100 Medival Knights vs. 100 Samurai

[AbAbber2k]

I'm sorry, but the possible difference in speed isn't going to be a catch-all win for the Samurai. Plate armor + Shield = INCREDIBLY effective defense.

As for the weight issue...

From Wikipedia: "While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 45 pounds if well made of tempered steel. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle." That suggests that "only" 70lbs is well within the realm of possibility. Plus, like the information says, the weight is spread over the body... it's not like you've got a barbell with 100lbs sitting on your shoulders.

Edit: HAHAHA nice edit btw... way to cut out the most credible piece of my argument... the edition of "OMG OMG DUMBASS" is quite a gut-buster as well.

 

[Legend]

Ah, okay, I didn't know plate mail was that light.

That kind of gives the knights an edge.

Looks like the only chance samurai would have in an open battlefield would to use spears to knock them off their horses.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Edit: HAHAHA nice edit btw... way to cut out the most credible piece of my argument... the edition of "OMG OMG DUMBASS" is quite a gut-buster as well. You sir are a fvcking moron.

Well that's what your post screams. And you continue to do it.

 

[yosuke188]

Samurai. Japanese are way smarter.

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Edit: HAHAHA nice edit btw... way to cut out the most credible piece of my argument... the edition of "OMG OMG DUMBASS" is quite a gut-buster as well. You sir are a fvcking moron.

Well that's what your post screams. And you continue to do it.

Right... me slamming rediculous arguments based purely on FICTION and then providing additional arguments based on factual evidence makes me some kind of idiot? Try again.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Edit: HAHAHA nice edit btw... way to cut out the most credible piece of my argument... the edition of "OMG OMG DUMBASS" is quite a gut-buster as well. You sir are a fvcking moron.

Well that's what your post screams. And you continue to do it.

Right... me slamming rediculous arguments based purely on FICTION and then providing additional arguments based on factual evidence makes me some kind of idiot? Try again.

Never did I call you anything. I just pointed out that your posts are full of personal insults.

 

[Agaruvala]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
100 Pirates FTW!!!

100 Ninjas FTRealW

Ninjas could take them any day

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Legend
Never did I call you anything. I just pointed out that your posts are full of personal insults.

Implied or explicitly stated makes no different. People are stupid and they deserve to know it. The American education system (K-12) PANDERS to idiocy and our colleges are slowly following suit (Der... the curve is unfair! *cry cry*). If someone is dumb enough to think taking Tae Kwon Do at the YMCA makes them a martial arts expert, they're not gonna figure out how stupid they are unless someone points it out for them. And in the end, I'm just the kind of asshole who doesn't have any problems doing the pointing.

 

[everman]

Hm, someone should start a Star Wars vs. Star Trek thread, the server would melt...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your answer is here

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Your answer is here

Read that before. Definitly worth glancing over for anyone interested in the subject matter. Seems fairly unbiased as well.

 

[RedBeard]

Knights are practically invincible**. They can continue to fight even after all their appendages have been removed. They can lose more blood then they contain. Want fighting spirit? They will even bite their opponents! Shove that up your pipe and smoke it all you samauri lovers!


** See the historival document: Monty Python and The quest for the Holy Grail. (black knight)

 

[PingSpike]

I personally think the samurai and his sword are over romanticized in this thread and the knight in plate armor is falsely preceived as slow, less trained and the defense of his amor downplayed. They were both career warriors, so they both would have a heavy emphasis on fighting skills and horsemanship.

A knights plate armor pretty much totally defeats slashing attacks, which is the principle use of the katana. Read that excellent comparison, it doesn't sound like a cut and dry affair.

 

[Sureshot324]

Knights would win.

Caucasions are generally larger than asians and that makes a huge difference in melee combat, even with weapons. Also, the reason the samauri didn't have full plate armour is not because they didn't want it, but because metal was scarce in japan. Full plate does reduce mobiliy, but samauri wouldn't have a chance at penatrating it with their katanas. Also the samauri bows didn't have a very long range, so if knights were charging them on horseback, they might get one or 2 arrows off before the knights reached them, and those would mostly be blocked by shields.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324
Knights would win.

