Knight or Samurai? - VGF

Sabrilocke · 05-12-2005, 10:26 AM

Read the title. :|
I hate to say it, but I'll have to go with Knight.
While the Samurai could move quickly, the Knight had better armor, and they could parry with their swords. Katanas weren't meant for parrying.

X-3 · 05-12-2005, 01:19 PM

I'd go with a Knight too. While a Samurai would put up a good fight, I dont think he's be able to penetrate his armour, like you said.

c_jks · 05-12-2005, 05:38 PM

I'd go with the samurai. Even though his armor isn't as good, it's much lighter. A knight's full body armor is heavy, and trying to catch a ducking, dodging, weaving samurai would wear a knight down.

***Ace Mercury*** · 05-12-2005, 06:22 PM

I'd go with the samurai. I assume he wouldn't use the katana against a guy in steel armour and go with a longbow or something.

**Booyakasha** · 05-13-2005, 09:12 AM

Knights didn't parry with their swords; they were trained either to duck a blow or parry it with their shields. The shield was mounted on the forearm and elbow, a body structure with considerable power; whereas the sword is supported by the wrist, which is comparatively weak.

The knight would hardcore win. Yes, his armour is heavier, but knights' training was designed to promote and improve strength. (I mean, knights had to stay agile; they had to be able to run up siege ladders and such.) Also, the samurai sword is lighter, as it was designed primarily for cutting, and the design of samurai armour (iron and bamboo strips) reflects this; whereas the knight's sword is heavier, and was designed for chopping. The edge might not penetrate armour, but the sheer weight of the weapon, combined with the power of the attack, was enough to maim and crush bones.

I figure, the samurai would get in a stroke or two, but as soon as the knight got in a solid hit, it'd be all over.

Liam Acerbus · 05-13-2005, 08:56 PM

^ A knight would parry with a blade if he was using a two-handed sword. Katanas and an average, European single-handed sword weigh just about the same--the katana's center of balance is located closer to the tip of the blade (giving it great slashing ability) and the center of balance of a Euro-sword is closer to the hilt. Assuming the knight had full plate armor on, he'd most likely win. If you removed armor from the equation, it'd simply be a contest of who's the better swordsman. Most of these versus questions would simply boil down to that.

Sabrilocke · 05-14-2005, 12:16 PM

If you stripped the armor from both of them, then I'd have to go with Samurai.

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 05-14-2005, 01:49 PM

SAMURAI KNIGHT.

Sabrilocke · 05-14-2005, 08:08 PM

Bad. This is not FFT.

***Heroine of the Dragon*** · 05-23-2005, 01:39 AM

Samurai Knight... ...what?? O_o It's already taken???? BAH!!!! I want a Samurai Knight too... please!!

Sabrilocke · 05-25-2005, 04:25 AM

Ok, fine! Fine!
You're gonna two job levels of Squire to become a Knight, and to become a Samurai, three job levels as a Knight, four as a Monk, and two as a Dragoon.

Spritedude · 07-11-2005, 05:35 PM

A knight would definately win. A samurai's puny sword would never penetrate a knight's armor. A knight may be slow, but eventually, he would get a hit, and samurai go bye bye.

Codiekitty · 07-11-2005, 06:04 PM

We talking knights of the same era here? Medieval knights had armor so heavy that if they got knocked over they'd be like a turtle on its back. In fact, they could drown in a small creek.

Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

Taco · 07-11-2005, 07:26 PM

samurai..just because

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you like muffins Join Muffin Land

Liam Acerbus · 07-12-2005, 06:34 PM

^^ Fifty pounds isn't very heavy (particularly when it is spread evenly over the whole body). I've seen shows on the History International Channel and jousting tourneys in real life where armored riders would fall off then get right back up. As a matter of fact, a man on the HI Channel fell off on purpose in order to prove that myth wrong.

Does the knight or Samurai even have to be using a sword? Neither had swords as the main battlefield weapon anyway...

