Samurai
Medieval Knight
Pope Urban made his speech on November 27, 1095, and the Crusaders laid siege to Jerusalem on June 7th, 1099. 3 years, 7 months, 10 days to gather soldiers and knights from the corners of Europe, transport them to Palestine, and lay siege to Jerusalem. The Crusaders captured Jerusalem on July 15th, 1099, 38 days after the siege had begun.Originally Posted by M21Sniper
And I wanted to reply to this from awhile back as well:
If by Moors you mean Moors battling Spanish crusaders, you'd be correct, at least in the usage of the word. Moors are used only in reference to the Arab/Berber people from Morocco, and formerly of Spain. Arabs elsewhere were referred to as Saracens.The Scots under Wallace trashed a huge British heavy armored cavalry charge at the battle of Falkirk, and the Moors cleaned the crusaders clocks on many occasions, knights are hardly invincible.
Did the samurai's ever wielded a shield? if not how would they ever hope to deflect a strike from a claymore, warhammer or battleaxe with a thin bladed katana, I have never even held an ancient weapon like that in my hands nothing but a baseball bat with 10 inch nail struck into it
Another thing, if you dont have shield then how do deflect a blow from a flail, you know the wooden stick with metalchain and spiked ball that thing is wicked and try using two flails at the same time
You don't have to deflect a blow from a weapon, any weapon, if you're not there when it goes flashing by.
"If by Moors you mean Moors battling Spanish crusaders, you'd be correct, at least in the usage of the word. Moors are used only in reference to the Arab/Berber people from Morocco, and formerly of Spain. Arabs elsewhere were referred to as Saracens."
Thanx for the clarification on the proper usage of the terms.
In any case, the crusade knights had many problems facing saber armed unarmored SARACENS, lol.
For comparison purposes to the time the Crusaders held Jeruselum, how long did the muslims hold it?
Until 1947 i believe...
63 B.C.-636 Romans/ByzantinesFor comparison purposes to the time the Crusaders held Jeruselum, how long did the muslims hold it?
Until 1947 i believe...
636-1071 Arabs
1071-1099 Seljuk Turks
1099-1187 Crusaders
1187-1229 Arabs led by Kurd, Saladin
1229-1244 Crusaders
1244-1517 Mamluks
1517-1917 Ottomans
1917-1948 British
1948-2004 Israelis
LOL, that is one popular strip of desert.
Gotta love religion.
Thanx for the history lesson Ironduke, i'm certainly not above a lesson myself at times.
Technically, it was under the control of the Egyptians 1832-1840
Ironduke,
What a storehouse of knowledge.
Do contribute more.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Youre right, I only brought up rapiers because of the claim that Katanas had the best thrusting tip of all weapons.
You cannot compare vests strapped to iron men with vest on a real person. A real person would move back if hit thus decreasing force on the armor, with an iron man, the full force is concentrated on one point. There have been lots of such tests, Ive seen pictures of a katana cutting 2 inches into a european helmet. However this study, like your iron man study, was done with the helmet fixed on a table. Had the helmet been on a real person the katana might not have cut deep enough.
Who said samurais were fast and unencumbered? Samurai armor was 6 pounds heavier than European full plate(and designed to be worn by smaller people). It was huge and bulky unlike the sleek and body fitting armors of the europeans, and did not provide as much protection.
Bastard swords were made heavy in order to cut through full plate. An authentic medieval katana weighs just about the same as a bastard sword. Boh katanas and bastard swords were designed to be used either with 1 or 2 hands.
"You cannot compare vests strapped to iron men with vest on a real person. A real person would move back if hit thus decreasing force on the armor, with an iron man, the full force is concentrated on one point. There have been lots of such tests, Ive seen pictures of a katana cutting 2 inches into a european helmet. However this study, like your iron man study, was done with the helmet fixed on a table. Had the helmet been on a real person the katana might not have cut deep enough."
The vest on the iron man moved several inches from the thrust. It was strapped to the iron man, but it still moved within the limits of the straps. It's not like it was glued right to the frame of the thing.
"Who said samurais were fast and unencumbered?"
I did.
"Samurai armor was 6 pounds heavier than European full plate(and designed to be worn by smaller people)."
Ummm, full plate armor weighed up to 80lbs. There is no way in hell wooden armor weighs that much. Got links to back your claims?
"It was huge and bulky unlike the sleek and body fitting armors of the europeans, and did not provide as much protection."
I will agree with 'not as much protection', but it was definitely less restrictive to movement. How many spinning kicks or sword attacks did European knights have in their repitoire? LOL.
"Bastard swords were made heavy in order to cut through full plate. An authentic medieval katana weighs just about the same as a bastard sword."
Dude, it's not even close. What are you smoking? I have a bastard sword. It weighs over 30 pounds. A genuine Katana weighs about 1/6 that amount.
"Boh katanas and bastard swords were designed to be used either with 1 or 2 hands."
Yeah, if you're arnold schwarzenegger...maybe.
"However this study, like your iron man study, was done with the helmet fixed on a table. Had the helmet been on a real person the katana might not have cut deep enough."
It doesn't always matter if the weapon pierces the armour or not. A powerful enough impact on armour, while not piecing it or damaging it can cause a traumatic injury, killing the person.
"Ummm, full plate armor weighed up to 80lbs. "
I saw a documentary about the evolution of armour, and armour was relatively light, it only weighed 40lb, and most of that was concentrated aroudn the torso. the armour protecting limbs was thinner and so lighter.
Last edited by Aryan; 12 Aug 04, at 04:32.
Full plate battle armor weighed up to 80lbs. Some armor was lighter than others. These things weren't built on an assembly line. They were individually handmade by thousands of different blacksmiths, and there were wide variances in the quality, protection, philosophy, and weight of each suit.
lol, ive seen kill bill way to many times not to go with samurai. when my grandad died, in his will he gave away his samurai sword he got on okinawa (my grandad was a beast.. drove amphibious tanks onto pelilu and okinawa) and i gotta say, samurai swords are definately the greatest swords of all time. i could spend hours in my back yard just cutting stuff in half. but realisticly, the knight would win because he is plated in steal.
Samurais, at least for battles, wore METAL armor, not wooden armor.
A battlefield european armor would weight around 60 pounds(this is for 15th century gothic full plate). Japanese armors ranged from 55 to 77 pounds. Thus, on the average, Japanese armors were heavier than European armors by 6 pounds. European armors were also stronger then Japanese ones. In fact during the 16th century the Japanese noted quality of Italian and Flemish armors which they imported from the spanish and the portuguese. European breastplates and helms were incorporated into Japanese armors and these were called nanban gosuko. For reference, please read "Classical Fighting Arts of Japan" by Serge Mol.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: