Knight vs. Ninja

[QUOTE="SeraphimGoddess"]Guys, guys, guys. Deadliest Warrior confirmed Spartan > Ninja, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that a more modern and heavily armed Knight could do the same.grape_of_wrath

Agreed. And their self declared scientific model makes me laugh.

in one on one combat? knight, no doubt about it...people think ninjas are these really good duelist that move at superhuman speeds, but in reality theyre just really, really quiet with extremely specialized equipment that does not fare well in direct combat.

Conversely, if the ninja were doing his job he would kill the knight in his sleep or while he was off duty.

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="SeraphimGoddess"]Guys, guys, guys. Deadliest Warrior confirmed Spartan > Ninja, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume that a more modern and heavily armed Knight could do the same.grape_of_wrath

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]

[QUOTE="natanaj"]Okay. Let's give the knight maximillian plate, a heater shield and arming sword, a dagger, a halberd, a crossbow, and a morningstar.natanaj

[QUOTE="natanaj"][QUOTE="jeremiah06"] You think he could even move in maximillian plate and a heater shield? The Kanabo could not only disarm the shield but it could knock the knight out cold with one head blow(armor doesn't block concussive force)

jeremiah06

A samurai, assuming, he is wearing armor would have to be firmly planted to strike a blow at a knight, and regardless of whether or not he is wearing armor, would have to plant himself for a strike with a force sufficient enough to make a meaningful impact upon any armored target. While planted, he is open to strike. and won't clear the striking radius of the knight before he recovers from the momentum shift to his weapon. Unless the knight is using a heavy two handed weapon, and it is on the ground, evasion seems impossible.

[QUOTE="natanaj"][QUOTE="jeremiah06"] You think he could even move in maximillian plate and a heater shield? The Kanabo could not only disarm the shield but it could knock the knight out cold with one head blow(armor doesn't block concussive force)

jeremiah06

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="natanaj"]Like I said before, you don't know anything about knights. Knights had padding in their helmets that protected them from longbow arrows which were more powerful than the yumi bow. And by the time the samurai lifted up his kanabo to strike, the knight will just stab in with his sword end of story.coolbeans90

A samurai, assuming, he is wearing armor would have to be firmly planted to strike a blow at a knight, and regardless of whether or not he is wearing armor, would have to plant himself for a strike with a force sufficient enough to make a meaningful impact upon any armored target. While planted, he is open to strike. and won't clear the striking radius of the knight before he recovers from the momentum shift to his weapon. Unless the knight is using a heavy two handed weapon, and it is on the ground, evasion seems impossible.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] I didn't say anything about the bow... Also the Samurai would be much faster than a Knight in Maximillian armor. Your whole "just stab him" fails it's not as simple as that.jeremiah06

A samurai, assuming, he is wearing armor would have to be firmly planted to strike a blow at a knight, and regardless of whether or not he is wearing armor, would have to plant himself for a strike with a force sufficient enough to make a meaningful impact upon any armored target. While planted, he is open to strike. and won't clear the striking radius of the knight before he recovers from the momentum shift to his weapon. Unless the knight is using a heavy two handed weapon, and it is on the ground, evasion seems impossible.

[QUOTE="natanaj"][QUOTE="jeremiah06"] Sure Knight's had training but they were basically brutes. They didn't use their weapons with as much finesse as a Samurai did. The knight hacked away at their opponents like lumber jacks. Now if we are talking about chain-mail Knights than thats different but Plate knights(which is what we were discussing) weren't about skill.jeremiah06

yes, and the priests and shamans healed from the back too, I suppose :P

Kidding aside, plate-wearing soldiers were not "tanks", they were simply rich soldiers (or soldiers of the rich) that chose the best armor and equipment because they could afford. If leather- and chainmail-wearing soldiers could have opted for it, they would have.

With that said, the only drawback a knight suffered was a lack of mobility; they couldnt run well, and they could not jump back. But they didnt need to, because they had A.) the best swordplay money and time could buy, and B.) heavy armor to fend off attacks to would otherwise kill or incapacitate anyone in lighter armor.

Knights were educated, wealthy, and above all esle, career soldiers. They would not wear something that would make them vulnerable to an opponent with a dagger in fabric clothing, simply because the peasants they might be fighting would be equipped with exactly that.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"]

[QUOTE="natanaj"] Once again, you are proving to be very ignorant. the plate male knights were not brutes. They actually trained too use skill. If the knights were brutes, so were the samurai.mrbojangles25

yes, and the priests and shamans healed from the back too, I suppose :P

Kidding aside, plate-wearing soldiers were not "tanks", they were simply rich soldiers (or soldiers of the rich) that chose the best armor and equipment because they could afford. If leather- and chainmail-wearing soldiers could have opted for it, they would have.

