PDA

View Full Version : Ninjas & Knights



Ironside
07 Aug 06,, 22:38
i was wondering who you thought would win in a one on one fight to the death between a ninja and a 16th century knight

Low-tech
08 Aug 06,, 00:13
ninja by armbar

gunnut
08 Aug 06,, 00:24
Ninja by a mile.

http://www.realultimatepower.net/index4.htm

Dogukan
08 Aug 06,, 05:11
Ninjas's are well disciplined and get Martial Arts all their lives. Knights are usually after glory and richness but ninjas fight with honor.

gilgamesh
08 Aug 06,, 05:43
Ninjas. Afterall, they were the original stealth bombers. Their costumes are of different colors(mostly blue), contrary to popularly being potrayed as black .

Canmoore
08 Aug 06,, 20:15
You seem to forget that back in the 1500's people were a hell of alot stronger and could take alot more punishment.

Sure ninja may be fast and have sharp swords, but Knights rode on horses, which are even faster, knight chases down ninja on horse back, then uses his sword to chop ninjas head in two.

Low-tech
08 Aug 06,, 21:07
ninjas arent really anything seperate from samurai. all a ninja is, is a samurai who is either a spy,assassin or both. its not as if europe lacked assassins and spies as well.

its not a martial art like kung fu or something, no secret "hand of death" moves. no smoke bombs and walking on water. its just a guy trained in poisons,close quarter combat with small, easy to conceal, weapons,espionage and stealth. a good knowledge in tracking and wilderness survival is good too.

there is nothing the ninja did that seperates them from the rest of the world's method of espionage and assassination for thier time.


and arguably they would be at a severe disadvantage face to face with a guy who is wearing a metal suit, a big shield and a big sword or axe. unless they can sneak up on the guy

Canmoore
09 Aug 06,, 00:31
not to mention that ninjas if i am correct, operated alone..more stealthy that way.

Knights operated in huge armies...so one ninja pisses off a knight, who then calls in his buddies

Low-tech
09 Aug 06,, 00:58
for a potentail target of assassination i dont think any so called ninja would be against cooperating with other ninja types or whatever. buildings and neighborhoods have to be staked out, information such as building plans and escape routes have to be gathered,people operating as diversions of attention for potentail security etc. so the whole "go it alone" thing could be in question for the whole scope of what the "mission" entails.

granted a ninja, like any special forces,commando type soldier would be trained to be fearsome alone. but i can see a cooperation of small numbers being more effecient than just one person.

"ninja" could cover the definition of scouts,snipers and sabateurs<spelling?>as well, i believe

howardb
09 Aug 06,, 20:21
not to mention that ninjas if i am correct, operated alone..more stealthy that way.

Knights operated in huge armies...so one ninja pisses off a knight, who then calls in his buddies
Gotto admit this is a topic winner. Only so much one guy can do against an army. Sorry guys case closed.

Rifleman
21 Aug 06,, 04:21
Assuming there was some strange situation that brought the two together in straight up one on one combat?

Situation dependent, according to combat mindset (not weapons or basic style) and who's having a better day. Ninja A beats Knight B, but Knight B beats Ninja C, but Ninja C can beat Knight D..... :rolleyes:

And the same for the SAS against the SEALS, or Vasili Zaitzev against Carlos Hathcock, or a Kenpo blackbelt against a boxer. ;)

Nuff said? :cool:

Feydakin
21 Aug 06,, 14:56
:) Ninja would wait for the army of knights to sleep then get them remember they are a bunch of assassins who kill by indirect methods and i think the last time they fought a pitch battle against samurai they lost way back ???? when old Oda Nobunaga was the Barbarian -slayer- of- the- infidels chief if you want a straight fight knights easy but don't go to sleep you could end up with a columbian neck tie :cool: :cool:

Semper Fi
23 Aug 06,, 02:10
"Only a Ninja can stop a Ninja." Cho Osaki - Revenge of the Ninja

korppi76
07 Sep 06,, 17:15
If we take one on one where both start example on field then knight will win.
But if ninja can do what they are trained to do (poison, kill while other sleep etc) then ninja can possibly win.

Knights are trained from the childhood to to fight and armor gives them advantage. Ninjas are trained to assassin so poison, stab to back, arrow neck while other is resting etc are their best options.

Hand to hand fight knight might be better,but as said earlier depends knight.

Semper Fi
07 Sep 06,, 19:04
A Ninja would rape a Knight in a one on one fight. First of all Ninja's are better swordmen, and their Katana's would easily go though a Knight's armor.

And a Knight is no match for a someone who is highly trained in the art of Jujutsu.

gunnut
07 Sep 06,, 19:12
A Ninja would rape a Knight in a one on one fight. First of all Ninja's are better swordmen, and their Katana's would easily go though a Knight's armor.

And a Knight is no match for a someone who is highly trained in the art of Jujutsu.

I don't know about that. Katana is good at slicing flesh and cloth armor. It's not very effective against chainmail and platemail, which excels at defending against slashing attacks. Chainmail and platemail are vulnerable against piercing attacks.

The brute force of a 2 hand sword could be a problem for the lightly armored ninja. A well trained knight can attack with any part of his sword. Pommel is used as a blunt weapon. The tip is a thrusting weapon. Broad blade is a slashing weapon. The hilt is used to disarm opponents. A knight might look clumsy, but looks can be deceiving.

