100 Medival Knights vs. 100 Samurai

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Legend
The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword.

And you know this because you have worn armor and trained in swordplay for how long?

I know this from common sense. 100s of lbs of armor will slow you down. Samurai were trained from youth to be fast and precise.

As opposed to european knights, who were trained to be slow and clumsy.

LOL.... that made my day

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Ghouler

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: HamSupLo
the advantage of armor is moot since the mongols defeated knights in eastern europe.

Right, considering they sacked towns with 100:1 advanatages in numbers. The Mongol conquest of eastern Europe wasn't quite like what Alexander pulled off with his meager forces.

It's not armor or weapons. It's strategy that counts. Mongol conquest of eastern europe consisted of quick raids into the land and back. That's why it was so successful. It was unheard of in this part of the world.

Strategy is mastered in actual war therefore we cannot really determine what WOULD happen.

Having said that : if the knights took appropriate strategic approach and used cross-bows they would wipe samurais out....

*sigh* the crossbow. short ranged only.. u know in CS how when someone decently good knows how to circle strafe, pistoling someone gets a lot harder?

same concept. That's exactly why the longbow OWNED.

 

[Finalnight]

Jedi

 

[SpedeRacer]

Samurai. Tom Cruise x100. GG.

 

[Michael]

I personally have fought 100's of fights in armor with a kite shield vs. opponents with a katana (two-handed) or with two-swords. There is no doubt at all that sword and shield is, on average, better.

Only people who have not actually worn armor and realized just how well spread out the weight is would spout nonsense about it slowing the knights down enough to make a difference. Only someone who hasn't swung a "long sword" and a katana would make a foolish statement about how much faster the katana is.

I would say that both groups would have a chance of winning as terrain, morale, luck, etc. all can play a major role.

The whole mongol discussion is a red herring as well. Firstly, the various Arabic and Turkish forces that fought in the Crusades used the same "fake running away" tactic and were horse archers, actually beat the Mongols and were beaten plenty of times by knights. Secondly, the Mongol Horde tended to have numerical superiority as well.

Michael
Where I did most of my fighting in. I'm a Knight in that organization

 

[saahmed]

Obviously samurai. And where the hell did this stupid thread spawn from? mere boredom?

 

[smorrow27]

Knights never bathed. They die of cholera. Game over.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Michael
The whole mongol discussion is a red herring as well. Firstly, the various Arabic and Turkish forces that fought in the Crusades used the same "fake running away" tactic and were horse archers, actually beat the Mongols and were beaten plenty of times by knights. Secondly, the Mongol Horde tended to have numerical superiority as well.

The Mongols beat the Arabic armies a lot more times then vice versa. The Mongols first major military setback was during Genghis Khan's grandsons rule when he went up against the Mamelukes.

 

[chr6]

Originally posted by: MasterAndCommander
A trio of Chuck Norris, Mr. T, and Vin Diesel would mow down both groups of Knights and Samurai's as a warm up exercise.

QFT

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Mo0o
Did the japanese bow pack enough punch to pierce medieval armour? I remember a history channel show that showed the british long bow actually wasn't the major factor in the battle of Agincourt, implying the knight's armour was relatively impervious to damage. With the way the katana is made and meant to be used, its meant to make smooth slices through soft tissue or leather as opposed to cleaving and manhandling medieval armour.

I don't know about that. The British longbow was able to pierce armor big time. There was evidence showing the arrow going through a guy's chest, out his back and then into the horse...

Given that the longbow has a range of 250 yards or so, I would guess that makes sense. No crossbow can come close.

Don't know though... It takes immense power to draw a longbow, and to pierce armor would definitely take a lot of strength....