Welcome to Gaia! ::

Nu-Metalers??

And so it begins....

Knight VS. Samurai

as i think about this, i've come to relize that the biggest diffrence between the two is armour. knights used the worlds greatest armour, bar none. it's not only the strength of the materials that make it effective, but it's shape as well. it's designed to deflect the force of the blow, protecting the knight inside. A suit of full plate armour is not the clunky, unweildy peice of s**t it's made out to be on modern american telivision. there made specificly for the individual that wore it; custom fit and brillintly constructed, it moves very well. Samurai armour is a fine exsample of artestry and caftsmanship, but is simply not as protective as it's western counterpart. the difrence in effectiveness is realy quite drastic. this diffrence has had a huge efect on the way swordmanship devloped. Knights required massive swords to be able to generate the force necacery to break their opponents armour, and even then, this was only accomplished by stiking the "seams" of the armour were the diffrent pieces were connected; the weakest part. Samurai, lacking the need to break through amours of such quality, employed lighter blades, both faster and easier to control. I love japanese swordsmanship, it's beutiful.
unfortunitly, i belive it to be incapable of efecticly dispatching armoured knights. the samurai is far more likly to hit his opponent, yet far less likly to injure him. if the knight gets any form of solid blow, the samurai is going to be dead or incapasitated. Many look to the samuria's uber swordsmanship skillz and claim that nothing could beat that. it's true that japanese swordsmanship is very cool. it's allso true, but less acknolaged, that the knight was very good at what he did. if they wern't, they wouldnt have lived very long.

for those of you to lazy to read all that, my final conclusion was that the Knight would win.

feel free to post your own VS. matches wink

WEALTH AND GLORY TO THE VICTOR!!