Sabrilocke · 07-13-2005, 01:22 AM

Didn't knights use flails or something? I remember reading on this one site that sold Medeival s*** that the flail was, like, the knight's best friend in battle.

Beam Yosho the Drunkard · 07-13-2005, 02:20 AM

^^More like 100 lbs.

Liam Acerbus · 07-21-2005, 11:18 AM

^ Here is a good article written for Wikipedia. It says that a suit of full-plate armor could weigh as little as 45 pounds. What would be the point of having armor if it was so cumbersome the soldier couldn't fight very well?

^^ Knights used all sorts of weapons on the battlefield. While flails would give excellent performance when it comes to delivering blunt trama, the weapon would wear someone out quickly because of the need to keep swinging it continuously (to make sure the maximum momentum is taken advantage of when the opportunity to strike comes about). If I were a knight, I'd use a pollaxe or a warhammer. I'd be too paranoid about smashing my own face in with the flail...

[ July 21, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: A Tough Little Koopa Troopa ]

Dark Link · 07-22-2005, 10:28 AM

Its really a matter of circumstance...

1. A knight wouldn't touch a ranged weapon to save his life, it was against the moral code of all that knight's stood for. Now Some knights have in the past seen the strategic and tactical importance of ranged weaponry in a battle, but rarely emplyed it on a personal level. Let the peasants use a peasant's weapon or something along those lines.

If it was 1 on 1, knight on a horse, and a samuri with his composite bow at full range, I would go with the samuri. why? seeing as they trained with the bow more then any other weapon they had, It wouldn't take alot to take out the knight.

2. Knight's rarely fought on foot, that was the job of the Men at arms. A knight's job was to charge in with devistating effect and crush and dismantle formations of men, letting men at arms or spearmen to come in behind them and mop up the shocked, maimed, and scattered enemy. Now, take the above scenario, and change it to 100 knights vs 100 samurai, in this situation, I would go with the knights. Not all the knights would be killed in the volleys fired at them, and the sheer wieght of horses, armour, and kinetic energy of the weapons the knights were wielding (lances, swords, whatever...) Would completely dismember the samurai. I mean, It would actually be better, if they were weighted down with extremely heavy armour...so much more weight being thrown at the men standing there cringing for the impact.

3. the biggest weakness to knights were rows and rows upon pikes. Why? not because the horse was dumb and charged into the rows of pikes, impailing both rider and horse...infact, that is what you would want to happen. Rather, the horses would most likely refuse to charge into the wall of spears, thus loosing all the advantages of a knightly charge...momentum, weight, and shock power. 100 knights on horseback, vs 100 Yari Samurai(pike armed samurai)

This time, the winner would be the samurai once again, who could then move up and easily stab at the now stationary horses or knights at a distance and totally annihilate them.

4. But say the knights were diciplined enough, the horses trained to not fear the pikes. the fore runners would of course be sacrificing themselves, but it has been recorded in the past, of knights and horses charging straight into the spear wall...Now, yes, the spears work wonders on the initial charge...but thats what...5-10 knights at most killed initially? All the strengths of the charge would be preserved, and totally rip the pike armed unit a new one after the initial impact...I mean, I don't care if you got a spear...a dead horse charging full speed will not stop just because its dead...800 lbs are still going to barrel through ranks of men, disrupting the formation, allowing the knights not at the front(who arn't dead) to exploit the opening and tear the unit to pieces.

100 well diciplined knights vs 100 well diciplined Yari-Samurai: Knights win.

So, really, it depends on the circumstances and who is smarter and planned for the battle accordingly. I would be a knight though, for the sole fact that if I losted the battle, I wouldn't have to commit suicide.

[ July 22, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Rock God ]

**Prince Toad** · 07-22-2005, 07:49 PM

Random note: aren't katana supposed to be able to cut through steel? I remember somebody saying that a really sharp one, swung with full power, can cut through a car door. I doubt plate mail was much tougher than a car door. I guess the problem would be that you'd lose some speed swinging it with all your might, so the knight could block it. Still.

