Suikoden Uncouth and Informational Knowledge Old Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Knight vs. Samurai
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Adrian Magicent

Ever-Nameless, For It's Mysterious


Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Post Count: 208
Location: Chiepoo Island
528 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I meant well-trained in un-mounted combat or not. And, I was working from a plains situation as a base, and other terrain would be treated as an extra variable that could change the outcome.

Your second point was alright, however, I refered specifically to the suit and the tradition TRUE knight, not just your average warrior. Just like I meant the true samurai. It's a big difference, trust me. The suits of armor were definitely difficult. Your third point also applies as the knights I refer used them far less frequently and they were often with the common soldiers, instead.

The last point you simply mis-read. I said that they wouldn't be as good against a samurai. They're great against a knight. And, they'd be great against a samurai's armor, too, however, I'd think the gains versus the weakness would make other weapons a little better against a samurai.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Fox Hound

Former White Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 49
Location: Kingdom of Highland
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Quote:
I meant well-trained in un-mounted combat or not. And, I was working from a plains situation as a base, and other terrain would be treated as an extra variable that could change the outcome.


Not sure what you're getting at. They're very well trained on non mounted combats even though on open plains as were proven in the medieval europe wars. For your information that most these knights already been thaught the order of knighthood since they were around 8 to 11 years old and how to use weapons like lances, pikes, glaives, swords and shields . Not only that these knights were trained to hunt on early age using their thaught weapons in the jungles and open-fields (normally foxes) just to improve their instict, if it with a horse and lance they did this in order to improve their teamwork and tactics with other knights. They also spar with each-other frequently depending on what occassion, they generally well fit, and had numerous competitions. Pikes, swords, one handed swords, and of-course the most famous of them all, jousting. and had a great amount of stamina. So were they any different from a samurai? No.

For refrences the movie "Knights Tale" pretty much sums it up about those competitions but then again only around 15 % of that movie was accurate. The movie "Kingdom of Heaven" was just simply a disgrace to portray what a knight really was. except on the massacre of Hattin and the early parts regarding Godfrey.

Quote:
I refered specifically to the suit and the tradition TRUE knight, not just your average warrior. Just like I meant the true samurai. It's a big difference, trust me. The suits of armor were definitely difficult. Your third point also applies as the knights I refer used them far less frequently and they were often with the common soldiers, instead.


A true knight? a true samurai? a big difference? please elaborate because I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

A knight use pikes less frequently than common soldiers? See my earlier points, and yes they have been used since the time of the Byzantines and the Franks.
_________________
"Freedom comes at a price, Blood" - random WW II Vet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adrian Magicent

Ever-Nameless, For It's Mysterious


Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Post Count: 208
Location: Chiepoo Island
528 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

No, no, no. You seem to be taking each statement like a sentence but leaving out bits that relate to it directly. For the first part of your statement, I actually agree. I simply didn't feel a need to go into the un-mounted training since you seemed to already know. My point was simply that mounted is clearly superior to un-mounted except when terrain comes into play against it. We're not in too much disagreement here, just a little, I think.

As far as movies go, there aren't many that are truly great for showing historic reality with knights. For a number of reasons. However, I DO have to defend "Kingdom of Heaven" here, because a good number of the so-called knights weren't what would be considered knights in Europe. Which leads to my point about a true knight and true samurai.

I simply meant a historically accurate class knight and the same for samurai. So, there IS a big difference, as you already eluded to with the movies and at some other occassions. Sorry for confusing you, I guess.

But, to the final point. Yes, I would have to say that knights DID use them less frequently. It is true that they WERE used, I dispute that. I simply say that they aren't used as often by knights as common soldiers. They're still used, of course, and I admit that. I simply disagree about the amount of use.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Edge Riou

Brotherhood of Strife; Fate


Joined: 29 May 2004
Post Count: 4040
Location: Lordlake
311768 Potch
11 Soldiers
724673 Nation Points

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I don't really have an opinion of who would win between a knight and a samurai. They are from different places, so it would be kind of hard to match them against one another. Also, the painstaking research I would have to do would take too long for me to evaluate a decent fight. And it also depends on the two who were fighting because, as you know, not everyone is the same, and different people train themselves differently and have natural strengths when fighting.