Officer of Engineers
07 Sep 06,, 19:12
I like to see a ninja army or jujistu experts stop a mounted knight charge.

Simullacrum
07 Sep 06,, 19:28
A Ninja would rape a Knight in a one on one fight. First of all Ninja's are better swordmen, and their Katana's would easily go though a Knight's armor.

And a Knight is no match for a someone who is highly trained in the art of Jujutsu.


Jujutsu is not the art form that ninjas use.
Jujutsu is the art form that a samurai uses after his main weapon of choice, his katana has been 'lost' in battle

Ninja are totally different from samurai.
Samurai Have honour and strict code they adhere to, where by Ninjas do not. They have no 'battle' honour, they do what ever it takes to get the job done, and alot is stealth/concealment/and trickery.
Ninja will only use his sword [which is not a Katana by the way, that a samurai uses, it is different] as only a last result, when has been compramised.
Ninpo is the art form that Ninjas used and where tought.!!!
And again as contrary beleif to films of which would show, ninjas would not always use there Ninja-ken, but use there 'bokens' wooden fighting sword which are used to train, in combat.

gunnut
07 Sep 06,, 19:32
Don't ninjas use ninja-to, a straight edged short sword? I'm not sure if ninjas are permitted to use katana, as it's a badge of rank for the samurai.

Ninjas are more like assassins and spies than warriors. Maybe this poll is better if we changed it to "knights vs samurais."

Simullacrum
07 Sep 06,, 21:18
Its not that they are not allowed to use them..its just they choose not to.
The smaller blade, worked better with a ninja, in there purpose, they where of stealth, its easier to conceal a smaller blade. They would avoid frontal confrontation with swords. That would be a last result.
Also the shorter blade has its advantages in indoors, such as corridors.
Ninja would have to fight close quaters and get within the body of its foe and use his sword in a stabbing motion to kill.

Where as a samurai, would kill usually swining his katana in a side ward/diaganol motion.

Ninjas used two types of sword ninja-ken or ninja-to.
They are both smaller then a katana.
And 'seem' to be staright, but are curved to a slight degree.

The diference between the two is quality...they use a diferent method of forgeing.

Bill
07 Sep 06,, 21:23
I don't know about that. Katana is good at slicing flesh and cloth armor. It's not very effective against chainmail and platemail, which excels at defending against slashing attacks. Chainmail and platemail are vulnerable against piercing attacks.
The Choku-To Katana (aka "Ninja sword", or straight-bladed Katana) is EXTREMELY adept at penetrating armor.

Of course a ninja by his very nature would try to kill the knight in his sleep, or when bending over to pick up his morning newspaper, or whatever else.

Ninjas don't fight fair.

pdf27
07 Sep 06,, 22:12
The Choku-To Katana (aka "Ninja sword", or straight-bladed Katana) is EXTREMELY adept at penetrating armor.
Good article here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) on a very similar premise (knight .vs. samurai) by someone who has handled all the swords, and as far as I can tell done some practice fighting in armour too. The critical thing for me to come out of that article is that the Europeans fought with shields, the Japanese did not. That will make a massive difference.

Semper Fi
07 Sep 06,, 22:22
Jujutsu is not the art form that ninjas use.
Jujutsu is the art form that a samurai uses after his main weapon of choice, his katana has been 'lost' in battle


Ninjutsu is basicaly the same as Jujutsu only that it applies espionage and other stealth tactics.



I like to see a ninja army or jujistu experts stop a mounted knight charge.

A Ninjitsu Star right between the horse's eyes or explosives would takecare of a charging horse.

Tronic
07 Sep 06,, 22:42
The brute force of a 2 hand sword could be a problem for the lightly armored ninja. A well trained knight can attack with any part of his sword. Pommel is used as a blunt weapon. The tip is a thrusting weapon. Broad blade is a slashing weapon. The hilt is used to disarm opponents. A knight might look clumsy, but looks can be deceiving.
Ninja will rape a Knight... what good is a 2-handed sword and all that armour when you can't even touch the Ninja in the first place.... A Knight with 2-handed sword would be too slow and a very easy target for the Ninja to rape...

Tronic
07 Sep 06,, 22:44
Ninjas don't fight fair.
all is fair in love and war...

Bill
07 Sep 06,, 23:25
Good article here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) on a very similar premise (knight .vs. samurai) by someone who has handled all the swords, and as far as I can tell done some practice fighting in armour too. The critical thing for me to come out of that article is that the Europeans fought with shields, the Japanese did not. That will make a massive difference.
Maybe. Depends on how the fight plays out.

If the Ninja is playing HIS game he'll slice the Knight's throat in his sleep.

I have little doubt that a Choku-To would penetrate any shield or breastplate(of course not both) with a fulll power bursting 2 handed move though.

Tronic
07 Sep 06,, 23:51
Maybe. Depends on how the fight plays out.

If the Ninja is playing HIS game he'll slice the Knight's throat in his sleep.

I have little doubt that a Choku-To would penetrate any shield or breastplate(of course not both) with a fulll power bursting 2 handed move though.
but a sword is not the Ninja's primary weapon... it is the last resort...

