Ashrafi wrote:

Some of you ppl should come to your sences and realize the knight would win due to the armor and chainmail, swords wernt much different.

hmm maybe you're right there... but what if samurai have also armor...
_________________

����Yukie Nakama ����Ɉ�����!
Vote for yukie!

<<< samurai beating on the knight

samurai has a great skill in hand-to-hand and has a long-range weapon, sometimes, (bow and arrow).. so I guess they are great
_________________

Just depends on the samurai and/or the knight's skills and smarts. Either of the two can train all day long but if they suck then they just suck...and they will lose...horribly. So for me its kind of hard to say. I don't know too much about either of the two anyway . Just giving you guys my opinion.
_________________

I'd say it would be a pretty even match up. Depending on what age of development you're talking about.

Think of it this way, both have long range weapons, Knights have crossbows and such, as does Samurai.

Both wear armor, though I think the chainmail and a full plate gives the Knights a slight edge. The tradeoff being loss of mobility and agility.

Both have swords (long) in the range of 35"-50", as well as short range weapons (sub 35").

Both can ride and do combat on horseback when properly trained.

In regards to weapon choice... a Longsword/Broadsword is heavier and usually requires 2 hands, whereas the Katana could be used single or 2-handed. I seriously doubt that a Katana could pierce a full plate and chain mail. In that case, it would really depend ont he skill of the samurai, and how soon and how skilled he would be in finding a place where his sword would pierce armor, mainly joints.
Knights tend to use the heft of the sword to crush plates and bodies. A knight with a bent plates would be less effective. A crushing blow from a large western sword to a full suit of samurai armor would be devestating to the samurai, as there would be no full plate to cushion the blow as much.
Whereas Samurai seems to prefer a slicing action, a definate disadvantage in style there. Similarly, Samurai should be more mobile and nimble, making it easier to evade a wide two-handed swing.

mm... ill stop ranting now...have to pretend to be working...

I Vote Samurai

Because...

Personally, i say the Samurai would whoop the knights asses.

Here's why- the Crusades.

The heavy mounted Knights of Europe ran into tremendous difficulties against the unarmored Moors/Arab and their lightning fast sabres (Turko Mongol Sword)

Against trained Samurai, who were faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more skilled warriors than the Moors/Arab were.....

i know this may or may not be relivent to the 'battle' of the samurai vs the knight here, but it is impressive nonetheless.

here is a video of a katana slicing 7 .50 cal rounds before subcuming to the beast of a machine gun. being a us. marine, i have seen what damage a 50 cal can do 1st hand. so in seeing this video, it is truly impressive.

50 cal vs katana.
_________________

i saw that vid before, very interesting.. i was so hoping the sword wouldn't shatter.

krim wrote:

i saw that vid before, very interesting.. i was so hoping the sword wouldn't shatter.

dude, that's SUCH a waste...
_________________

Here's my Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/kwan1?ref=profile

true true, but seeing that first round hit was pretty neat.

HI ALL IM BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

�gArmor
This 15th century knight is wearing one of the most advanced suits of plate armor ever created. Developed in the late 1400s, Gothic armor was crafted in Germany and derived its name from the architecture its tall, lean shape mimicked. An English knight like those portrayed in WARRIOR CHALLENGE would have needed to spend at least a quarter of his yearly income for such a suit, crafted by armorers in Hapsburg or Milan. The knight shown here wears a padded jacket under his armor called an arming doublet that has straps for tying on pieces of the armor. In the field, this knight would stand apart from the metalled masses thanks to his coat of arms - displayed on his helmet, horse's surcoat or carried as a banner by an attendant. Shields, by this time, were rarely used except in tournaments.
1. Helmet By the 15th century, the knight's steel or iron helmet was tapered and often sporting a crest to deflect blows. (A plume could be attached at the back.) This knight is wearing a popular German helmet called a sallet. Earlier helmets - those sported by the Crusaders in the 12th century, for instance -- had been flat-topped, meaning that if a blow split the helmet, it could also split the wearer's skull. Pads were often worn under the helmet to steady it on the knight's head. Air holes in the visor let the knight breathe. One catch - the eye slots were still wide enough to let an opponent's sword slip through. Such a technique managed to slice through the forehead and brain and kill many a knight.�h
Sword A knight's sword was his most important weapon, an implement blessed by the Church and a symbol of the vows he had sworn upon his investiture. This knight carries the standard long sword used in battle. The sword would be carried in a leather scabbard, or case, attached to the knight's waist. Weighing about 5 lbs., it was designed to be used on horseback. With the advent of plate armor, knights would often carry a second, shorter thrusting sword as well or a dagger, weapons that were easier to slip in between an enemy's plate armor at close range. One popular thrusting sword in the late 15th century was the Italian cinqueda, so named because it was five fingers wide at the hilt.
Lance Though made of breakable wood (ash or pine), the lance was among the most daunting weapons a knight could use. Using the combined force of his weight and that of his horse, he could ram the lance through plate armor, mail, shields, most anything that stood in his way. A metal cover called a vamplate protected the bearer's hand. Lances used in "jousts of war" were fitted with a sharpened tip. Lances used in "jousts of pleasure" were blunted or had a crown or "coronel" on the tip that diffused the impact of the thrust. "

