|
as far as who would win one on one, it really depends on the people fighting. you can ask "who had better weapons and armor?" or "so and so king vs so-and-so diamyo" but even if we conclude one over the other on those grounds it doesnt really get us anywhere.
if anyone here watches MMA<mixed martial arts>you'll know that there are many different styles of combat and every contender has weaknesses and strengths in these different styles, noone is invinsible, no one style is dominate. alot of fights are won by heart alone,sometimes cardio,a fluke injury,intimidation etc.
when it comes to the best trained warriors, anything can happen. sometimes a hieght and weight advantage,the best training, armor,weapons arent gonna save your ass from one determined SOB.
id say the samurai had better combat training<kendo, hand to hand, japanese ju-jitsu was formed for hand to hand combat against armored foes, hence all the hiptossing,takedowns,grappling and submission holds>and better weapons. duels on the battlefield was very common for samurai. some border wars between territories in japan are famous for the exhibition matches between small numbers of soldiers instead of all out warfare.
heavy armor may not be the best thing going one on one opposed to being on a horse or on a battlefield as an addition to many in the front lines. you can be dressed like a sherman tank but all that wieght you have to carry is wasted energy, how dangerous is a sherman tank if the gastank or the battery is empty?? heavy armor is not the end all be all, it can tire you out.
|