Bill
07 Sep 06,, 23:54
but a sword is not the Ninja's primary weapon... it is the last resort...
I pretty much already said the same in my last post didn't i? ;)

FOG3
08 Sep 06,, 00:50
The Choku-To Katana (aka "Ninja sword", or straight-bladed Katana) is EXTREMELY adept at penetrating armor.
edit: Nevermind, you're talking about thrusting.

A indepth going over for Knight vs Samurai (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm)

16th century was towards the end so we're talking mounted and seriously armored. I'd say if the Ninja plays his game he assasinates the Knight, if he plays the Knight's game he dies.

Tronic
08 Sep 06,, 02:37
I pretty much already said the same in my last post didn't i? ;)
you mean, this:

If the Ninja is playing HIS game he'll slice the Knight's throat in his sleep.
ok.
:)
lol...

Bill
08 Sep 06,, 06:42
edit: Nevermind, you're talking about thrusting.

A indepth going over for Knight vs Samurai (http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm)

16th century was towards the end so we're talking mounted and seriously armored. I'd say if the Ninja plays his game he assasinates the Knight, if he plays the Knight's game he dies.
Hey that was a very good article FOG, and so was the Rapier vs Katana article at the same link.

Thanx for posting em. :)

cris29
08 Sep 06,, 12:56
Decide like this.
Which one has been the most effective in history?

Semper Fi
08 Sep 06,, 14:00
Decide like this.
Which one has been the most effective in history?

Ugh...Ninjas weren't suppose to make history. Ninjas were a highly secretive group of assassins who avoided any kind of attention.

Tronic
08 Sep 06,, 18:04
Decide like this.
Which one has been the most effective in history?
Knights were slaughtered by the Mongolian Horsemen..... and Ninjas were not fielded at huge levels for defense... think of the Ninjas as the Special Forces of the past....

Semper Fi
08 Sep 06,, 18:26
think of the Ninjas as the Special Forces of the past....

More like Black Ops...LOL

Simullacrum
08 Sep 06,, 19:05
Ninjutsu is basicaly the same as Jujutsu only that it applies espionage and other stealth tactics.
.

Sempar...please do not tout things that you are unfamiliar with...
Ninjitsu is not the same as jujutsu..they are different fighting forms..!!

ninpo has a few teachings from bushi, say 30% the other 70% is totally different, from hand to hand combat, methodolagy, and spiritual teachings.

They are not the same..... its like saying

Karate is the same as gung fu or Tae Kwon do is the same as muay tai or hapkido is the same as judo or Pankration is the sam as Jeet kune Do.... There not..!

:) and if you ever where to say to someone that studies ninjitsu/ninpo that it is jujitsu....you will end on the floor faster then you can count to 1..!!

Semper Fi
08 Sep 06,, 20:54
Sempar...please do not tout things that you are unfamiliar with...
Ninjitsu is not the same as jujutsu..they are different fighting forms..!!

ninpo has a few teachings from bushi, say 30% the other 70% is totally different, from hand to hand combat, methodolagy, and spiritual teachings.

They are not the same..... its like saying


Karate is the same as gung fu or Tae Kwon do is the same as muay tai or hapkido is the same as judo or Pankration is the sam as Jeet kune Do.... There not..!

:) and if you ever where to say to someone that studies ninjitsu/ninpo that it is jujitsu....you will end on the floor faster then you can count to 1..!!


BS!

Does Ninjitsu not teach you grappling and using your opponents momentum/weight against them? And yes they might not be teached the same, but like I said before Ninjitsu teaches different things.

Simullacrum
08 Sep 06,, 21:17
BS!


Little boy....speak more approprietly...if you havent the manor or inteligence on how to respond ..then dont speak..!!

Semper Fi
08 Sep 06,, 21:19
Little boy....speak more approprietly...if you havent the manor or inteligence on how to respond ..then dont speak..!!

Yeah I thought so...

Simullacrum
08 Sep 06,, 21:23
Yeah I thought so...


lol...you thought what...??? you can actually think..??

Semper Fi
08 Sep 06,, 21:26
lol...you thought what...??? you can actually think..??

No you can't answer a simple question...LOL

Simullacrum
08 Sep 06,, 21:30
No you can't answer a simple question...LOL

There is no point to answer you.....when one is ignorant and bigoted fool in a particular field...and put there case and answer across, as a 4 year old...then there is no point in answering..!

you havent got a clue what you are talking about, in regards to this subject....pure and simple.!

Semper Fi
08 Sep 06,, 21:42
There is no point to answer you.....when one is ignorant and bigoted fool in a particular field...and put there case and answer across, as a 4 year old...then there is no point in answering..!

you havent got a clue what you are talking about, in regards to this subject....pure and simple.!

Then dont' answer jackass! I didn't think you would have the easy answer anyway.

Simullacrum
08 Sep 06,, 21:50
Then dont' answer jackass! I didn't think you would have the easy answer anyway.

lol....I think you should stop now...you are digging youself a hole..!!
What part of English did you not understand....I chose not to answer cause of your bigoted mind.... Not that I dont have an answer.
There just is no point.!

[If you do not know what biogted means look it up in the dictionary.]

