Who do you think would win, knight or samurai?

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:50 pm

Knight with plate and chain mail armor vs samurai in armor

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:54 pm

viking beats them both

misterman10 · Post by **misterman10** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:56 pm

Samurai, no question

Blastshot · Post by **Blastshot** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:57 pm

Even though this is a utterly and completly pointless thread i would have to say the knight, you cant beat a dude with a huge kick-ass sword, and a big sheild in shiny armour. Ive never seen a samuris armour

misterman10 · Post by **misterman10** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:01 pm

VS

Blastshot · Post by **Blastshot** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:02 pm

misterman10 wrote:

VS

ohhhh, thats what samuris armor is...knight still whups em.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:03 pm

Blastshot wrote:Even though this is a utterly and completly pointless thread i would have to say the knight, you cant beat a dude with a huge kick-ass sword, and a big sheild in shiny armour. Ive never seen a samuris armour

Here's an image of Samurai armor.

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:04 pm

actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:05 pm

damn you misterman! you posted it before I did!

misterman10 · Post by **misterman10** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:06 pm

muy_thaiguy wrote:damn you misterman! you posted it before I did!

I would suggest putting pics of each different kind of fighter in your first post

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:07 pm

static_ice wrote:actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this

Spartans? They were called hoplites, not knights. Besides, 300 may be a good movie (just bought it today!), but it is not very historically (wrong spelling, I know) accurate. It's based off of a graphic novel.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:08 pm

misterman10 wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:damn you misterman! you posted it before I did!

I would suggest putting pics of each different kind of fighter in your first post

(loud annoying voice) ahhh, shut it.

static_ice · Post by **static_ice** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:09 pm

muy_thaiguy wrote:
static_ice wrote:actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this
Spartans? They were called hoplites, not knights. Besides, 300 may be a good movie (just bought it today!), but it is not very historically (wrong spelling, I know) accurate. It's based off of a graphic novel.

of course, but it was very accurate in the way of showing how spartans kick persian knights' ass :lol:

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:12 pm

static_ice wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
static_ice wrote:actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this
Spartans? They were called hoplites, not knights. Besides, 300 may be a good movie (just bought it today!), but it is not very historically (wrong spelling, I know) accurate. It's based off of a graphic novel.

of course, but it was very accurate in the way of showing how spartans kick persian knights' ass

Closest thing Persians EVER had to knights were the immortals, the only armor these guys had was paper thin and did very little in protecting them. Besides, Persians didn't wear helmets.

Blastshot · Post by **Blastshot** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:29 pm

Whenever some1 says knights i always think of the knights decked out in chain mail, with plates on over that, with a one handed sword and a metal sheild.

On 300:
the persains sheilds were whicker if i remember right, they wore a light fabric over there face with a hood over that. I believe other than that they just had a robe with maybe a little whicker armour, nothing metal. Except their swords

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Jul 31, 2007 10:49 pm

Blastshot wrote:Whenever some1 says knights i always think of the knights decked out in chain mail, with plates on over that, with a one handed sword and a metal sheild.

On 300:
the persains sheilds were whicker if i remember right, they wore a light fabric over there face with a hood over that. I believe other than that they just had a robe with maybe a little whicker armour, nothing metal. Except their swords

Only immortals actually had armor, and not very good, as I said before.

Neutrino · Post by **Neutrino** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:41 am

Peasant with a crossbow and a few hours training beats them both. :lol:

Honibaz · Post by **Honibaz** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:48 am

No trying to offend anybody, but what did Hecter do to make cena-rules and muy_thaiguy hate him(or her, not really sure) so much?

Honibaz

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:04 am

misterman10 wrote:

VS

The knight wins 7 out of ten battles due to superior technology. The Knight, 14th to 15th centuries I think, wears a full suit of interlocking steel plates. Any sword blow would have to be aimed at the small gaps of the joints. A Knight's own sword, as opposed to being swung, was rather thrust into such gaps when faced with another Knight. The Samurai Katana or sometimes the older Tashi, is a curved blade optimizing the slash and cut over the stap. Further, his armor is prodominately leather, which may well stop a swung blade, but a piercing attack is a different story.

Look up ARMA to get more research.

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:06 am

Neutrino wrote:Peasant with a crossbow and a few hours training beats them both.

English or Welsh Longbowman with a lifetime of training eats Genoese crossbowmen for breakfast :twisted:

!

Jenos Ridan · Post by **Jenos Ridan** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:08 am

Honibaz wrote:No trying to offend anybody, but what did Hecter do to make cena-rules and muy_thaiguy hate him(or her, not really sure) so much?

Honibaz

Might have something to do with why we're debating the combat merits of 14th-15th century knights and those of contemptorary Samurai.

Anarchy Ninja · Post by **Anarchy Ninja** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:10 am

Samurai are far superiour to knights, a muddy field would screw the knights over so bad and if I'm not mistaken samurai were around far earlier then knights or at least the heavily armoured version this thread refers to.

Also samurai should be able to move much faster and their swords are notorisly(sp) sharp, sharp enough to seperate a knights head from its shoulders I should think.

MR. Nate · Post by **MR. Nate** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:36 am

I'd probably go with the Samurai, despite the lack of hefty amour. Samurai could carry bows, and as has been noted, a good bowman takes down a knight before he can do anything. Plus, lighter means more maneuverable, so the knight never catches him. If they get knocked off their horses, the knight is pretty much unable to move, where as the Samurai is just as effective.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:37 am

freezie · Post by **freezie** » Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:43 am

A samurai with a original katana?

The samurai...No questions. The chain mail wouldn't stand a second..

Who do you think would win, knight or samurai?

Who do you think would win?

Who do you think would win, knight or samurai?