.

Samurai had more weapons than the katana.

knights also used javelins, lances, and sheilds.

and maces, crossbows, and hand axes

thnx, i couldnt remember what else

we need to be specific on what the knights and samurai have as weapons

dustn64 wrote:we need to be specific on what the knights and samurai have as weapons

Samurai- Katana, wakizashi, yari, naginata, long bow
Knight- Mace, great sword, long sword, short sword, sheild, axe, lance, spear, dagger, crossbow
Hope that helps

How do they hold all of their weapons?

Well, Samurai would normally carry two swords, and the bow. But not the yari or naginata at the same time, besides which, the yari replaced the naginata.

The knight would usually have his sword sheathed at his side, a secondary sword attatched to his saddle, a shield in one arm(though not all knights needed one), and a lance in the other(which replaced the spear). However, the first sword may be replaced by a mace or an axe.

but they are not on horses so he can only hold two swords

dustn64 wrote:but they are not on horses so he can only hold two swords

correction, they both start out on horses. Samurai usaually dismount before battle. Knights don't.

I envision the battle going something like this:

They both ride onto the battlefield. The Samurai stays a safe distance away, and fills the knight up with arrows before they get close.

End of battle.