Conquer Club

MR. Nate wrote: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.

Sounds about right

Japan's a small country and didn't have access to much Iron, this lead them to develop tactics and a style of warfare that didn't require much armour or equipment. Europe however, had its own medieval arms race, with each king, Baron, Lord etc. trying to develop better tactics and equipment to outdo their neighbor (Japan did to, bought not to the extent Europe did), they also had an abundant supply of Iron.

Samurai tactics were developed to kill their lightly armored foes, Knights were trained to defeat heavily armored opponents. While a Samurai could certainly outmaneuver a knight, they wouldn't be able to pierce a knights armour with their thin Kaiekieakwaks (I forget what they're called, something to that extent though). A knight on the other hand would only have to get one hit on a samurai and he'd be toast.

But Europe is a much bigger place then Japan, and it would only make sense that they could poor more resources into developing their elite fighting force, then Japan could.

also to reply to this:

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.

A knight would just ride him down with his horse dumbass, jesus fucking christ you're fucking stupid, you know and point out that a samurai can shoot a bow, but you fail to realise that kinghts can ride horses, or even use a bow themselves?!

cawck mongler wrote:Japan's a small country and didn't have access to much Iron, this lead them to develop tactics and a style of warfare that didn't require much armour or equipment. Europe however, had its own medieval arms race, with each king, Baron, Lord etc. trying to develop better tactics and equipment to outdo their neighbor (Japan did to, bought not to the extent Europe did), they also had an abundant supply of Iron.

Samurai tactics were developed to kill their lightly armored foes, Knights were trained to defeat heavily armored opponents. While a Samurai could certainly outmaneuver a knight, they wouldn't be able to pierce a knights armour with their thin Kaiekieakwaks (I forget what they're called, something to that extent though). A knight on the other hand would only have to get one hit on a samurai and he'd be toast.

But Europe is a much bigger place then Japan, and it would only make sense that they could poor more resources into developing their elite fighting force, then Japan could.

also to reply to this:

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.

A knight would just ride him down with his horse dumbass, jesus fucking christ you're fucking stupid, you know and point out that a samurai can shoot a bow, but you fail to realise that kinghts can ride horses, or even use a bow themselves?!

Worse, a steel crossbow. That will thread the poor samurai like crap going through a goose!

unriggable wrote:

nicky98 wrote:knight wins, cause knights are heavy I know the heviest don't allways win but knights, they could slash samurais in seconds cause they have heavy swords and chain armor too. lightest doesn,t always win as well. shame that no one never always win.

They're heavy, which means they are slow. When a knight fights a knight, everything looks like its just slow motion, but when he fights a SAMURAI, it looks like an agent from the matrix dodging bullets.

Look up ARMA. Look up REAL histories on warfare! AND QUIT WANKING OFF TO CHEESY SAMURAI FILMS AND THE BLEEDIN' MATRIX..............

ARGGGGHHH!

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.

Put down the joint, amigo. Do some research.

samurai...no question...

but pirates are better.

MR. Nate wrote: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.

Unless the arrows are magically enchanted, depleted uranium slugs traveling at 2x the speed, there is no real why of penetrating the armor. You obviously aren't much into real research, are you. You don't seem to be alone, either.

Newcomers' thoughts on this?

Sorry for the bumping, but I am curious as to other people's views on who would win.

areyouincahoots wrote:samurai...no question...

but pirates are better.

Butt pirates...

Butt really, how exactly are they fighting? Toe to toe? Both on horses?

Toe to toe, the Samurai is going to run circles around the knight until he finds a weakness. In addition, the Samurai is going to utilize akido to knock his oponent off balance. The knight would be more prone on the ground, easy pickin's!

If they are both on horse, the Knight with lance is going to have an advantage over the Samurai with a longbow. But Samurais were extremely efficient with their marksmanship, they could probably slip an arrow through a slit in the helmet for a death shot!

I picked Samurai.

DaGip wrote:

areyouincahoots wrote:samurai...no question...

but pirates are better.

Butt pirates...

Butt really, how exactly are they fighting? Toe to toe? Both on horses?

Toe to toe, the Samurai is going to run circles around the knight until he finds a weakness. In addition, the Samurai is going to utilize akido to knock his oponent off balance. The knight would be more prone on the ground, easy pickin's!

Not really. The Samurai does not have limitless endurance and speed, plus the Knight himself would be pretty agile and quick himself (considering that they trained since a young age to fight in armor). Can't forget that the Knights also employed their own styles of fighting.