GO HEAR!!!
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warriorchallenge/print/print_knights_profile.html


�gThe heavy mounted Knights of Europe ran into tremendous difficulties against the unarmored Moors/Arab and their lightning fast sabres (Turko Mongol Sword)�h

Yea like in the In 1200s, it was actually the other way around!! The Knights beat the Moors parity badly if you read your history rite. In the Crusades knights were the most feared force! Their was a fort that was attacked by 5000 or 12000 Arabs and the fort was loosing badly until 50 or 60 knight Templars shoed up out side of the fort. The 50 or 60 knight Templars tern the tide of the battle by attacking the 5000 or 12000 Arabs�c. If you read your history, every time knight Templars fought in battle they were outnumbered and still won most of their battles.

The knight were known to be crazy, in battle that knights still changed even with ARROWS still stuck to them�c.

�gAgainst trained Samurai, who were faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more skilled warriors than the Moors/Arab were..�c�h

We do not know that�c. Ill like to see a Samurai in a 125F degree desert and see what happens, knights fought in that.

And about Samurais being more mobile. Have you seen there armor? The Samurais full armor ways about the same as a Knights full armor, but any Knight�fs armor is much more advanced then the Samurai any armor. It all depends what are the knights are wearing, if it is chain armor WITH OUT or WITH Leg Greave then he is just as mobile as an unarmored Samurai, if its full suit of plate armor then the knight is only 80% or 90% as mobile as an unarmored Samurai. But knights do not always have to were full suit of plate armor�c.

Just look at it http://www.tyrrell-armouries.com/armour/images/lames_5.jpg its about 38lbs or 45lbs its not a full suit only half.

dang r. legion, looks like you did hella lot of research since you've been away.

always good to hear logical debates!
_________________

The samurais trained from young and their katana are part of their lives.The English are most well-known for their seemingly-invincible cavalry.How can one compare the best in Japan against one that isn't heavily used in English wars?

Maybe comparing heroes might work.The greatest samurai in Japanese history,Musashi Miyamoto against...who?Who's the best knight in English history?Sir Lancelot?Can someone enlighten me?

I'll vote for samurai becuase samurai's have different stances and techniques which im not sure knights have, do knights just randomly swing the sword and block, it also seems they may be slow speed helps alot no matter how strong you are.... thats my opion too but its also about the skill of the knight and the samurai, just from what i read around samurai has more of the advantage...

Mick Jagger is a knight, isn't he? Even in his prime he probably couldn't even beat Ueto Aya.

Hanzo21 wrote:

Mick Jagger is a knight, isn't he? Even in his prime he probably couldn't even beat Ueto Aya.

You are implying about Aya's character "Azumi" in the movie"Azumi"?That's a little too much...too strong...and too fake as well.

Last months I watched an episode of Discovery that was comparing weapons of all kind to search for the ultimate weapon, the weapon that was compared such as short stick, spear, nun-chaku, three section staff, broad-sword and katana.. They compared it in aspect of range, control and force
And the result for the ultimate wepaon is katana..
Wll thats pretty much supports the facts that samurai is better than knight
_________________

Jaegal_Maut wrote:

Last months I watched an episode of Discovery that was comparing weapons of all kind to search for the ultimate weapon, the weapon that was compared such as short stick, spear, nun-chaku, three section staff, broad-sword and katana.. They compared it in aspect of range, control and force And the result for the ultimate wepaon is katana.. Wll thats pretty much supports the facts that samurai is better than knight

yup... and also did you know the Sekigahara era in Japan happened 400 years ago.. Samurai is very badass.. than the knight..
_________________

i voted for the knight. the armor makes up for the difference in skill.
_________________

slashersam016 wrote:

yup... and also did you know the Sekigahara era in Japan happened 400 years ago.. Samurai is very badass.. than the knight..

Hai wakarimashita, well I know that from a game not from studying about history of japan or anything
btw I like samurai katana so much even tried to make it once but resulted in error.. now i'm trying to buy it from local used-things stores because the real one will cost me a fortune..
_________________

Me aka Proteos_Agna
[MMIF]Morning Musume Indonesia Fansub
[H!F]Hello!Fansub