Anyhow...im putting an end to this, and will not respond to any more to your replies.
You are doing a good job in showing yourself to be a TiT [Thats British Slang, for your refrence]..!

Semper Fi
08 Sep 06,, 21:56
lol....I think you should stop now...you are digging youself a hole..!!
What part of English did you not understand....I chose not to answer cause of your bigoted mind.... Not that I dont have an answer.
There just is no point.!

[If you do not know what biogted means look it up in the dictionary.]

Anyhow...im putting an end to this, and will not respond to any more to your replies.
You are doing a good job in showing yourself to be a TiT [Thats British Slang, for your refrence]..!

Wow...how pathetic.

So sad that you can't answer a simple question like...Does Ninjitsu not teach you grappling and using your opponents momentum/weight against them similar to Jujutsu?

Tronic
08 Sep 06,, 22:30
lol... I'm just gonna sit back, grab some popcorn and enjoy the show... :biggrin: :cool:

Tokyo Drifter
20 Oct 06,, 00:19
dumb thread for retards

Bill
20 Oct 06,, 00:51
Which clearly explains why you posted in it.

Tronic
20 Oct 06,, 04:26
rofl... :biggrin: :biggrin:

Low-tech
20 Oct 06,, 09:48
Ninjutsu is basicaly the same as Jujutsu only that it applies espionage and other stealth tactics.







jujitsu is hand to hand combat,most of it grappling/wrestling. which evolved into sport judo. one particular style of it was taught in brazil to the gracie family from which we now have brazillian jujitsu.


im not sure on ninjitsu but i think it means something like "art of stealth" which i believe is not credibly taught nowadays<its not some tradition directly handed down as much as those ninjitsu dojos make it seem>. not highly effective and like competition sports like BJJ and judo, some forms of karate are today.

i dont think ninjitsu was much different than any other formal instruction on espionage and assassination at that time, it just made for alot of b-movies in the 80's.

i still remember american ninja part 3. that movie was amazing.

RustyBattleship
21 Oct 06,, 02:32
The knight would win, but not without some effort. He is bigger (even by Medival European height standards), well armored with chain mail (using plate armor only in chest plate and helmet) and uses a bigger sword.

His fighting manuevers are also not as stylized as a ninja or even a Samurai. I talked to a renaissance reinactor some time ago (he was dressed in full chain mail) and he said they experimented with European style sword fighting with some Kendo students. Their conclusion was that an Eighteenth Century Bucanner with two Cutlasses could take on an entire Kendo school and win because he is not restricted by stylization.

ArmchairGeneral
21 Oct 06,, 03:25
It's a little too general a question seems to me. The later knights were so encumbered they couldn't get on their horses without assistance. Earlier knights, say Norman era, had much lighter armor. Less protection, but more mobility. I don't think a knight from say, the 14th century would stand a chance dismounted. Even mounted they are not at all invulnerable. The warhorses were not very fast at all, in fact they had more in common with modern workhorses than riding horses. A mounted charge was a very formidable attack, at least if your enemy didn't have longbows and pikes. But one single knight is a different matter. The horses were so heavily loaded that they couldn't move much faster than a trot, and maneuverability would be a joke. If the ninja could avoid the knight's lance or sword, he could quite possibly leap on the back of the horse, and it's all over. A quick stab in the back of the neck, or hamstring him, or cut the Achilles tendon. Of course, if the knight manages to get a hit in, it's probably curtains. Them broadswords were no joke. But weren't ninjas trained in archery? If so, he'd pick the knight off with his bow anyway.

So Norman era knight? Maybe. But a knight from Agincourt? Not likely.

Big Bob
29 Oct 06,, 01:41
I'd say the knight wins this if you mean a straight out fight. Asian martial arts, warriors, etc are SEVERELY overrated. Movies, TV and anime make them look invincible, and moronic fanboys who don't even know anything about the historical figures and characters automatically believe it. Everybody thinks that katanas (and from what I remember, the ninjas didn't have katanas, katanas are samurai swords) are indestructible, will cut through anything, can never be damaged and make you invincible, and that they can easily cut right through crappy European swords. I hate to break it to you, but knights weren't pushovers; they were the cream of the European fighting crop, had the best weapons and armour, were the best in horsemanship and were constantly trained to fight from when they were only kids. The perception that plated armour was incredibly clumsy and heavy is not accurate at all.

The ninja is just a spy and assassin; he can only kill the knight if he catches him in his sleep. The ninja's not a real warrior. If you think he is then you've been watching too much Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. The knight will easily kill him in battle. And the style of plated armour makes it perfectly protected against slashing and piercing weapons except arrows, and mail is perfect against curved swords. You all seem to think that solid iron and steel are EASY to cut through. The ninja's sword can't do crap. Knights are severely underrated, while ninjas and samurai are even more overrated than knights are underrated. The knight wins this with ease.

Labud_NS
01 Nov 06,, 22:11
Because the chivalry was in decadence in 16th century, i vote for the ninja.