With that said, the only drawback a knight suffered was a lack of mobility; they couldnt run well, and they could not jump back. But they didnt need to, because they had A.) the best swordplay money and time could buy, and B.) heavy armor to fend off attacks to would otherwise kill or incapacitate anyone in lighter armor.

Knights were educated, wealthy, and above all esle, career soldiers. They would not wear something that would make them vulnerable to an opponent with a dagger in fabric clothing, simply because the peasants they might be fighting would be equipped with exactly that.

Those in favour of the Knight do have a point but i cannot assume they are doing so from facts.If anyone has watchd documentaries about Ninjas,you would know that these guys were referd to as if they were spirit or myths.

They killed anyone they wanted with wateva they can e.g SPOON amongs other things,infact they know anatomy so well they cud paralyze n kill a target with a single blow(yes i watched an American who studied ninjitsu deliver a punch with the same shock power of a Defibrator).

I think the Knight is an awesome warrior and would definately hold his own or can also win most deff but on average Ninjas would take thier cake

Ninja.. because any ninja worth his salt would ambush a knight or shoot a bow from afar.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] I didn't say anything about the bow... Also the Samurai would be much faster than a Knight in Maximillian armor. Your whole "just stab him" fails it's not as simple as that.jeremiah06

A samurai, assuming, he is wearing armor would have to be firmly planted to strike a blow at a knight, and regardless of whether or not he is wearing armor, would have to plant himself for a strike with a force sufficient enough to make a meaningful impact upon any armored target. While planted, he is open to strike. and won't clear the striking radius of the knight before he recovers from the momentum shift to his weapon. Unless the knight is using a heavy two handed weapon, and it is on the ground, evasion seems impossible.

Of course they were not invincible. Longbows decimated knights, particularly on foot. Once gunpowder came into play, knights became obsolete. However their armor was the product of hundreds of years of hand to hand combat in Europe, a war riddled continent at that point in history. Japanese weapons were not designed to break or puncture through plate armor, or slice through chain mail the grade which knights wore. The Samurai, unless he managed to get a knight to take a self-negligent blow (such as a two handed sword on the ground) he would not get an opening to make any blow without opening himself to a hit. If a Samurai used a kanabo, he can check his speed and manoeuvrability at the door. Furthermore, how the hell would he make a blow to the head with that? The knight either has a heavy shield or a two handed sword, either quite capable of taking an initial blow. A blow from a two handed weapon such as a kanabo would necessitate that the Samurai would open himself to attack.

A ninja, there speed and agility would be the winning factor of the battle, i still like knights, but being heavy armored would slow them down, the ninja being fast would easily defeat the knight and even if the fighting is not cqc, the ninja would most likely dodge any ranged weapons the knight would have. You also have to take in to consideration that a ninja is stealthy, and could easily kill the knight if he sneaked up on him

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] Ignorant because I disagree? Name calling aside... That armor was too heavy to allow any advanced fighting skills. The plate mail(the correct spelling) knights acted as tanks to over power their less armored opponents. While their chain mailed allies handled the speed and skill situations.

jeremiah06

yes, and the priests and shamans healed from the back too, I suppose :P

Kidding aside, plate-wearing soldiers were not "tanks", they were simply rich soldiers (or soldiers of the rich) that chose the best armor and equipment because they could afford. If leather- and chainmail-wearing soldiers could have opted for it, they would have.

With that said, the only drawback a knight suffered was a lack of mobility; they couldnt run well, and they could not jump back. But they didnt need to, because they had A.) the best swordplay money and time could buy, and B.) heavy armor to fend off attacks to would otherwise kill or incapacitate anyone in lighter armor.

Knights were educated, wealthy, and above all esle, career soldiers. They would not wear something that would make them vulnerable to an opponent with a dagger in fabric clothing, simply because the peasants they might be fighting would be equipped with exactly that.

Getting behind even a knight in one on one combat would be an impressive feat for an unarmored man. The amount of distance one would have to cover around a radius outside of the other warriors striking range while the other guy just rotates makes the entire idea sound silly. You want to get behind someone? You ambush them.

Those in favour of the Knight do have a point but i cannot assume they are doing so from facts.If anyone has watchd documentaries about Ninjas,you would know that these guys were referd to as if they were spirit or myths.