05-12-2005, 10:26 AM	#1
Sabrilocke Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: behind the toolshed Gender: Posts: 3,936 Thanks: 102 Thanked 41 Times in 18 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 22,983.21 Bank: 46,275.97 Total Points: 69,259.17 Donate	Read the title. :\| I hate to say it, but I'll have to go with Knight. While the Samurai could move quickly, the Knight had better armor, and they could parry with their swords. Katanas weren't meant for parrying.

05-12-2005, 01:19 PM	#2
X-3 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Brigade HQ Gender: Posts: 9,015 Thanks: 264 Thanked 276 Times in 205 Posts Blog Entries: 3 Points: 5,558.02 Bank: 0.00 Total Points: 5,558.02 Donate	I'd go with a Knight too. While a Samurai would put up a good fight, I dont think he's be able to penetrate his armour, like you said.

05-12-2005, 05:38 PM	#3
c_jks Senior Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Sacramento, CA, USA Posts: 5,631 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,839.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 3,339.00 Donate	I'd go with the samurai. Even though his armor isn't as good, it's much lighter. A knight's full body armor is heavy, and trying to catch a ducking, dodging, weaving samurai would wear a knight down.

05-12-2005, 06:22 PM	#4
*Ace Mercury* Marshmallow Knight ☆ Supermod Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Southern Ontario Gender: Posts: 18,943 Thanks: 360 Thanked 1,493 Times in 783 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 97,977.84 Bank: 12,202,050.71 Total Points: 12,300,028.55 Donate	I'd go with the samurai. I assume he wouldn't use the katana against a guy in steel armour and go with a longbow or something.

05-13-2005, 09:12 AM	#5
Booyakasha Mod of War Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Wisconsinland Gender: Posts: 6,812 Thanks: 75 Thanked 340 Times in 221 Posts Points: 9,941.64 Bank: 20,637.07 Total Points: 30,578.71 Donate	Knights didn't parry with their swords; they were trained either to duck a blow or parry it with their shields. The shield was mounted on the forearm and elbow, a body structure with considerable power; whereas the sword is supported by the wrist, which is comparatively weak. The knight would hardcore win. Yes, his armour is heavier, but knights' training was designed to promote and improve strength. (I mean, knights had to stay agile; they had to be able to run up siege ladders and such.) Also, the samurai sword is lighter, as it was designed primarily for cutting, and the design of samurai armour (iron and bamboo strips) reflects this; whereas the knight's sword is heavier, and was designed for chopping. The edge might not penetrate armour, but the sheer weight of the weapon, combined with the power of the attack, was enough to maim and crush bones. I figure, the samurai would get in a stroke or two, but as soon as the knight got in a solid hit, it'd be all over.

05-13-2005, 08:56 PM	#6
Liam Acerbus Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Somewhere between Barrow, Alaska and Rawson, Argentina... Gender: Posts: 1,200 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,606.27 Bank: 1,284.12 Total Points: 3,890.39 Donate	^ A knight would parry with a blade if he was using a two-handed sword. Katanas and an average, European single-handed sword weigh just about the same--the katana's center of balance is located closer to the tip of the blade (giving it great slashing ability) and the center of balance of a Euro-sword is closer to the hilt. Assuming the knight had full plate armor on, he'd most likely win. If you removed armor from the equation, it'd simply be a contest of who's the better swordsman. Most of these versus questions would simply boil down to that.

05-14-2005, 12:16 PM	#7
Sabrilocke Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: behind the toolshed Gender: Posts: 3,936 Thanks: 102 Thanked 41 Times in 18 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 22,983.21 Bank: 46,275.97 Total Points: 69,259.17 Donate	If you stripped the armor from both of them, then I'd have to go with Samurai.

05-14-2005, 01:49 PM	#8
Beam Yosho the Drunkard Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The oversized rock of Hawaii. Gender: Posts: 5,665 Thanks: 5 Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts Points: 22,452.39 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,952.39 Donate	SAMURAI KNIGHT.