Bob Jones
20 May 07,, 12:51
A bit of the Tortoise and the Hare thing going on here, very interesting,
The Ninja, all those years of training, but how was their stamina, the moved fast, travelled light, they could slit your throat and you would`nt know it, till you went to nod your head, then the,
Knight, battle hardened, they must have been the original sted heads of the day, up for a fight, some would say mercenary, and lets just look at the gear they used to fight with, for a start full body armour/armor, not getting into that one agian???, a Broadsword, by the way have you seen the size of those things? axes, and not for chopping down trees, massives clubs, and not for dancing in, so the question is, would the Ninjas small diminutive size. its alleged?, help him to avoid the huge weaponry availabe to our Knight, or would the Knight tire quickly wielding those heavy weapons, its like the old saying of a, good little un will always beat a big bad un, but I am not entirley convinvced, so mano e mano, I would go with the Knight

Big K
24 May 07,, 12:33
the concept of Jiujitsu and Ninjas is a lot different from Medieval Knights...

this kind of encounter would never happen...if my memory serves me the Ninjas are created by Japanese villagers for encountering Samurais but not in a face to face combat, their sneaky tactics and the concept of "using everthing as a deadly weapon" is developped for this reason.

maybe we should change this poll to

Japanese Samurai vs Medieval Knights

in this case i think Samurai will cut with his very best sword of his kind the clumsy(because of his heavy armor) knight with ease due to his maneuvrability

http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/C000445_L.jpg
vs
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Samurai-Brandishing-Sword-Giclee-Print-C10273386.jpeg

Big K
24 May 07,, 12:44
on the other hand it is the heart and determination that counts on one to one combats

RedArmySurplus
24 May 07,, 13:45
i agree with Big K, the purpose of a ninja was more of stealth than direct dombat, so this would never happen.

Big K, in your new poll, i agree that it would be easier for a samurai to hit the knight because of the knights heavy armour, however, how well would a katana/samurai sword work against plate armour?

Big K
24 May 07,, 14:32
i agree with Big K, the purpose of a ninja was more of stealth than direct dombat, so this would never happen.

Big K, in your new poll, i agree that it would be easier for a samurai to hit the knight because of the knights heavy armour, however, how well would a katana/samurai sword work against plate armour?

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/history-warfare/38871-samurai-vs-medieval-knight.html

:)

nabilfannoush
18 Jun 07,, 21:11
the concept of Jiujitsu and Ninjas is a lot different from Medieval Knights...

this kind of encounter would never happen...if my memory serves me the Ninjas are created by Japanese villagers for encountering Samurais but not in a face to face combat, their sneaky tactics and the concept of "using everthing as a deadly weapon" is developped for this reason.

maybe we should change this poll to

Japanese Samurai vs Medieval Knights

in this case i think Samurai will cut with his very best sword of his kind the clumsy(because of his heavy armor) knight with ease due to his maneuvrability

http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/C000445_L.jpg
vs
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Samurai-Brandishing-Sword-Giclee-Print-C10273386.jpeg

I agree with the Turk:biggrin:
no offense Big K, just kidding. I am a bit of a cheek.

Seriously, I of course agree with Big K such an encounter is unlikely: The ninjas WERE assassins after all, not soldiers.
However if I play along, I would say that a ninja would probably have the encounter to his favor, for (a)ninjas were trained in various arts of combat, stealth and weaponry since childhood whereas knights were generally knights by their titles, not skill (b)a ninja is more likely to know how to deal with such a confrontation with an armored foe, after all armored samurais were a probable obstacle for them and (c) armor and heavy weapons are more of a cumbersome disadvantage when dealing with a highly agile and quick foe armed with weapons of stealth, deceit and long range and lightweight strong maneuverable blades and completely free of any compunctions of honorable combat.

IDonT
18 Jun 07,, 22:25
the concept of Jiujitsu and Ninjas is a lot different from Medieval Knights...

this kind of encounter would never happen...if my memory serves me the Ninjas are created by Japanese villagers for encountering Samurais but not in a face to face combat, their sneaky tactics and the concept of "using everthing as a deadly weapon" is developped for this reason.

maybe we should change this poll to

Japanese Samurai vs Medieval Knights

in this case i think Samurai will cut with his very best sword of his kind the clumsy(because of his heavy armor) knight with ease due to his maneuvrability

http://www.aurorahistoryboutique.com/products/C000445_L.jpg
vs
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Samurai-Brandishing-Sword-Giclee-Print-C10273386.jpeg

If this is the 16th century then Samurai will win!!! He shoots the Knight with his arquebus as he charges.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Tempo-p1000697.jpg


In both the knight and the Samurai, actual warfare never yeilds what was thought of its main weapon. For the knight, its main weapon is its lance and mace, for the the Samurai it was a lance and bow...the sword was not the main weapon.

sundeepmegas
08 Jul 07,, 19:33
Terrain really matters.

If it were in dense jungle, the ninjas stealth abilities will come into play. Knights mobility would be severely restricted in such terrain. Light armour, better and faster technique, hit-and-run style stuff rules in such terrain.

Knights, on the other hand, would have serious advantage on open ground, where they would be able to put their tactics to good use. As it is, i've never heard knights and horses fighting in a forest.

Triple C
31 Mar 08,, 14:32
BigK,

By the sixteenth century European warfare was dominated by disciplined pikemen and arquebasiers. The knight was already replaced by the cavalryman, usually a mercenary for hire who fought with firearms. The Japanese samurai or footman will have little technological advantage to claim over European armies..