If we were going by favorites, I would have to say I would want the samurai to win because a knight is more just a title, not necessarily a great fighter. But the same could bode true with a samurai.

Also, you would need to take into consideration their codes, such as chivalry. If a knight uses perfect posture and honor when marching up to the field, odds are, he would get completely owned by a Samurai. So, this question depends on so many things, I can't even consider an answer.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Zero

Blood Knights


Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Post Count: 516
Location: Sable
3523 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Well as much as I hate to sound like some Japanise fanboy, I do believe a samurai would win. The most pert reason being because of the fact that their armor is far less encumbering. Weapons wise, they most likely couldn't compete with a knight because the Katana its self was a weapon designed for mounted combat. Even the strongest of Katana's can't withstand a hit from a real heavy sword, that's not what they were designed to do after all.

I guess a better answer would be that depending on the circumstances there would be a very clear winner. I don't think any situation could arise that would leave the battle as anything more than a decisive victory for either side. That is the drawback of pitting a gargantuan metal-covered beast man, vs. a small padded ninja-esque speed demon. One will win, but they'll win in one blow.
_________________
"I came, I saw, I conquered."

Julious Cezar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Ashley Riot

The Queensguard


Joined: 20 May 2005
Post Count: 89
Location: Queendom of Falena
20000 Potch
50 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

This is easily one of the best (and, considering the site it's at, surprisingly unbiased) takes on the subject, and I more or less agree with it 100%. I was most pleased that he took so many factors into consideration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Sai Fujiwara

Executors of Divine Providence


Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Post Count: 3848
Location: Montmittel
22038 Potch
0 Soldiers
5678 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

(WARINING: Jumps in without reading anything!)

Knights Vs. Samurai?

Wow, that's a hard one... I think Samurais are more badass than knights, but knights seemed to have been portrayed as more... "saintly" I guess, but maybe I say that 'cause I come from a European background... It's not as if Samurais don't hold honor in the highest regard, but eh... I dunno, just a point of view.

I've always had a soft spot for knights, especially considering Lady Chris happens to be a knight, so that alone automatically means that knights are cool... But, man... Samurais just seem... I dunno, it's like better than a knight... They don't need big armor, they got cool swords and ninja moves!

*laffy*

I know that sounds silly, but whatever. I got a way to solve the problem... How about a SAMURAI KNIGHT!

That would be cool... Like some 1700's British army officer or some late 1800's German grenadier with a pointy hat... AND a samurai sword!

(Okay, don't say I didn't warn you guys :P )
_________________


Happily Married to the Lovely Lady Chris Lightfellow! :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
kuwaizair

blauuurgggh!


Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points

PostPosted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

acctualy, Pholph's forum has the same discussion. i wonder if anyone else is there that is here, or its just a popular topic, like Cheese vs Chocolate cake.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Starslasher

Chunks of Chaco-late.


Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 4:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Sai Fujiwara wrote:
How about a SAMURAI KNIGHT!


Or better yet, how about a Ninja Wizard! :lol:

Kuwaizair wrote:
i wonder if anyone else is there that is here, or its just a popular topic, like Cheese vs Chocolate cake.


The latter, actually. Just seeing what points people would make.


One aspect that i haven't seen people take on was diet. The Japanese before the Meiji Era did not eat meat or drink milk, and due to this, the fully grown Japanese man at that time averaged at 5'3" or so. A Samurai would not be as strong as a Knight would be, even if they held the same weapons. But were the Samurais neccessarily quicker?
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan



Bork! Bork! Bork!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Zero

Blood Knights


Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Post Count: 516
Location: Sable
3523 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Yes, yes they were. Their armor was thinner and light wieght, it wasn't at all like eastern armor. We used to dress men in a hundred pounds worth of metal and send them after eachother with huge swords that did more bashing than cutting, the Japanese emphasize on speed and defence, not something that eastern troops were notorious for. Wielding such large swords, once a swing was taken it was hard to defend against a blow that was A. Delivered quicker than your own, and B. Inside of your attack radious closer than what you're used to. That's the problem with armed fighting, when you do weapons training you have to do a substancial amount of close range training to be effective, and that was more popular amongst the Japanese.
_________________
"I came, I saw, I conquered."

