Knight VS Samurai: Who wins?

Samurais are always overdone in movies/cartoons. They weren't that great. Plus, if it's a black knight (the armor, that is), he can still fight without limbs.

Neither would win. The ninja would sneak in and pants them both before finishing them both off and just as the ninja walks away a Jedi would slice and dice him.

So in conclusion the clear answer is obvious; me.!

Neither would win. The ninja would sneak in and pants them both before finishing them both off and just as the ninja walks away a Jedi would slice and dice him.

So in conclusion the clear answer is obvious; me.!

MissRiotmaker

ok then after the ninja killing them both he gets shot with a gun by a pirate

[QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"]

Neither would win. The ninja would sneak in and pants them both before finishing them both off and just as the ninja walks away a Jedi would slice and dice him.

So in conclusion the clear answer is obvious; me.!

outbreak201

ok then after the ninja killing them both he gets shot with a gun by a pirate

Then the huns come! Run! Huns!

[QUOTE="MissRiotmaker"]

Neither would win. The ninja would sneak in and pants them both before finishing them both off and just as the ninja walks away a Jedi would slice and dice him.

So in conclusion the clear answer is obvious; me.!

outbreak201

ok then after the ninja killing them both he gets shot with a gun by a pirate

Everybody knows pirates don't exist!

Samurai.....the sword is more effective.........most knights just hack which can lead to many openings that can be abused easily.Lorindol

No... You know nothing about knights, samurai, or their arms and armor. Knights didn't "just hack" by any extension. They used to wide variety of parries, feints, wrestles, etc. that any samurai would use. Also, while the katana is sharper, it is also very fragil, they are not designed to be used against steal and iron that many 14-15 century knights used. The armor knights used hardly impended their movement at all, with the only weak points being the armpits, the back of the knees, and blunt weapons like maces (the armor would not stop the force of the blow, in fact it would resound it like a gong, breaking bones and rupturing organs). Also, the is only slightly lighter then a longsword, usually within a half a pound. Not to mention longswords were also more resilient. People seem to have the misinformed illusion that samurai were inhumanly fast warriors that could kill three men while drawing their sword, while knights are just stupid, slow brutes in armor. No, just no.

[QUOTE="Lorindol"]Samurai.....the sword is more effective.........most knights just hack which can lead to many openings that can be abused easily.Guiltfeeder566

No... You know nothing about knights, samurai, or their arms and armor. Knights didn't "just hack" by any extension. They used to wide variety of parries, feints, wrestles, etc. that any samurai would use. Also, while the katana is sharper, it is also very fragil, they are not designed to be used against steal and iron that many 14-15 century knights used. The armor knights used hardly impended their movement at all, with the only weak points being the armpits, the back of the knees, and blunt weapons like maces (the armor would not stop the force of the blow, in fact it would resound it like a gong, breaking bones and rupturing organs). Also, the is only slightly lighter then a longsword, usually within a half a pound. Not to mention longswords were also more resilient. People seem to have the misinformed illusion that samurai were inhumanly fast warriors that could kill three men while drawing their sword, while knights are just stupid, slow brutes in armor. No, just no.

[QUOTE="Lorindol"]Samurai.....the sword is more effective.........most knights just hack which can lead to many openings that can be abused easily.Guiltfeeder566

No... You know nothing about knights, samurai, or their arms and armor. Knights didn't "just hack" by any extension. They used to wide variety of parries, feints, wrestles, etc. that any samurai would use. Also, while the katana is sharper, it is also very fragil, they are not designed to be used against steal and iron that many 14-15 century knights used. The armor knights used hardly impended their movement at all, with the only weak points being the armpits, the back of the knees, and blunt weapons like maces (the armor would not stop the force of the blow, in fact it would resound it like a gong, breaking bones and rupturing organs). Also, the is only slightly lighter then a longsword, usually within a half a pound. Not to mention longswords were also more resilient. People seem to have the misinformed illusion that samurai were inhumanly fast warriors that could kill three men while drawing their sword, while knights are just stupid, slow brutes in armor. No, just no.

while you do give a good point about weight, you must not have read the other posts I have made...... I do know a bit about swordplay being a student of Eishin ryu, I didn't say that the samurai was super quick, but the movement of the katana is a bit easier due to its shape, I own a katana that is heavier than the longsword I have yet I find it easier to move. Yes knights have parries and feints and wrestling abilities, so do the samurai. the way I described the cutting actions is the way it works, if you swing the longsword just right you wouldn't have to pull it a lot to get a good slicing action, it just isn't as easy as a katana. I also said that what it really would come down to was how was thinking faster and smarter. both warrior classes are great in their own right and we are all going to have our opinions.

Seeing as how samurai armour is designed for optimum movement and knight armour from the peak of medieval technology was designed to limit movement as much as possible, I'd go for the samurai. That and most samurai are trained in kyuudou (archery) so they could just take the knights down from a distance.

