|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blue-Ultimate Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:40 am
I was wondering which would be better in combat.
like 100 knights vs 100 samurai's or one-on-one combat
who would win.
I say Knight because they rock and they have better armor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:31 pm
one on one I'd have to say that a Samurai would be the victor simply because the swordsmanship of the average knight cannot compare to that of the average samurai...and with his armor the knight would be too cumbersome. But if you had say one hundred against another hundred then I'd vote knights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blue-Ultimate Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 5:39 pm
Armelin one on one I'd have to say that a Samurai would be the victor simply because the swordsmanship of the average knight cannot compare to that of the average samurai...and with his armor the knight would be too cumbersome. But if you had say one hundred against another hundred then I'd vote knights. that's why I have to say that knights are the all round best of all, no other answer possible. cool
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:38 pm
you do know that samurai have armour too...samurai are quicker even with their armours on compared to knights. Knights would probably charge in shields in their hands, sword drawn, going head first into battle. Then they get their arms cut off by a samurai...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:10 pm
knights suck.... samurai rock... *i am a samurai in trainin....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:40 am
xin-chan89 you do know that samurai have armour too...samurai are quicker even with their armours on compared to knights. Knights would probably charge in shields in their hands, sword drawn, going head first into battle. Then they get their arms cut off by a samurai... that necessarily have to happen, because I see now that you are simple underestimating the knight. not only the Samurai has had good training but the knight as well as surely you know that people won't go charging at someone without thinkig. You may know that the knight has multiple ways of defeating it's opponent. For instance lets say the knight does charge directly at the samurai, this would mean that he openly accepts to get his arm chopped of *Cough*. in most times it would mean to make a opening to block the opponents attack just to make a finishing blow. other then these I have many more techniques that Knights use, so don;t underestimate the knight so easily.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blue-Ultimate Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:28 pm
Blue-Ultimate xin-chan89 you do know that samurai have armour too...samurai are quicker even with their armours on compared to knights. Knights would probably charge in shields in their hands, sword drawn, going head first into battle. Then they get their arms cut off by a samurai... that necessarily have to happen, because I see now that you are simple underestimating the knight. not only the Samurai has had good training but the knight as well as surely you know that people won't go charging at someone without thinkig. You may know that the knight has multiple ways of defeating it's opponent. For instance lets say the knight does charge directly at the samurai, this would mean that he openly accepts to get his arm chopped of *Cough*. in most times it would mean to make a opening to block the opponents attack just to make a finishing blow. other then these I have many more techniques that Knights use, so don;t underestimate the knight so easily. you are right..i did underestimate the knights..sorry about that.. But i still think the samurai has in a sense a better training on vital points and attacking as even though knights may have been powerful, samurai been through tougher (i think) training and even though they dont have the advantage of a shield i think they would have good tactics as well. I mean heck i guess no one would charge in head on unless it was some part of a plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:39 am
xin-chan89 Blue-Ultimate xin-chan89 you do know that samurai have armour too...samurai are quicker even with their armours on compared to knights. Knights would probably charge in shields in their hands, sword drawn, going head first into battle. Then they get their arms cut off by a samurai... that necessarily have to happen, because I see now that you are simple underestimating the knight. not only the Samurai has had good training but the knight as well as surely you know that people won't go charging at someone without thinkig. You may know that the knight has multiple ways of defeating it's opponent. For instance lets say the knight does charge directly at the samurai, this would mean that he openly accepts to get his arm chopped of *Cough*. in most times it would mean to make a opening to block the opponents attack just to make a finishing blow. other then these I have many more techniques that Knights use, so don;t underestimate the knight so easily. you are right..i did underestimate the knights..sorry about that.. But i still think the samurai has in a sense a better training on vital points and attacking as even though knights may have been powerful, samurai been through tougher (i think) training and even though they dont have the advantage of a shield i think they would have good tactics as well. I mean heck i guess no one would charge in head on unless it was some part of a plan.