Caucasions are generally larger than asians and that makes a huge difference in melee combat, even with weapons. Also, the reason the samauri didn't have full plate armour is not because they didn't want it, but because metal was scarce in japan. Full plate does reduce mobiliy, but samauri wouldn't have a chance at penatrating it with their katanas. Also the samauri bows didn't have a very long range, so if knights were charging them on horseback, they might get one or 2 arrows off before the knights reached them, and those would mostly be blocked by shields.

The thrusting techniques used with katanas could penetrate through the gaps in the armor. A yumi can propel an arrow over 200 yards with deadly force.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Michael Knight FTW!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

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.

Any one of those guys could do it alone, as a team that's just scarey.

 

[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.

 

[HamSupLo]

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.

they were vastly outnumbered. they were thousands of miles from home. They might have replenished their ranks with units from areas they they've conquered.

it doesn't diminsh the fact that they beat Polish knights that were better armored than they were. By that example, then I think the Samurais have an equal footing with knights since the assumption that heavy armor equals supremacy is debunked by the mongolian victories in east europe.

 

[kaishaku72]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
This thread is hilarious because half the people responding got all their 3l33t info from movies which teach us a) European Knights are slow, untrained, and stupid. And b) A Samurai wielding a Katana can cut through a bus.

And now, a list of completely retarded arguments from all the posters who obviously don't know wtf they're talking about!

They'd skewer a knight before he would be able to get a full swing.

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. If there's no immediate point of weakness, the samurai wouldn't just stand there waiting to be killed. They may retreat, finding that the armor is dishonorable, and ambush the knights camp unexpectedly.

I took Tae Kwon Doe as a kid

And of course, anyone who used the Mongols vs Samurai argument is an idiot and should stfu. No ****** the Mongols got owned when they landed on a BEACH and were met with resistance. Duh? You think the Americans took the beach in WWII because they had l33t samurai fighting skillz? Do you have any idea how MANY people we landed? Overwhelming numbers ftw.

Ignorance FTW!

BTW, the Kite shield was one of the most versatile weapons ever created. Not only was it used for defense, but it could slam the opponent or be swung in a cleaving motion for sharp blows to the enemy's head. In addition to deflecting attacks, many shields had no metal, so a cleaving blow from a sword could actually cause the sword to EMBED in the shield giving the knights additional opportunities to strike at their foe.

FACT: Both Knights and Samurai were highly trained individuals... since they were old enough to pick up a training sword. Bother were also trained to grabble and use unconventional fighting techniques, like using the hilt or butt of the sword to strike the opponent when they were to close to use a full swing.

FACT: Not all "knights" used impossibly huge swords like in movies and video games... many favored weapons that could be wielded in addition to a shield.

Who would win? I don't know. Personally I think it'd be pretty damn close and dependant on the environment. Basing the argument purely on equipment Knights definitly... samurai armor just can't compare and a sword like the katana isn't built to get through plate and chain. Based on training I have to go with a draw, since both are elite warriors trained since their youth and are both not only skilled with their weapons but without them as well.

Best post. It's easy to guess who most people will choose.

 

[Ramma2]

It was a close one...

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?la...ai+warriors&word2=100+medieval+knights

 

[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....

 

[oddyager]

Interesting responses. How powerful were the Samurai longbows? If they were anything like the English longbows, keep in mind, that a unit of English archers armed with them completely owned French mounted knights. In fact, the invention of the longbow I'm pretty sure was what started the end of heavy armored knights.

 

[feelingshorter]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: JackOfHearts
In an open field 100 amored knights on war horses vs 100 guys with honor on foot? Knights for the win.

Samurais were mounted archers.

exactly, would own the knights before they even got close enough to use their lance

Plus, knights were so armored that if they fell down off their horse, they wouldnt be able to get back up.

 

[thecrecarc]

Originally posted by: Eeezee

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.

that is totally wrong...

choose any ONE of those 3 and it can beat up both armyys plus 100 ninjas with 1 eye closed, on 1 foot and using 1 arm.