Most noble knights from Europe were so bogged down by their armour, someone could walk up behind them and grab them and stab an opening in the armour.foxhound_fox

*cough**cough*

*cough*http://www.jelldragon.com/images/chainmail.jpg" alt=" " />*cough*blooddemon666

[QUOTE="Lorindol"]Samurai.....the sword is more effective.........most knights just hack which can lead to many openings that can be abused easily.Guiltfeeder566

The armor knights used hardly impended their movement at all

You're full of crap.

[QUOTE="Guiltfeeder566"]

[QUOTE="Lorindol"]Samurai.....the sword is more effective.........most knights just hack which can lead to many openings that can be abused easily.DivergeUnify

No... You know nothing about knights, samurai, or their arms and armor. Knights didn't "just hack" by any extension. They used to wide variety of parries, feints, wrestles, etc. that any samurai would use. Also, while the katana is sharper, it is also very fragil, they are not designed to be used against steal and iron that many 14-15 century knights used. The armor knights used hardly impended their movement at all, with the only weak points being the armpits, the back of the knees, and blunt weapons like maces (the armor would not stop the force of the blow, in fact it would resound it like a gong, breaking bones and rupturing organs). Also, the is only slightly lighter then a longsword, usually within a half a pound. Not to mention longswords were also more resilient. People seem to have the misinformed illusion that samurai were inhumanly fast warriors that could kill three men while drawing their sword, while knights are just stupid, slow brutes in armor. No, just no.

I never said that the armor slowed then down, I just commented that it was more mobile then most people believe. And I have no idea where you get that 20-30 pound sword idea. Most longswords of the era were around 5 pounds. And a knights armor is not 100 pounds, you would have to be super human to fight for hours on end, which knights sometimes had too, wearing a 100 pounds of steel.

[QUOTE="Guiltfeeder566"]

[QUOTE="Lorindol"]Samurai.....the sword is more effective.........most knights just hack which can lead to many openings that can be abused easily.Lorindol

No... You know nothing about knights, samurai, or their arms and armor. Knights didn't "just hack" by any extension. They used to wide variety of parries, feints, wrestles, etc. that any samurai would use. Also, while the katana is sharper, it is also very fragil, they are not designed to be used against steal and iron that many 14-15 century knights used. The armor knights used hardly impended their movement at all, with the only weak points being the armpits, the back of the knees, and blunt weapons like maces (the armor would not stop the force of the blow, in fact it would resound it like a gong, breaking bones and rupturing organs). Also, the is only slightly lighter then a longsword, usually within a half a pound. Not to mention longswords were also more resilient. People seem to have the misinformed illusion that samurai were inhumanly fast warriors that could kill three men while drawing their sword, while knights are just stupid, slow brutes in armor. No, just no.

while you do give a good point about weight, you must not have read the other posts I have made...... I do know a bit about swordplay being a student of Eishin ryu, I didn't say that the samurai was super quick, but the movement of the katana is a bit easier due to its shape, I own a katana that is heavier than the longsword I have yet I find it easier to move. Yes knights have parries and feints and wrestling abilities, so do the samurai. the way I described the cutting actions is the way it works, if you swing the longsword just right you wouldn't have to pull it a lot to get a good slicing action, it just isn't as easy as a katana. I also said that what it really would come down to was how was thinking faster and smarter. both warrior classes are great in their own right and we are all going to have our opinions.

Slices and slashes are not the most effective way to get through plate mail, however. Even with longswords, in most cases the enemy had to resort to using knives under the arm pit and into the heart to kill a fully armed knight (or a blunt weapon, see above). One the other hand, thew bamboo based armor used by samurai isen't nearly resistant to slashes, which is why the katana was used and specialised in the fast cutting motions.

I say Samurai....because i watch anime lol.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"][QUOTE="Guiltfeeder566"]

[QUOTE="Lorindol"]Samurai.....the sword is more effective.........most knights just hack which can lead to many openings that can be abused easily.Guiltfeeder566

No... You know nothing about knights, samurai, or their arms and armor. Knights didn't "just hack" by any extension. They used to wide variety of parries, feints, wrestles, etc. that any samurai would use. Also, while the katana is sharper, it is also very fragil, they are not designed to be used against steal and iron that many 14-15 century knights used. The armor knights used hardly impended their movement at all, with the only weak points being the armpits, the back of the knees, and blunt weapons like maces (the armor would not stop the force of the blow, in fact it would resound it like a gong, breaking bones and rupturing organs). Also, the is only slightly lighter then a longsword, usually within a half a pound. Not to mention longswords were also more resilient. People seem to have the misinformed illusion that samurai were inhumanly fast warriors that could kill three men while drawing their sword, while knights are just stupid, slow brutes in armor. No, just no.

I never said that the armor slowed then down, I just commented that it was more mobile then most people believe. And I have no idea where you get that 20-30 pound sword idea. Most longswords of the era were around 5 pounds. And a knights armor is not 100 pounds, you would have to be super human to fight for hours on end, which knights sometimes had too, wearing a 100 pounds of steel.

Do not bump threads over a year old.

The knights of the hospitaller could beat any samurai.