They killed anyone they wanted with wateva they can e.g SPOON amongs other things,infact they know anatomy so well they cud paralyze n kill a target with a single blow(yes i watched an American who studied ninjitsu deliver a punch with the same shock power of a Defibrator).

I think the Knight is an awesome warrior and would definately hold his own or can also win most deff but on average Ninjas would take thier cake

megaspiderweb09

A ninja wouldn't even try killing a man armored from head to toe with spoon or a ninjitsu punch or whatever.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

A samurai, assuming, he is wearing armor would have to be firmly planted to strike a blow at a knight, and regardless of whether or not he is wearing armor, would have to plant himself for a strike with a force sufficient enough to make a meaningful impact upon any armored target. While planted, he is open to strike. and won't clear the striking radius of the knight before he recovers from the momentum shift to his weapon. Unless the knight is using a heavy two handed weapon, and it is on the ground, evasion seems impossible.

coolbeans90

Of course they were not invincible. Longbows decimated knights, particularly on foot. Once gunpowder came into play, knights became obsolete. However their armor was the product of hundreds of years of hand to hand combat in Europe, a war riddled continent at that point in history. Japanese weapons were not designed to break or puncture through plate armor, or slice through chain mail the grade which knights wore. The Samurai, unless he managed to get a knight to take a self-negligent blow (such as a two handed sword on the ground) he would not get an opening to make any blow without opening himself to a hit. If a Samurai used a kanabo, he can check his speed and manoeuvrability at the door. Furthermore, how the hell would he make a blow to the head with that? The knight either has a heavy shield or a two handed sword, either quite pable of taking an initial blow. A blow from a two handed weapon such as a kanabo would necessitate that the Samurai would open himself to attack.

A ninja, there speed and agility would be the winning factor of the battle, i still like knights, but being heavy armored would slow them down, the ninja being fast would easily defeat the knight and even if the fighting is not cqc, the ninja would most likely dodge any ranged weapons the knight would have. You also have to take in to consideration that a ninja is stealthy, and could easily kill the knight if he sneaked up on him

maptheninja

Ninjas used farm tools not designed to puncture plate armor. And dodging things like crossbows seems unlikely. The only real shot a ninja would have is stealth.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

A samurai, assuming, he is wearing armor would have to be firmly planted to strike a blow at a knight, and regardless of whether or not he is wearing armor, would have to plant himself for a strike with a force sufficient enough to make a meaningful impact upon any armored target. While planted, he is open to strike. and won't clear the striking radius of the knight before he recovers from the momentum shift to his weapon. Unless the knight is using a heavy two handed weapon, and it is on the ground, evasion seems impossible.

coolbeans90

Of course they were not invincible. Longbows decimated knights, particularly on foot. Once gunpowder came into play, knights became obsolete. However their armor was the product of hundreds of years of hand to hand combat in Europe, a war riddled continent at that point in history. Japanese weapons were not designed to break or puncture through plate armor, or slice through chain mail the grade which knights wore. The Samurai, unless he managed to get a knight to take a self-negligent blow (such as a two handed sword on the ground) he would not get an opening to make any blow without opening himself to a hit. If a Samurai used a kanabo, he can check his speed and manoeuvrability at the door. Furthermore, how the hell would he make a blow to the head with that? The knight either has a heavy shield or a two handed sword, either quite capable of taking an initial blow. A blow from a two handed weapon such as a kanabo would necessitate that the Samurai would open himself to attack.

Which carry the pocket explosives? Right...

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] So you're implying that knights were invincible? You think this is some sort of turn based battle? The Samurai would use his speed advantage to outmaneuver. It's not all about the death blow. Wearing that huge armor is already taxing not even factoring in repeated blows to the head from the Kanabo...jeremiah06

Of course they were not invincible. Longbows decimated knights, particularly on foot. Once gunpowder came into play, knights became obsolete. However their armor was the product of hundreds of years of hand to hand combat in Europe, a war riddled continent at that point in history. Japanese weapons were not designed to break or puncture through plate armor, or slice through chain mail the grade which knights wore. The Samurai, unless he managed to get a knight to take a self-negligent blow (such as a two handed sword on the ground) he would not get an opening to make any blow without opening himself to a hit. If a Samurai used a kanabo, he can check his speed and manoeuvrability at the door. Furthermore, how the hell would he make a blow to the head with that? The knight either has a heavy shield or a two handed sword, either quite capable of taking an initial blow. A blow from a two handed weapon such as a kanabo would necessitate that the Samurai would open himself to attack.