SO I would say that the knight it better with his shield and sword but when dumping the shield the knight would be just as fast or nearly as fast as the Samurai and given the fact that Knight use double edged blades they have more killing ability accept for the Samurai because the Samurai has only one edged blades making them less fortunate .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blue-Ultimate Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:35 am
Blue-Ultimate xin-chan89 Blue-Ultimate xin-chan89 you do know that samurai have armour too...samurai are quicker even with their armours on compared to knights. Knights would probably charge in shields in their hands, sword drawn, going head first into battle. Then they get their arms cut off by a samurai... that necessarily have to happen, because I see now that you are simple underestimating the knight. not only the Samurai has had good training but the knight as well as surely you know that people won't go charging at someone without thinkig. You may know that the knight has multiple ways of defeating it's opponent. For instance lets say the knight does charge directly at the samurai, this would mean that he openly accepts to get his arm chopped of *Cough*. in most times it would mean to make a opening to block the opponents attack just to make a finishing blow. other then these I have many more techniques that Knights use, so don;t underestimate the knight so easily. you are right..i did underestimate the knights..sorry about that.. But i still think the samurai has in a sense a better training on vital points and attacking as even though knights may have been powerful, samurai been through tougher (i think) training and even though they dont have the advantage of a shield i think they would have good tactics as well. I mean heck i guess no one would charge in head on unless it was some part of a plan.
SO I would say that the knight it better with his shield and sword but when dumping the shield the knight would be just as fast or nearly as fast as the Samurai and given the fact that Knight use double edged blades they have more killing ability accept for the Samurai because the Samurai has only one edged blades making them less fortunate .hmm...yes if the knight had dropped his shield he would become faster...But i think the samurai are more agile with their moves able to dodge better than the knight as the knight has been training with a shield as well most of the time while the samurai has been training with his katana for a long period of time. Now i dont know for sure here but i think with a samurai's armour you have more flexibility than with a knights. Correct me if i'm wrong here ^^;. You are also right about the double edged swords. However when you look at the sword techniques used by knights, they seem somewhat stiff and hard to actually follow through from one blow (huge delay as most of the time they stop after each strike). However the samurai's swing is fluid, not really stopping his sword but rather shifting its weight so that the sword may change directions without stopping. Compare the two and you realized that the samurai doesnt use up energy as much energy to stop his sword and switch directions unlike the knight who stops to shift direction almost after every swing. Thus i think the samurai would also have more endurance or stamina within the battle field which is something an army needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:52 am
xin-chan89 Blue-Ultimate xin-chan89 Blue-Ultimate xin-chan89 you do know that samurai have armour too...samurai are quicker even with their armours on compared to knights. Knights would probably charge in shields in their hands, sword drawn, going head first into battle. Then they get their arms cut off by a samurai... that necessarily have to happen, because I see now that you are simple underestimating the knight. not only the Samurai has had good training but the knight as well as surely you know that people won't go charging at someone without thinkig. You may know that the knight has multiple ways of defeating it's opponent. For instance lets say the knight does charge directly at the samurai, this would mean that he openly accepts to get his arm chopped of *Cough*. in most times it would mean to make a opening to block the opponents attack just to make a finishing blow. other then these I have many more techniques that Knights use, so don;t underestimate the knight so easily. you are right..i did underestimate the knights..sorry about that.. But i still think the samurai has in a sense a better training on vital points and attacking as even though knights may have been powerful, samurai been through tougher (i think) training and even though they dont have the advantage of a shield i think they would have good tactics as well. I mean heck i guess no one would charge in head on unless it was some part of a plan.