05-14-2005, 08:08 PM	#9
Sabrilocke Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: behind the toolshed Gender: Posts: 3,936 Thanks: 102 Thanked 41 Times in 18 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 22,983.21 Bank: 46,275.97 Total Points: 69,259.17 Donate	Bad. This is not FFT.

05-23-2005, 01:39 AM	#10
*Heroine of the Dragon* The Grinnie Fool! ♥ VGFCodes Staff Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: In a pretty place surrounded by sparkly faerie dust!! Gender: Posts: 27,544 Thanks: 241 Thanked 258 Times in 190 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 17,128.90 Bank: 1,869,175.36 Total Points: 1,886,304.25 Donate	Samurai Knight... ...what?? O_o It's already taken???? BAH!!!! I want a Samurai Knight too... please!!

05-25-2005, 04:25 AM	#11
Sabrilocke Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: behind the toolshed Gender: Posts: 3,936 Thanks: 102 Thanked 41 Times in 18 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 22,983.21 Bank: 46,275.97 Total Points: 69,259.17 Donate	Ok, fine! Fine! You're gonna two job levels of Squire to become a Knight, and to become a Samurai, three job levels as a Knight, four as a Monk, and two as a Dragoon.

07-11-2005, 05:35 PM	#12
Spritedude Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: City by the Bay Gender: Posts: 928 Thanks: 14 Thanked 25 Times in 21 Posts Points: 11,964.64 Bank: 85,361.07 Total Points: 97,325.71 Donate	A knight would definately win. A samurai's puny sword would never penetrate a knight's armor. A knight may be slow, but eventually, he would get a hit, and samurai go bye bye.

07-11-2005, 06:04 PM	#13
Codiekitty Just Another Face in Red Jumpsuit Join Date: May 2001 Location: Lemmingland Gender: Posts: 19,143 Thanks: 121 Thanked 173 Times in 119 Posts Points: 43,520.72 Bank: 3,021,450.74 Total Points: 3,064,971.46 Donate	We talking knights of the same era here? Medieval knights had armor so heavy that if they got knocked over they'd be like a turtle on its back. In fact, they could drown in a small creek. Where are these lemmings going? The Super Nintendo Super Shire! Hop in line and follow them there!

07-11-2005, 07:26 PM	#14
Taco Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: there Posts: 34 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 1,072.00 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 1,572.00 Donate	samurai..just because ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you like muffins Join Muffin Land

07-12-2005, 06:34 PM	#15
Liam Acerbus Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Somewhere between Barrow, Alaska and Rawson, Argentina... Gender: Posts: 1,200 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,606.27 Bank: 1,284.12 Total Points: 3,890.39 Donate	^^ Fifty pounds isn't very heavy (particularly when it is spread evenly over the whole body). I've seen shows on the History International Channel and jousting tourneys in real life where armored riders would fall off then get right back up. As a matter of fact, a man on the HI Channel fell off on purpose in order to prove that myth wrong. Does the knight or Samurai even have to be using a sword? Neither had swords as the main battlefield weapon anyway...

07-13-2005, 01:22 AM	#16
Sabrilocke Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: behind the toolshed Gender: Posts: 3,936 Thanks: 102 Thanked 41 Times in 18 Posts Blog Entries: 1 Points: 22,983.21 Bank: 46,275.97 Total Points: 69,259.17 Donate	Didn't knights use flails or something? I remember reading on this one site that sold Medeival s*** that the flail was, like, the knight's best friend in battle.

07-13-2005, 02:20 AM	#17
Beam Yosho the Drunkard Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The oversized rock of Hawaii. Gender: Posts: 5,665 Thanks: 5 Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts Points: 22,452.39 Bank: 500.00 Total Points: 22,952.39 Donate	^^More like 100 lbs.