How powerful were they? The ones utilized in Europe were taller than a man, designed to pierce thick armor and had a draw force of well in excess of 100 LBs. Even then it wasn't enough to pierce all parts of the armor. All sorts of infantry are essentially equally susceptible to archery, since at least in medieval times, archery was used en masse targeting groups of soldiers to break ranks etc. Dodging a fleet of incoming arrows while in rank and file is not exactly possible. It was just a single battle in particular, Agincourt, where Knights were wiped the floor with. In that particular battle though, the reason the knights were obliterated was due to the muddy conditions, they were required to dismount and engage on foot. Of course a blunt trauma blow blow from behind could kill an armored man, but getting behind someone is a difficult task. Running behind a knight necessitates running around a knight. Assuming he doesn't have a death wish, he simply needs to rotate while the heavily armed Samurai attempts to take a comparatively lengthy run around the knight. I mean, a knight is slow, but not stuck.

Ninja definetlely.

Speed always beats brute stregnth (assuming your arn't stupid and over commit in a single attack), as emphasised by the fact that modern swordfighting (fencing)has boiled down to qiuickly stabing the foe before he does, instead of taking big long slashes and windups.

BTW, just to clear this up for people;

Samurai wore armor that was almost as heavy and cumbersome of that of the medieval night, so in the end it comes down to skill and the quality of the blade. And Samurai swords were much sharper, and more prescice than Medieval swords.

Ninja definetlely.

Speed always beats brute stregnth (assuming your arn't stupid and over commit in a single attack), as emphasised by the fact that modern swordfighting (fencing)has boiled down to qiuickly stabing the foe before he does, instead of taking big long slashes and windups.

Fundai

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"] Ignorant because I disagree? Name calling aside... That armor was too heavy to allow any advanced fighting skills. The plate mail(the correct spelling) knights acted as tanks to over power their less armored opponents. While their chain mailed allies handled the speed and skill situations.

jeremiah06

yes, and the priests and shamans healed from the back too, I suppose :P

Kidding aside, plate-wearing soldiers were not "tanks", they were simply rich soldiers (or soldiers of the rich) that chose the best armor and equipment because they could afford. If leather- and chainmail-wearing soldiers could have opted for it, they would have.

With that said, the only drawback a knight suffered was a lack of mobility; they couldnt run well, and they could not jump back. But they didnt need to, because they had A.) the best swordplay money and time could buy, and B.) heavy armor to fend off attacks to would otherwise kill or incapacitate anyone in lighter armor.

Knights were educated, wealthy, and above all esle, career soldiers. They would not wear something that would make them vulnerable to an opponent with a dagger in fabric clothing, simply because the peasants they might be fighting would be equipped with exactly that.

sorry I thought we were arguing over ninja vs knight, not samurai. Ninjas did wear essentially pajamas and sandals as they could not afford any extra weight.

Also, concerning the myth of the ninja, I think a more appropriate analogy would be a simple comparison to modern-day ninjas, aka "spies" and the like of the CIA, MI6, Mossad, etc.. Ninjas were spies to the utmost; they would blend in. Confrontation was at the bottom of their lists. They would listen, trade information for material wealth, conduct espionage. Assassination was in their repertoire, but not frequently conducted. Direct conflict was avoided at all costs

Still, I dont think mobility, at least within melee range, is an issue for either the knight or samurai.

Keep in mind that while knights did fight other knights, they also fought unarmored "savages" from various parts of the world that were easily as mobile and agile as any samurai, and were used to conducting guerilla warfare. Knights managed against these tribes, so I think they could manage against a mobile foe on the battlefield.

i'm gonna go with the Ninja

The knight of course.

Knight! If they wore no armor and each had nothing but a sword I would pick the knight.

Which carry the pocket explosives. Right...BranKetra

well, given that they are excellent at stealth, ill say ninja because they can always sneak up on the knight and assassinate them halo: reach style 8)

well, given that they are excellent at stealth, ill say ninja because they can always sneak up on the knight and assassinate them halo: reach style 8)

Neo-ganon

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]Which carry the pocket explosives. Right...surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

Ninja definetlely.

Speed always beats brute stregnth (assuming your arn't stupid and over commit in a single attack), as emphasised by the fact that modern swordfighting (fencing)has boiled down to qiuickly stabing the foe before he does, instead of taking big long slashes and windups.

natanaj

Wern't quicker than Ninjas were though. But yes to be fair, Knights wern't just brute force.

Ninja definetlely.

