#1
Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:01 PM
#2
Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:01 PM
Knights
Read more about Knights at Wikipedia
Official Site: Public Domain Links: Wikipedia Deadliest Warrior Wiki Knights and Armor
Samurai
Read more about Samurai at Wikipedia
Official Site: Public Domain Links: Samurai Wikipedia Samurai Cinema How They Work
#3
Posted 02 August 2012 - 06:16 AM
Dude please post something, this could be an awesome match if done right.undertakersymbiote Enter your Set-Up for the match here. This is your post - it belongs to you - and you may use the EDIT function at any time in the future to update this post.
#4
Posted 02 August 2012 - 09:28 AM
#5
Posted 02 August 2012 - 05:05 PM
#6
Posted 02 August 2012 - 05:24 PM
I think I'll even post as much somewhere in the FAQ forum when I get time, just so fewer users will be confused in the future.
#7
Guest_Pympy_*
Posted 02 August 2012 - 06:04 PM
Too much information to say who wins. Knights's armor was too strong for the Jap's arrows that they would bounce off, unless it hit a weak spot, but an army vs an army wold make it very unlikely.
Samurai had great metal smiths, and lighter armor if any at all (Samurai's did, but not all of them wore them)
Knight's had crossbows which are stronger, but not as great reloading. and the broadswords the Knights used were heavy, meaning slower, but more powerful.
Broadswords are for hacking away, very brutal and uncivilized, but represented a great way of life (the life of a warrior) not to take away from their honor Knights trained as squires as little children( only some people and not peasants usually) So they were intelligent and able to read and write.
Samurai's were the same, but had more of a buddhist way of living so it was more honor and sepuku was common (look it up)
If I had to choose I would say Knights would win, but in a one on one Samurai's would win for their mobility and skills being more refined than just a hack and slash type of fighting.
(Don't get me wrong Knights were very skilled at combat, but were more brute like) Skills does not mean finesse.
#8
Posted 02 August 2012 - 06:45 PM
#9
Posted 03 August 2012 - 10:32 AM
#10
Posted 03 August 2012 - 01:32 PM
#11
Guest_pympppe_*
Posted 03 August 2012 - 05:35 PM
Play Final Fantasy Tactics, the Samurais are better than the Knights hahaha jk
#12
Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:59 AM
I can easily think of scenarios where both sides win.
#13
Posted 04 August 2012 - 10:02 PM
#14
Posted 05 August 2012 - 07:34 PM
#15
Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:08 PM
#16
Posted 05 August 2012 - 09:14 PM
Eh, that depends on what time period we're talking about.
#17
Posted 06 August 2012 - 04:47 AM
The only losses the samurai ever had were against eachother,
Mostly because Japan was very much isolationists
while the knights were thoroughy spanked by Saladin and his muslim warriors during the crusades. The Crusades also took hundreds of years, and cost the Saracens just as many lives.
The Samurai were also more vicous than the knights (if a knight was captured in battle, they were held for ransom as dictated by the code of chivalry. If a samurai was captured in battle his head was chopped off and mounted on a pike.) Only if said knight was worth holding for Ransom most were tortured and then executed. Really though how one was treated depended on how important they were or how pissed the other side was at you, being enslaved was also popular.
And the samurai would sooner commit ritual suicide than face defeat in battle,Ah, but defeat can be more instructive than victory how are they to learn and adapt if they kill themselves?
while the knights are willing to face defeat with grace (the chivalric code). Hence, more motivation for the samurai. Debatable, depends on the person and culture Ergo, the samurai for the win. Wouldn't be so sure of that
Sorry if my method of debating with you seems snarky but that was the best way I could think of.
Depending on the era Knights really had better armor, katanas aren't the uber awesome pwn all sword hollywood makes them out to be, they're great balanced weapons but not heavy enough to damage plate mail, and weight not sharpness is what you need against plate mail.
And longswords are really more versatile than a katana, any part of the sword can be used as a weapon.
My points and counterpoints, if you disagree please do so in a civilized manner.
#18
Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:33 AM
Sorry if my method of debating with you seems snarky but that was the best way I could think of.
Depending on the era Knights really had better armor, katanas aren't the uber awesome pwn all sword hollywood makes them out to be, they're great balanced weapons but not heavy enough to damage plate mail, and weight not sharpness is what you need against plate mail.
And longswords are really more versatile than a katana, any part of the sword can be used as a weapon.
My points and counterpoints, if you disagree please do so in a civilized manner.
Happy to oblige. A way to get around the plate armor could be archery. The english longbowmen were able to use archery very effectively against french knights in the battle of agincourt. The Samurai were renowned masters of zen archery, and could theoretically accomplish the same thing.
#19
Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:44 PM
theoretically
#20
Posted 06 August 2012 - 06:30 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users














