Samurai against knight - Page 22

Blademaster · 12-21-2007, 11:59 AM

Omon, you should have picked a better example. The Battle of the Wabash in 1791.

omon · 12-21-2007, 13:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Omon, you should have picked a better example. The Battle of the Wabash in 1791.

you are right, it isn,t best example,(now that i start reading about it more) but it was the only one i knew from the top of my head,
yea The Battle of the Wabash in 1791 is much better example, too bad i didn,t know about before you told me, thanks.

shahid_2dk · 12-26-2007, 18:44 PM

Samurai offcourse

glyn · 12-26-2007, 20:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahid_2dk

Samurai offcourse

Are his navigation skills lacking a certain something?

shahid_2dk · 12-27-2007, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

Are his navigation skills lacking a certain something?

Hehe 22 pages on Samurai vs. Knight.

I just voted for Samurai without reading the whole thread

Samurai vs. Knight, offcourse Samurai, the Knight is waay to heavy, and Samurai vs Ninja, Ninja offcourse, Ninjas are sneaky sneaky

glyn · 12-27-2007, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahid_2dk

Hehe 22 pages on Samurai vs. Knight.

I just voted for Samurai without reading the whole thread

Samurai vs. Knight, offcourse Samurai, the Knight is waay to heavy, and Samurai vs Ninja, Ninja offcourse, Ninjas are sneaky sneaky

You are saying the Ninjas are equally bad at navigating?

In which case it's no surprise that they never met!

shahid_2dk · 12-27-2007, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

You are saying the Ninjas are equally bad at navigating?

In which case it's no surprise that they never met!

Lol what? Nobody needs to have great skills at navigating when standing just infront of each other, ready to fight, except the ninjas, they are sneak sneaky

glyn · 12-27-2007, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahid_2dk

Hehe 22 pages on Samurai vs. Knight.

I just voted for Samurai without reading the whole thread

Samurai vs. Knight, offcourse Samurai, the Knight is waay to heavy, and Samurai vs Ninja, Ninja offcourse, Ninjas are sneaky sneaky

My posts were a gentle reminder that of course = certainly, whereas off course is a navigational observation!

Shamus · 12-27-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glyn

My posts were a gentle reminder that of course = certainly, whereas off course is a navigational observation!

Or used in a sentence:Shamus' observations on most subjects are usually off course,of course.

Stitch · 01-09-2008, 17:31 PM

Yes, the Samurai probably would be faster, but the Knight has a sword and a shield; the Samurai has no shield, just his Katana and his Wakizashi. From what I've read, one good blow with a broadsword would destroy contemporary Japanese armor (of course, that's assuming the Knight could get one good blow in!).

entropy · 01-09-2008, 18:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stitch

Yes, the Samurai probably would be faster, but the Knight has a sword and a shield; the Samurai has no shield, just his Katana and his Wakizashi. From what I've read, one good blow with a broadsword would destroy contemporary Japanese armor (of course, that's assuming the Knight could get one good blow in!).

The samurai wouln't necessarily be faster.

Either way, it ALL depends on the skill of the swordsman. As for the swords, katanas are worse than European ones. The Japanese did not have good enough steel, so their swords had to be constructed out of several pieces.

omon · 01-11-2008, 20:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by entropy

The Japanese did not have good enough steel, so their swords had to be constructed out of several pieces.

that is how damascus steel is made, thousands of layers, soft and hard, that combo gives it longlasting micro saw edge.
i wouldn,t underesimate japanise blacksmiths.

dave lukins · 01-11-2008, 20:36 PM

Nor the quality of their steel

entropy · 01-11-2008, 21:21 PM

It's a fact that the Japanese had to construct their swords out of 4 layers because the steel wasn't good enough. That was the reason they hadn't heavy armor like the Europeans did.

Ask the Netsword guys, they know it all.

**Parihaka** · 02-03-2008, 14:06 PM

The quality of the swords came down to two factors, the quality of the swordsmith and the quality of the steel. Wootz of course is the best steel in the time period, and was traded extensively including IIRC through Japan for use in the nihontō. The Vikings had similar qualities of steel blades with maleable centres and hardened steel edges, and so of course did Damascus. As always, if you could afford the best you bought the best, but there was little difference between steel qualities as the best all came from the same source, India and Sri Lanka.

View Poll Results: Samurai vs Medieval Knight
Samurai	20	62.50%
Medieval Knight	12	37.50%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ninja vs 16th century knight	Ironside	The Early Modern & Imperial Ages	75	07-03-2008 12:51 PM
Last Samurai gun question	Beaugeste93	Small Arms and Personal Weapons	23	07-10-2005 19:16 PM

12-21-2007, 11:59 AM	#316 (permalink)
Blademaster Military Enthusiast *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 2,981	Omon, you should have picked a better example. The Battle of the Wabash in 1791.

12-26-2007, 18:44 PM	#318 (permalink)
shahid_2dk New Member Join Date: 12-26-07 Location: Denmark Posts: 9 Country:	Samurai offcourse

01-09-2008, 17:31 PM	#325 (permalink)
Stitch Regular Join Date: 11-14-06 Location: Patterson, CA Posts: 75 Country:	Yes, the Samurai probably would be faster, but the Knight has a sword and a shield; the Samurai has no shield, just his Katana and his Wakizashi. From what I've read, one good blow with a broadsword would destroy contemporary Japanese armor (of course, that's assuming the Knight could get one good blow in!).

01-11-2008, 20:36 PM	#328 (permalink)
dave lukins *Military Professional* Join Date: 01-04-07 Location: cheshire uk Posts: 4,533 Country:	Nor the quality of their steel

01-11-2008, 21:21 PM	#329 (permalink)
entropy Senior Reader *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 03-19-07 Location: Belgium Posts: 1,628 Country:	It's a fact that the Japanese had to construct their swords out of 4 layers because the steel wasn't good enough. That was the reason they hadn't heavy armor like the Europeans did. Ask the Netsword guys, they know it all.

02-03-2008, 14:06 PM	#330 (permalink)
Parihaka Moderator Join Date: 11-10-04 Location: Te Ika a Maui Posts: 9,322 Country:	The quality of the swords came down to two factors, the quality of the swordsmith and the quality of the steel. Wootz of course is the best steel in the time period, and was traded extensively including IIRC through Japan for use in the nihontō. The Vikings had similar qualities of steel blades with maleable centres and hardened steel edges, and so of course did Damascus. As always, if you could afford the best you bought the best, but there was little difference between steel qualities as the best all came from the same source, India and Sri Lanka.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)