Davicus_Grimm
27 Jun 08,, 17:36
My one question here is who made it Ninja and not Samurai O_o?..... Ninja were basicly the black op equivalent of a Samurai Warrior who was basicly the Japanese clone of the European Knight. Offcourse between the two Ninja would pown since a Ninja not only had large amounts of awsome tech to get in your castle in large numbers and kill you while you dont know anything that happened, but they also had what was strongly similiar to the Chinese Thunderbomb that was quite useful.

The Ninja though was a warrior ment for close quarters one on one combat you wouldn't see a million ninja on the battle nor like on the Last Samurai <_<..

While on the Other hand if it were Samurai verse a Knight I put my money on the Samurai a better armour, more lighter and flexible, aswell as with the Strongest form of blade known to man....

Not only with this the Samurai and Ninjas used forms of the Match-lock gun so bring on as many Knights as you want a Samurai with a Yari or a Match Lock Musket would pawn <_<..

bengalraider
27 Jun 08,, 20:56
my answer is based on blade and Armour design

the ninja- his blade is made to cut fast and provide a killing cut with a single blow, reason he has to kill his targets in a single attempt at assassination.
his blade is sharp and flexible to some extent but not strong or thick , reason his targets are more likely to be sleeping in their dojo's or castles when he attacks! the Japanese never developed strong single piece metal Armour, what the used was interlocking plates of leather with metal strips.the masamure and murasame swords were designed to slice through such armor without breaking or snagging hence they were sharpened to a point and made witha mixture of brittle and flexible steel.THE POINT BEING THAT JAPANESE SWORDS WERE NEVER MADE TO CUT THROUGH STEEL ARMOR!

the knight- his targets are more likely to be heavily armored knights hence he uses a heavy sword capable of breaking that armor, and he wears heavy armor to protect himself from such heavy swords,




in a battle between a single knight in full battle regalia and sword facing a ninja with all his tools the knight shall win as the ninja's weapons shall be unable to penetrate the knights armor.well unless the ninja keeps dodging the knights blows until the knight is too exhausted to move in his heavy armor at that point the ninja can easily kill the knight by thrusting the blade through the knights helmet view slot.

Davicus_Grimm
28 Jun 08,, 16:18
Your right to a degree, but you forget that if the ninja can get behind the Knight he can stab the blade through one of the bending plates between the Upper and Lower Back plates on the back. This would work offcourse if the enemy was bending down <_<....

bengalraider
29 Jun 08,, 03:22
so you would need an exhausted knight bending over catching his breath:biggrin:

zraver
29 Jun 08,, 07:25
so you would need an exhausted knight bending over catching his breath:biggrin:

Knights could be quite aerobatic and trained in the martial arts from childhood. They also used every piece of thier equipment as a weapon. Hell a Ninja going for a groin kick would break his foot on the cod piece. it would have to be a very lucky ninja.

bengalraider
29 Jun 08,, 10:04
Knights could be quite aerobatic and trained in the martial arts from childhood. They also used every piece of thier equipment as a weapon. Hell a Ninja going for a groin kick would break his foot on the cod piece. it would have to be a very lucky ninja.

i take it you mean acrobatic
i got two questions
1- could any knight really go acrobatic with all that heavy armor on his body?
2-how much use would martial arts be considering fast moves would be out of the question witha ll that armor on his arms.

as for the groin kick all i can say is ouch!:biggrin:

zraver
29 Jun 08,, 17:39
i take it you mean acrobatic
i got two questions
1- could any knight really go acrobatic with all that heavy armor on his body?

They could vault on to thier horse, and do somersaults. Its not all that heavy 60-80lbs with very good weight disbursement.


2-how much use would martial arts be considering fast moves would be out of the question witha ll that armor on his arms.

as for the groin kick all i can say is ouch!:biggrin:

It's not asian style arts. It is a very physical power style that emphasizes the entire body and every inch of equipment as some sort of weapon. Encases in steel with a padded gambeson underneath the entire body is lethal blunt force object to anythign not so armored.

Triple C
29 Jun 08,, 20:55
The average weight of 'white harness' or full plate armor was arround 75 lbs. Less than what a modern light infantry would carry on his back, but evenly distributed through the wearer's body.

From people better informed in the subject than I, medieval European martial arts focused heavily on grappling, seeing as how striking is next to useless against an armored lobster and the important thing was to wrestle your opponent to ground, disable him, and drive a dagger through his eye.

That, or you tell your squire to remind you to bring that pollaxe to the picnic.

zraver
02 Jul 08,, 03:44
The average weight of 'white harness' or full plate armor was arround 75 lbs. Less than what a modern light infantry would carry on his back, but evenly distributed through the wearer's body.

From people better informed in the subject than I, medieval European martial arts focused heavily on grappling, seeing as how striking is next to useless against an armored lobster and the important thing was to wrestle your opponent to ground, disable him, and drive a dagger through his eye.

That, or you tell your squire to remind you to bring that pollaxe to the picnic.