Speed always beats brute stregnth (assuming your arn't stupid and over commit in a single attack), as emphasised by the fact that modern swordfighting (fencing)has boiled down to qiuickly stabing the foe before he does, instead of taking big long slashes and windups.

Fundai

yeah but a rapier (common fencing sword)isnt even going to pierce armor, its just going to glance off. So maybe if the argument was unarmored samurai vs unarmored knight, sure, the samurai would win. I would notargue against that.

Also, on a slight side note, I am friends with a huge bear of a man (6'6'', about 330 pounds) who fences and beats all the small, quick guys frequently. Just saying speed rarely beats brute strength...if that were true, then smaller people would beat up larger people, and there would be no need for weight classes in boxing and MMA. Contrary to popular belief, it is the size of the dog in the fight that matters.

Conversely, a heavier broad sword is going to do some damage, knock people off balance, etc. Knights were accustomed to knight vs knight combat, in addition to fighting unarmored, agile foes.

A samurai can poke and slash all he wants with his sword, but it simply doesnt have enough force to slice through armor, or at least plate armor.

This guy.

Ninja because they're way cooler.

Both are cool, but I've always liked knights a little more.

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

Ninja definetlely.

Speed always beats brute stregnth (assuming your arn't stupid and over commit in a single attack), as emphasised by the fact that modern swordfighting (fencing)has boiled down to qiuickly stabing the foe before he does, instead of taking big long slashes and windups.

mrbojangles25

yeah but a rapier (common fencing sword)isnt even going to pierce armor, its just going to glance off. So maybe if the argument was unarmored samurai vs unarmored knight, sure, the samurai would win. I would notargue against that.

Also, on a slight side note, I am friends with a huge bear of a man (6'6'', about 330 pounds) who fences and beats all the small, quick guys frequently. Just saying speed rarely beats brute strength...if that were true, then smaller people would beat up larger people, and there would be no need for weight classes in boxing and MMA. Contrary to popular belief, it is the size of the dog in the fight that matters.

Conversely, a heavier broad sword is going to do some damage, knock people off balance, etc. Knights were accustomed to knight vs knight combat, in addition to fighting unarmored, agile foes.

A samurai can poke and slash all he wants with his sword, but it simply doesnt have enough force to slice through armor, or at least plate armor.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Fundai"]

Ninja definetlely.

Speed always beats brute stregnth (assuming your arn't stupid and over commit in a single attack), as emphasised by the fact that modern swordfighting (fencing)has boiled down to qiuickly stabing the foe before he does, instead of taking big long slashes and windups.

natanaj

yeah but a rapier (common fencing sword)isnt even going to pierce armor, its just going to glance off. So maybe if the argument was unarmored samurai vs unarmored knight, sure, the samurai would win. I would notargue against that.

Also, on a slight side note, I am friends with a huge bear of a man (6'6'', about 330 pounds) who fences and beats all the small, quick guys frequently. Just saying speed rarely beats brute strength...if that were true, then smaller people would beat up larger people, and there would be no need for weight classes in boxing and MMA. Contrary to popular belief, it is the size of the dog in the fight that matters.

Conversely, a heavier broad sword is going to do some damage, knock people off balance, etc. Knights were accustomed to knight vs knight combat, in addition to fighting unarmored, agile foes.

A samurai can poke and slash all he wants with his sword, but it simply doesnt have enough force to slice through armor, or at least plate armor.

its possible, I just dont see it as a clear-cut winner though. I think, unarmored, a samurai would win simply because of the speed at which the katana could strike the knight

People actually picking the ninja. Talking about speed and agility can beat brute strength. No it can't not when a person with brute strength has armor on from head to toe and trains to kill in a battlefield. A knight would destroy a ninja because a ninja has no weapons that can penetrate their armor. And the ninja is a still just a HUMAN which means that he is not gonna be that fast ond agile like people say. To me this fight is like a 265 pound man fist fighting an 130 pound man. I wonder how far the "speed and agility" of the 130 person can last before the 265 pounder beats him to the ground... MgamerBD

"but but but teh 130 pound man knows the karate and can get rapid strikes of quickness on him!"

or, at least, that is what I expect people to say :P

In all seriousness,I agree Gamer. I am sorry, but the whole "bigger they are, heavier they fall" and "size of the fight in the dog, not the size of the dog" adages are just....false. As I said earlier, there is a reason why they have weight classes in martial arts competitions, and it is because a larger person will always just decimate a smaller person when equally trained.

A ninja wouldn't engage the knight in direct combat. He's more likely to run off, come back at night and slit the knight's throat while he's fast asleep.

Knight. I love armor