If they are both on horse, the Knight with lance is going to have an advantage over the Samurai with a longbow. But Samurais were extremely efficient with their marksmanship, they could probably slip an arrow through a slit in the helmet for a death shot!

I picked Samurai.

Indeed it would be difficult to get an arrow through the vizer, though there were other weak points as well.

Knights were incredibly agile in battle, they could do combat rolls in their armour if it wasnt a silly thing to do in a medieval battle, so the Samurai has little to no advantage movement-wise (in fact, those wide plates look like a good hindrence to me). So it's pretty much sure that neither of the two will have his back to the other one during the fight.

As for shields, Knights would almost always go for large shields, and were skilled in using them as offensive weapons to batter their opponant before finishing them off, I havn't seen a picture of a samurai with a shield yet but they proberbly would have had somthing similar.

Sword wise, pretty much equal. Although the knights sword wouldn't be curved making it good for both slashing and stabbing instead of just slashing.

Both would be encountering a new style of fighting that they were not used to.

I have never battled with either one so I would not know, but I'm pretty sure a vampire could beat both

Kid_A wrote:I have never battled with either one so I would not know, but I'm pretty sure a vampire could beat both

Steel can be hard to bite through, you know.

Knights definitely

the samurai sword was stronger and more deadly than than European broad sword.

both had comparable armour.

therefore, samurai would probably win.

samurai didn't use shields. their weapon WAS their shield.

the samurai sword was so well constructed, it could dispatch a European shield quickly, cutting it into pieces.

Balsiefen wrote:Both would be encountering a new style of fighting that they were not used to.

again, incorrect, the samurai faced the Mongols, very similar to the European style of combat.

it would be the europeans taken off guard.

In what century?

you are correct but though they would encounter a new sword style and type the night would still be able to adapt but whether he could fast enough or not is up for grabs

btownmeggy wrote:In what century?

pretty sure it was medieval.

12th or 13th century?

someone look it up. i will too, when i have time. first person to post the dates of conflict between Japan and Mongol Empire wins THE PRIZE!

reminisco wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:In what century?

pretty sure it was medieval.

12th or 13th century?

someone look it up. i will too, when i have time. first person to post the dates of conflict between Japan and Mongol Empire wins THE PRIZE!

No, silly.

What century would this theoretical conflict between a knight and a samurai be happening? This is an important consideration.

(And the Mongols attempted to invade Japan in 1281.)

btownmeggy wrote:

reminisco wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:In what century?

pretty sure it was medieval.

12th or 13th century?

someone look it up. i will too, when i have time. first person to post the dates of conflict between Japan and Mongol Empire wins THE PRIZE!

No, silly.

What century would this theoretical conflict between a knight and a samurai be happening? This is an important consideration.

(And the Mongols attempted to invade Japan in 1281.)

right on. i was pretty close.

and, actually, i think the best year for this hypothetical battle to take place would be the year 3030.

reminisco wrote:the samurai sword was stronger and more deadly than than European broad sword.

both had comparable armour.

therefore, samurai would probably win.

No, it wasn't. Samuarai Swords for one, were rarely used to stab, and never at armored opponents, for the simple matter that they were only designed to be a cutting weapon, and NOT against steel. Also, Samurai armor would only be considered about Medium armor in Western Europe.

The European Long sword was designed to punish heavily armored enemies, the katana, wakazashie, etc, never were intended to go up against such heavily armored opponents. In fact, the swords of Japan were kind of poor in quality in comparison to those of Western Europe. Please do not use Samurai films as resources in the future, thank you.

Jenos Ridan wrote:

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.

Put down the joint, amigo. Do some research.

You are right. Hypothetical situations like these can only be resolved after hours of cold, hard research.
I have just spent three days in the British Library looking into this question and the answer is:

Knight.

All those who said Samurai - you were wrong.

Also, to clear up a few more while we're at it:

Bear vs shark: shark.
Nelson Mandela vs Dalai Lama: Dalai Lama
Giant flying unicorn vs swarm of evil fairies: Giant unicorn (death ray from eyes)

All settled?

the Knight without question!

Gladys would hit the Samurai warrior (who would be unbalanced due being unused to a strong, liberated black female) with a cocktail of high C and Atlanta soul attitude. The Pips would then further barrage the Japanese Master with a one-two of close harmony verse.. game over!
then to finish their Mo-fo (short for 'Mortal Foe') off, Merald "Bubba" Knight (brother to us all but also the Soul Diva herself) would pull out his 45 and put a cap in the Feudal artistes, reinforced paper-armoured arse!








Irrefutable proof:

Mr. T vs. Chuck Norris