Julious Cezar
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Fox Hound

Former White Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 49
Location: Kingdom of Highland
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Zero wrote:
Yes, yes they were. Their armor was thinner and light wieght, it wasn't at all like [b]eastern[b] armor . We used to dress men in a hundred pounds worth of metal and send them after eachother with huge swords that did more bashing than cutting, the Japanese emphasize on speed and defence, not something that [b]eastern[b] troops were notorious for.


Sorry, but are you reffering to Eastern or is it actually Western armour?

Quote:
Wielding such large swords, once a swing was taken it was hard to defend against a blow that was A. Delivered quicker than your own, and B. Inside of your attack radious closer than what you're used to. That's the problem with armed fighting, when you do weapons training you have to do a substancial amount of close range training to be effective, and that was more popular amongst the Japanese.


No it's not more popular amongst the Japanese, all civillization had their share on close range combat at the time. In Europe, the proof of evolving close ranged combat of the knights can be seen during the Crusade and their other Civil Wars(1100 to 1300). Since you highlighted on swords then I will give you an example on their effectiveness towards lighter armors.

Knights at the time were using straight swords dealing with lighter armours. Over the years the swords actually became longer (a bit long), and making it easier for a knight to strike another fighter/warrior/knight with or without riding a horse. A technique, favourable by knights used for thrusting, was to take the fore finger and extend it over the guard and making it easy to thrust a sword, in otherwords it's basicly an extension of the arms itself. The advantage of this style that it had a better chance on penetrating lighter armours like the ones the Saracens used.

The large swords for "bashing" that you speak of came out later. Like the "Bastard" or "Hand and a Half" swords were then popular because instead of the penetrating ability that the straight sword had, it can easily crushed an armour (light/medium/semi-heavy) by hacking/slashing instead of thrusting, and the weight of these swords were no less heavy than your average japanese swords. These Bastard swords would eventually lead to the huge 2-Handed swords usually used by the German knights.

Note that these are only Swords, there are many other type of weapons used by the knights depending on the situation.
Need I stressed though, that in Medieval Wars, only an imbicile would go on to battle using only Knights. The wars back then were about combined arms (pikemen, archers, infantries, cavalry). This also applicable to the Japanese and the Chinese.

My 2 cents.
_________________
"Freedom comes at a price, Blood" - random WW II Vet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kane of the Black Sea

Pilage and Plunder


Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Post Count: 430
Location: Kamaro
77740 Potch
208 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

To be honest early on the knight would have just gotten shot up with arrows and later on the samurai would have gotten shot with a gun. As far as close combat is concerned Knights primarily tried to keep their enemies as far away as possible, thus two handed swords, but they still had their long sword for closer combat. Samurai had their spears and katana kinda' counterparts to Knights. Assuming Two handed sword vs. Spear I'd have to say the Samurai has got the Knight beat. But when you get even closer, even though the Samurai is quicker the Katana wouldn't really last that long cutting through the armor. So close up I think the Knight would win.

Please beare in mind this is all opinion :twisted: :twisted:
_________________

Nameless Lands : Chikei - Avenging Star
Sig art by ardPSiko

All I want out of Life it to be a monkey of moderate intelligence who wears a suit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Sadness

Razor Wind


Joined: 29 May 2004
Post Count: 2243
Location: Ceresfjellet
3668814 Potch
14500 Soldiers
7777 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I think pirates would have owned both knights and samurais. Knights will be helpless in water because their armor will sink them, and the same is true with samurai.

But to be honest, I don't think you can compare these two, because they never actually met in battle. You can only construct a hypothetical situation!! There's no data!! You can't have any good theory unless you have actual data, so I don't find any of the arguments convincing.