07-21-2005, 11:18 AM	#18
Liam Acerbus Member Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Somewhere between Barrow, Alaska and Rawson, Argentina... Gender: Posts: 1,200 Thanks: 3 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 2,606.27 Bank: 1,284.12 Total Points: 3,890.39 Donate	^ Here is a good article written for Wikipedia. It says that a suit of full-plate armor could weigh as little as 45 pounds. What would be the point of having armor if it was so cumbersome the soldier couldn't fight very well? ^^ Knights used all sorts of weapons on the battlefield. While flails would give excellent performance when it comes to delivering blunt trama, the weapon would wear someone out quickly because of the need to keep swinging it continuously (to make sure the maximum momentum is taken advantage of when the opportunity to strike comes about). If I were a knight, I'd use a pollaxe or a warhammer. I'd be too paranoid about smashing my own face in with the flail... [ July 21, 2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: A Tough Little Koopa Troopa ]

07-22-2005, 10:28 AM	#19
Dark Link Member Join Date: May 2000 Posts: 1,302 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts Points: 1,469.00 Bank: 1,000.00 Total Points: 2,469.00 Donate	Its really a matter of circumstance... 1. A knight wouldn't touch a ranged weapon to save his life, it was against the moral code of all that knight's stood for. Now Some knights have in the past seen the strategic and tactical importance of ranged weaponry in a battle, but rarely emplyed it on a personal level. Let the peasants use a peasant's weapon or something along those lines. If it was 1 on 1, knight on a horse, and a samuri with his composite bow at full range, I would go with the samuri. why? seeing as they trained with the bow more then any other weapon they had, It wouldn't take alot to take out the knight. 2. Knight's rarely fought on foot, that was the job of the Men at arms. A knight's job was to charge in with devistating effect and crush and dismantle formations of men, letting men at arms or spearmen to come in behind them and mop up the shocked, maimed, and scattered enemy. Now, take the above scenario, and change it to 100 knights vs 100 samurai, in this situation, I would go with the knights. Not all the knights would be killed in the volleys fired at them, and the sheer wieght of horses, armour, and kinetic energy of the weapons the knights were wielding (lances, swords, whatever...) Would completely dismember the samurai. I mean, It would actually be better, if they were weighted down with extremely heavy armour...so much more weight being thrown at the men standing there cringing for the impact. 3. the biggest weakness to knights were rows and rows upon pikes. Why? not because the horse was dumb and charged into the rows of pikes, impailing both rider and horse...infact, that is what you would want to happen. Rather, the horses would most likely refuse to charge into the wall of spears, thus loosing all the advantages of a knightly charge...momentum, weight, and shock power. 100 knights on horseback, vs 100 Yari Samurai(pike armed samurai) This time, the winner would be the samurai once again, who could then move up and easily stab at the now stationary horses or knights at a distance and totally annihilate them. 4. But say the knights were diciplined enough, the horses trained to not fear the pikes. the fore runners would of course be sacrificing themselves, but it has been recorded in the past, of knights and horses charging straight into the spear wall...Now, yes, the spears work wonders on the initial charge...but thats what...5-10 knights at most killed initially? All the strengths of the charge would be preserved, and totally rip the pike armed unit a new one after the initial impact...I mean, I don't care if you got a spear...a dead horse charging full speed will not stop just because its dead...800 lbs are still going to barrel through ranks of men, disrupting the formation, allowing the knights not at the front(who arn't dead) to exploit the opening and tear the unit to pieces. 100 well diciplined knights vs 100 well diciplined Yari-Samurai: Knights win. So, really, it depends on the circumstances and who is smarter and planned for the battle accordingly. I would be a knight though, for the sole fact that if I losted the battle, I wouldn't have to commit suicide. [ July 22, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Rock God ]

07-22-2005, 07:49 PM	#20
Prince Toad PC Mod Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Rookery Gender: Posts: 11,402 Thanks: 43 Thanked 56 Times in 47 Posts Points: 43,222.57 Bank: 18,304.68 Total Points: 61,527.25 Donate	Random note: aren't katana supposed to be able to cut through steel? I remember somebody saying that a really sharp one, swung with full power, can cut through a car door. I doubt plate mail was much tougher than a car door. I guess the problem would be that you'd lose some speed swinging it with all your might, so the knight could block it. Still.