Conquer Club

Knight with plate and chain mail armor vs samurai in armor

viking beats them both

Samurai, no question

Even though this is a utterly and completly pointless thread i would have to say the knight, you cant beat a dude with a huge kick-ass sword, and a big sheild in shiny armour. Ive never seen a samuris armour

VS

misterman10 wrote:


VS

ohhhh, thats what samuris armor is...knight still whups em.

Blastshot wrote:Even though this is a utterly and completly pointless thread i would have to say the knight, you cant beat a dude with a huge kick-ass sword, and a big sheild in shiny armour. Ive never seen a samuris armour

Here's an image of Samurai armor.

actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this

damn you misterman! you posted it before I did!

muy_thaiguy wrote:damn you misterman! you posted it before I did!

I would suggest putting pics of each different kind of fighter in your first post

static_ice wrote:actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this

Spartans? They were called hoplites, not knights. Besides, 300 may be a good movie (just bought it today!), but it is not very historically (wrong spelling, I know) accurate. It's based off of a graphic novel.

misterman10 wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:damn you misterman! you posted it before I did!

I would suggest putting pics of each different kind of fighter in your first post

(loud annoying voice) ahhh, shut it.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

static_ice wrote:actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this

Spartans? They were called hoplites, not knights. Besides, 300 may be a good movie (just bought it today!), but it is not very historically (wrong spelling, I know) accurate. It's based off of a graphic novel.

of course, but it was very accurate in the way of showing how spartans kick persian knights' ass

static_ice wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

static_ice wrote:actually it really depends on what kind of knights, english, spartan persian etc

anyone who has seen 300 would realize this

Spartans? They were called hoplites, not knights. Besides, 300 may be a good movie (just bought it today!), but it is not very historically (wrong spelling, I know) accurate. It's based off of a graphic novel.

of course, but it was very accurate in the way of showing how spartans kick persian knights' ass

Closest thing Persians EVER had to knights were the immortals, the only armor these guys had was paper thin and did very little in protecting them. Besides, Persians didn't wear helmets.

Whenever some1 says knights i always think of the knights decked out in chain mail, with plates on over that, with a one handed sword and a metal sheild.

On 300:
the persains sheilds were whicker if i remember right, they wore a light fabric over there face with a hood over that. I believe other than that they just had a robe with maybe a little whicker armour, nothing metal. Except their swords

Blastshot wrote:Whenever some1 says knights i always think of the knights decked out in chain mail, with plates on over that, with a one handed sword and a metal sheild.

On 300:
the persains sheilds were whicker if i remember right, they wore a light fabric over there face with a hood over that. I believe other than that they just had a robe with maybe a little whicker armour, nothing metal. Except their swords

Only immortals actually had armor, and not very good, as I said before.

Peasant with a crossbow and a few hours training beats them both.

No trying to offend anybody, but what did Hecter do to make cena-rules and muy_thaiguy hate him(or her, not really sure) so much?

Honibaz

misterman10 wrote:


VS

The knight wins 7 out of ten battles due to superior technology. The Knight, 14th to 15th centuries I think, wears a full suit of interlocking steel plates. Any sword blow would have to be aimed at the small gaps of the joints. A Knight's own sword, as opposed to being swung, was rather thrust into such gaps when faced with another Knight. The Samurai Katana or sometimes the older Tashi, is a curved blade optimizing the slash and cut over the stap. Further, his armor is prodominately leather, which may well stop a swung blade, but a piercing attack is a different story.

Look up ARMA to get more research.

Neutrino wrote:Peasant with a crossbow and a few hours training beats them both.

English or Welsh Longbowman with a lifetime of training eats Genoese crossbowmen for breakfast !

Honibaz wrote:No trying to offend anybody, but what did Hecter do to make cena-rules and muy_thaiguy hate him(or her, not really sure) so much?

Honibaz

Might have something to do with why we're debating the combat merits of 14th-15th century knights and those of contemptorary Samurai.

Samurai are far superiour to knights, a muddy field would screw the knights over so bad and if I'm not mistaken samurai were around far earlier then knights or at least the heavily armoured version this thread refers to.

Also samurai should be able to move much faster and their swords are notorisly(sp) sharp, sharp enough to seperate a knights head from its shoulders I should think.

I'd probably go with the Samurai, despite the lack of hefty amour. Samurai could carry bows, and as has been noted, a good bowman takes down a knight before he can do anything. Plus, lighter means more maneuverable, so the knight never catches him. If they get knocked off their horses, the knight is pretty much unable to move, where as the Samurai is just as effective.

A samurai with a original katana?

The samurai...No questions. The chain mail wouldn't stand a second..