This is one reason the war hammer or pick axe became so popular in the late medievil early rennascience period. It took the force and focused it on the point of impact.

it's neat to track the development of armor and weapons. for example the saber/scimitar both developed from the same need to have a blade that would slip free of a body after impact using the natural momentum of a horse to do so. Or that cutlass, it looks similar but was designed to chop off limbs in ship board fights when armor was not an issue: it was a giant meat cleaver. or the alte gothic fluted plate that could bounce all but the closest ranged crossbow bolts. Or that great slayer of French nobility the bodkin point. basucally a 16 penny nail as the head of an arrow. While not usually leathal in an of it self, it could punch chainmail with ease and an arches fussilade could turn you into a pin cushion.

Triple C
02 Jul 08,, 05:00
One author claims that in judicial duels, a knight wears all of his armor, a barded horse, and carried a staggering number of weaponry: lance, sword, battle-axe, dagger, and a longsword strapped to the saddle.

Don't know how's that gonna work on a battlefield.

zraver
02 Jul 08,, 15:47
One author claims that in judicial duels, a knight wears all of his armor, a barded horse, and carried a staggering number of weaponry: lance, sword, battle-axe, dagger, and a longsword strapped to the saddle.

Don't know how's that gonna work on a battlefield.

The ax was probably a hammer. The dagger was likewise probalby a stilleto.

Lance- shock weapon Hammer- dismounted vs knights Sword vs other mounted foes, vs unarmored target, noble weapon Stilleto- coup de grace vs armored targets to wounded to survive or not worth ransom.

Triple C
02 Jul 08,, 16:26
I believe that it was a bladed horseman's axe. The dagger might very well have been a stilleto, but I have to check on that.

It was surprising how hard it was to wound an armored man. The victor sat on the vanquished's chest for a good five minutes or so to crack his visor, before avenging his wife's honor with a dagger.

At that point, they have two dead horses in the field, and at least three solid blows on each combatant.

zraver
03 Jul 08,, 16:11
I believe that it was a bladed horseman's axe. The dagger might very well have been a stilleto, but I have to check on that.

It was surprising how hard it was to wound an armored man. The victor sat on the vanquished's chest for a good five minutes or so to crack his visor, before avenging his wife's honor with a dagger.

At that point, they have two dead horses in the field, and at least three solid blows on each combatant.

take a gander at a late medievil horsemans ax. I bet he was using the reverse side with the spike or maul. The spike could punch plate and deliver a punture wound and the maul could cush it and the bones under neath. The bladed part even if it managed to penetrate would come in increasing contact with more and more armor the deep it tried to bite and get bogged down.

Triple C
07 Jul 08,, 09:56
Quite possible. One of the combatants, after being knocked off his horse, envicerated his opponent's mount with his axe and they started to go at it with their swords. You can probably find it in the local Barnes and Nobles--The Last Duel is the title. If the social historical stuff doesn't interest you, just go at the second last chapter. IIRC Frossart was a contemporary to the events, and he probably would be more accurate at his writing of this event than the 100 Years War.

astralis
08 Jul 08,, 17:32
i was just thinking, that type of warfare requires some pretty impressive strength.

to do such blunt damage against an armored object requires one heavy (not necessarily sharp) weapon, and you either have to cut all the way through or free your weapon fast before you become vulnerable to a counter-attack. that's even worse than the swing to begin with, because you don't have momentum working for you...

IIRC that type of warfare didn't last for too long, relatively speaking. it took a while for armor to become strong enough to resist stab attacks effectively, and after a while the development of an effective pike/musket combo really made that warfare obsolete.

zraver
09 Jul 08,, 03:22
i was just thinking, that type of warfare requires some pretty impressive strength.

yup, most sources say anceint through medievil battles went through 5-15 minute spurts and then a collective pause would envelop the combatants.


to do such blunt damage against an armored object requires one heavy (not necessarily sharp) weapon, and you either have to cut all the way through or free your weapon fast before you become vulnerable to a counter-attack. that's even worse than the swing to begin with, because you don't have momentum working for you...

You don't nessecerily need heavy as much as focused weight. A weapon that is to heavy will end up using inertia against you. Hammers and axes really are not all that heavy.


IIRC that type of warfare didn't last for too long, relatively speaking. it took a while for armor to become strong enough to resist stab attacks effectively, and after a while the development of an effective pike/musket combo really made that warfare obsolete.

Plate armor at least over the torso had been around in some form for thousands of years. The Hoplites wore a very tough bronze and Alexanders troops had a laminate nearly as good as modern anti-shank prison guard jackets and made on the same theory as modern bullet proof material.

Triple C
09 Jul 08,, 08:29
IIRC that type of warfare didn't last for too long, relatively speaking. it took a while for armor to become strong enough to resist stab attacks effectively, and after a while the development of an effective pike/musket combo really made that warfare obsolete.


That's an interesting point you have brought up there. The way that I understood the evolution in weaponry and protection, it was the other way arround. The use of hauberk coats persisted for the better part of the Dark Ages because it sufficed to ward off most threats on the battlefield at the time.

The weapons that were needed to overcome maille defenses such as the mace and the two-handed battle axe had serious short comings as battlefield weapons which limited their presence in combat. The idea of crushing a knight under his armor with an axe or mace had its appeal, until you realize that a Frankish single-handed sword forged with Rhineland steel could easily severe limbs with one blow, and was much quicker in the hand thanks to superior ballance.