So my suggestion is we need to have about 1000 wrestlers dressed in genuine full plate mail with two-handed swords, maces, morgensterns, fauchard forks, lucern hammers, halberds, axes, etc, and 1000 martial artists dressed in samurai armor and spears, bows, and katana. They can start like... killing each other! Then we will have some good data!
_________________
Make me feel with your razor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedCydranth

Ice Dragons


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Post Count: 3384
Location: Crystal Valley
3650446 Potch
194 Soldiers
100 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

This really reminds me of the game i used to play with my brother. Pirates, Ninjas or Robots. We would argue forever about which of the 3 could defeat which other. Although none of the evidence we had was concrete or half the time relevant, we'd somehow find a way to make our side seem like the better one.

We would claim, Pirates could beat Robots because Robots can not go into the water. If the robot chose to fly, the well aimed cannonballs would take them out midair. Robots however could easily kill the Ninja, for the invisible tactics of the ninja can not evade the infared sight of the robots. Also that the steel katanas would do little damage to a robot. And lastly The ninjas could beat the pirates because of their ninja speed, it allows them to run on water. Also invisibility plays a key role in the defeat of the seafaring scurvy-dogs.

Yes, robots don't exist and just about everything about ninjas is based upon saturday morning cartoons rather than fact, but the idea was a fun one.

Knights vs Samurai? Totally the knights. Uther Pendragon and Sir Lancelot would so crush the Samurai Pizza Cats. No contenst.
_________________
I'm sorry and I apologize are the same thing.
Except at a funeral.

Fantasy Football (NFL) Sign Ups in Sports Forum!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raze

Shinigami


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Post Count: 418
Location: Warrior's Village - Lorimar Region
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Ashley Riot wrote:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

This is easily one of the best (and, considering the site it's at, surprisingly unbiased) takes on the subject, and I more or less agree with it 100%. I was most pleased that he took so many factors into consideration.


I too, agree with the article, as there are far too many factors to consider, and even if one were to consider them all, there still is a large area of amibiguity to say for certain which one would come out on top for certain.

The article wrote:
The better Japanese armor was constructed of small overlapping lacquered metal scales or plates tied together with silk cords in order to specifically resist the slicing cut of the katana. It allowed good freedom of movement while offering excellent protection. But if it got wet, the silk cords soaked up water and it became terribly heavy. Though the earliest styles of samurai armor were designed with large square plates more as a defense against arrows, the later forms were intended primarily to be used by and against similarly equipped swordsmen and to lessen the tremendous cutting capacity of their swords. It was durable, effective, and provided for ample movement. But how would it hold up to the stabs of a narrowly pointed knightly sword? This is an important question.

Medieval European armor was designed and shaped more to deflect strikes and absorb blunt force blows from lances and swords. A knight's armor varied from simple byrnies of fine riveted maile ("chainmaile") that could absorb slices and prevent cuts, to well-padded soft jackets, and metal coats-of-plates which were designed equally to protect from concussion weapons as penetrating thrusts. Maile armor existed in numerous styles and patterns but arguably reached its zenith in 15th century Western Europe, where closely-woven riveted links could resist any drawing slice as well as being proof against many slashes and thrusts from swords. Maile of such equivalent was not used in Japan.

A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move.


As the article (and others) have said, traditional European armors didn't restrict or hinder as greatly as Hollywood movies depict them to be. The European swords were also very light and offered more finesse than what Hollywood depicts as well.

The article wrote:
Knightly blades could be excellent swords, but are often denigrated merely as crude hunks of iron while samurai swords are venerated and exalted sometimes to the point of absurdity by collectors and enthusiasts (something the Japanese themselves do not discourage). Bad films and poorly trained martial artists reinforce this myth. The bottom line is that Medieval swords were indeed well-made, light, agile fighting weapons equally capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving deep into body cavities. They were far from the clumsy, heavy things they're often portrayed as in popular media and far, far more than a mere "club with edges." Interestingly, the weight of katanas compared to longswords is very close with each on average being less than 4 pounds.


Were I to answer this question before reading this article, and performing a little reasearch beforehand, I probably would have sided with the samurai being the better warior, due to my negligence and misconceptions of classical European warfare. Now, I would say that it all depends and that it is very difficult to say, but I think that the knights definately have a size and reach advantage on the samurai, which plays a large role in combat.
_________________

Rend. Slaughter. Devour your enemies. There is no other way to survive. You cannot escape your hunger, warriors of Purgatory.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me