Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lunatock
Basing this on a samurai being better trained with a sword, and faster than a knight who has the armor slowing him down and a more cumbersome weapon than a Katana.
|
Lunatock, what would the Knight be using? The Katana was quite a heavy sword. In fact the katana was in fact slightly
heavier then your typical european swords, assuming the blade lenght was the same.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
Personally, i say the Samurai would whoop the knights asses.
Here's why- the Crusades.
The heavy mounted Knights of Europe ran into tremendous difficulties against the unarmored Moors and their lightning fast sabres.
Against trained Samurai, who were faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more skilled warriors than the Moors were.....ouch.
|
M21 I really doubt that most of the moors were unarmored. Chain mail was quite common in arabia/india/persia, and sometimes plate was also used.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M21Sniper
A Katana will punch right through ancient plate armor.
It has a piercing tip unparralled for penetrating armor.
|
Slashing and piercing weapons were quite ineffective against plate armor. If you are going up against plate armor it would make much more sense to have a mace or even an axe rather then a katana. In this situation a Knight would have a MUCH larger advantage over the samurai because medieval europe had a much larger variety of maces. clubs and axes and the samurais had little training in the use of such weapons.
During the time that plate armor was common in Europe, most swords had very thin tips for piercing through armor, and the most common swords were 2 handed and bastard swords which were the most suited to fighting other plate wearing opponents.
The Katana was basically a slashing weapon, its tip could be used for thrusting by modifying your thrusts to account for the curve, but it was by no means a great thruster. The best thrusting tips would be those of rapiers. European cut and thrust swords could also thrust better then the katana.