SO I would say that the knight it better with his shield and sword but when dumping the shield the knight would be just as fast or nearly as fast as the Samurai and given the fact that Knight use double edged blades they have more killing ability accept for the Samurai because the Samurai has only one edged blades making them less fortunate .hmm...yes if the knight had dropped his shield he would become faster...But i think the samurai are more agile with their moves able to dodge better than the knight as the knight has been training with a shield as well most of the time while the samurai has been training with his katana for a long period of time. Now i dont know for sure here but i think with a samurai's armour you have more flexibility than with a knights. Correct me if i'm wrong here ^^;. You are also right about the double edged swords. However when you look at the sword techniques used by knights, they seem somewhat stiff and hard to actually follow through from one blow (huge delay as most of the time they stop after each strike). However the samurai's swing is fluid, not really stopping his sword but rather shifting its weight so that the sword may change directions without stopping. Compare the two and you realized that the samurai doesnt use up energy as much energy to stop his sword and switch directions unlike the knight who stops to shift direction almost after every swing. Thus i think the samurai would also have more endurance or stamina within the battle field which is something an army needs. Yes, that's all true but I don't know how many types of armor there are for Samurai's but there are 3 types of amor for the knight. The Chain armor - which has more vests of metal chains then actual armor for more speed. The Standard armor - has light chains under their armor and is covert in full armor accept for most joints like elbows and knees. The heavy armor - Full plated Armor for Knights who last forever on the field, and has almost impenetrable armor and is covert in FULL metal body armor. At all my explanations I use the Standard Armor, for which the knights have full maneuverability. It is true that Knights have more stop attacks, and then repeat. But it is the force of the blow that makes the opponent stun from the impact so that the knight may deliver a follow up attack. And if it's a speed battle then the Chain armors of the knights are perfect for the aspect not to get hit. and have a continuous of attacks without stopping, the longest attack combo I know has 7 attacks in a row without stopping and then a repeat of those attacks or other attacks. And to counter the endurance of the Samurai we have the Heavy armor of the knight which gives the knight a all round defense and stamina and superiority in endurance. So the knights have many types of units for close combat. but then again the Standard type unit still is capable of defeating a Samurai even without shield. So I still think the knights are the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blue-Ultimate Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:13 pm
-stares at the debate-
again, this is why I say that 1vs1 the Samurai would have to win but in a battle of the masses I'd vote knights. The armor of a knigth was simply so heavy and cumbersome that even amongst the most skilled a powerful Samurai would be able to outmaneuver and overwhelm him...if you had 100 against 100 however then the knights on their horses would basically be a large mass of bladed steel; even the Samurai for all their training could not prevail against it. I mean they could if they applied strategy (although the knights could potentially form a counter strategy) but out of sheer ability in combat they could do little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:12 pm
In defense I would say knights win. All that steel and leather could stop a rino. Samurai only wear plaited cloth armor with bamboo or sometimes copper strips weaved in to make it a bit tougher, but other than that they wear normal clothes into battle.
Diversity goes to the samurai. They train is sword, bow, bo staff, naginata, and kama and all sorts. Knights only use the sword. Maybe a bow. And the occasional axe, but other than that, samurai has longer reach with their bo's and naginatas.
Power goes to the knight. Knights are trained and bred to be powerhouses. Samurai are swifter and more fluid, trained to use subtle cuts and nicks to bleed oponents to death rather than smash their head in with a hammer.
Overall swordplay goes to the Samurai. Their whole lives samurai train with the sword, and Japanese Sword Training only consists of stances and motions. I should know, i've taken classes. Knights are only trained to go "Hulk smash" and bludgeon the enemy to death. Samurai could easily deflect a knights sword and reverse swing to catch the poor bugger under the arm. Half of japanese sword technique is blocks. Knights are trained to mow people down and rely on their sheild to keep them alive. Samurai trust only their sword, so they have to be kick a** with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:50 pm
Samurais ROCKS....
maybe they haven't got good armor,but they can do "good tricks" with katana eek Knights are slow with heavy armor...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:59 am
Samurai all the way, they are more skilled and trained, not to mention they have extra weapons in case they lose their sword. Also a samurai would go at a knight with the intent to kill and wont stop until one another dies first. Not to mention, katana can cut through swords carried by knights if the samurai is skilled enough
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Dark Lord of the Sith
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:46 pm
the Dark Lord of the Sith Samurai all the way, they are more skilled and trained, not to mention they have extra weapons in case they lose their sword. Also a samurai would go at a knight with the intent to kill and wont stop until one another dies first. Not to mention, katana can cut through swords carried by knights if the samurai is skilled enough Well, on some cases I"m sure a katana could cut through a knight's sword, but not on most. But it is true that a Samurai's sword was alot better than a knight's. Japanese swordsmiths only deemed a sword worthy if it cut through a criminal on the first try. And i'm meaning clean in half. If it didn't they re-melted it and went at it again. Plus it took them almost a year to make one, having to fold and refold the steel. Europian smiths just cranked 'em out like a machine and hoped they worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