The lack of lethalty of arrows of all types from all sorts of bows had been established by a series of studies conducted by the Royal Amoury in England working with ballistics scientists from Vickers. The vaunted lowbow was only capable of penetrating maille to sufficient depths to inflict a mortal wound if it was shooting bodkin arrows forged with high grade steel. Those however were conspicuously absent from medieval battlefield archeological sites. Most other missile weapons could cause superficial and painful wounds, but were insufficient to kill.

The developement of plate armor was an reponse to the rise of the Swiss pike-infantry, who for the first time since the Roman Empire gave the footsoldier the lethality to halt shock cavalry attacks.

zraver
09 Jul 08,, 08:52
The developement of plate armor was an reponse to the rise of the Swiss pike-infantry, who for the first time since the Roman Empire gave the footsoldier the lethality to halt shock cavalry attacks.

Are you sure? Froissart's painting of Crecy shows plate and he lived just after the battle and jsut before the rise of the Pike Square. Would not plate armor be inresponce to jousting and the shock cavalry tactics developed during the crusades and the threat from bows?

Also if I may, in the period jsut before the rise of the heavy cavalry the scourge of Europe was the Norsemen. They used axes (due to low cost) alot and did very evil things with them. Also IIRC didn't the Saxon Housecarls also use the ax? Mail persisted becuase its easy to make and worked well enough when combined with gambeson and shield. Europe's warfare was also missile poor at the time. It takes about 10 minutes to teach some one how to make the stuff, then all you need is time and some one to fit the pieces together. Winter fun in a pre-industrial society. Were I am murky is how complex the European mail was. I know the Perisans had a riveted double weave, and I know Europe used riveted mail, but I cant remember if they used a double weave or not.

Triple C
09 Jul 08,, 10:48
IIRC, the earliest record of the Swiss mercenary pike's showing on the battlefield actually dated back to the late 1200s according to my medieval studies lecturor Dr. Phillip Daileader, who also stated that the use of plate armor was an reaction to that of the pike, and could have proved a successful one had the arquebus not been invented.

A quick wikipedia search says that my admittedly poor grasp on numbers is probably right this time: "Late in the thirteenth century, soldiers drawn from the cantons of Switzerland gained a military reputation throughout Europe. This reputation was earned as a result of their defense against the Austrian Habsburg overlords and during campaigns in Italy. "

I am not so sure about Froissart. John Keegan's The Face of Battle stated that archery could kill armored men only at 'point-blank' range, using the artillerist's definition of the word. This seems to collaborate with what I have read from other sources. Froissart's writing are tremendously entertaining, but he lost my credulity when he described the valiant charge of the Blind King of Bavaria.

While I have read the said experiments on a medieval reenactor's web forum, I am loath to depend on them as my supporting evidence. So I will use Keegan's account of the part of the battle in which the contingent of armored French men-at-arms was engaged:



[The archers'] fire was to be 'indirect', in that their arrorows would not depart straight to their enemy's faces but at a fairly steeply angled trajectory . . . . These arrorows cannot, however, given their terminal velocity and angle of impact, have done a great deal of harm, at least for the men-at-arms. For armor, by the early 15th century, was composed almost completely of steel sheets, in place of the iron mail which had been worn on the body until fifty years before but now only covered the akward points of movement arround the groins and the shoulder. It was deliberately designed, moreover, to offer a glancing surface, and the contemporary helmet, the bascinet . . . was particularly well adapted to deflect the blows away from the head and the shoulders.

Keegan extrapolated that the rout of the French cavalry was not the result of the arrow fire in itself, but the stakes that was erected behind the first rank of the archers that was hidden from view by the bodies of the archers, who retreated suddenly behind the cover of what was essentially a make-shift pallisade, panicking the horses. As the cavalry wheeled arround and fell back, the archers squeazed off more shots at the rear of the French horse, which was not armored, and caused a stampede through the advancing French infantry.

The French infantry, advancing in echelon at a slower pace and in a state of disorganization, was then subjected to barrage of archery fire. Yet "The Archers failed nevertheless to halt the French advance". What they have accomplished was "channelling" the French heavy infantry, who hit the English lines and sucessfully forced their armored counterpart to fall back "a spear's length". However, the arrow fire and the terrain's channellizing effect had "so tightly bunched that they could not use their weapons to widen the breach they had made". The charge died at the point of the English lance and, as it became evident that the French forward momentum was lost, the archers dropped their bows, drew whatever impact weapon they had, converged on the French flanks, and decisively won the battle.

The sequence of the events were confirmed by the chroniclers. Had the archery been capable of punching through armor dependably--and thousands of arrows were fired--the French would not have been able to make it to the English lines.

Ironduke
09 Jul 08,, 11:47
Maybe somebody should make a movie about ninjas fighting knights.

Triple C
09 Jul 08,, 12:03
Also if I may, in the period jsut before the rise of the heavy cavalry the scourge of Europe was the Norsemen. They used axes (due to low cost) alot and did very evil things with them. Also IIRC didn't the Saxon Housecarls also use the ax? Mail persisted becuase its easy to make and worked well enough when combined with gambeson and shield. Europe's warfare was also missile poor at the time. It takes about 10 minutes to teach some one how to make the stuff, then all you need is time and some one to fit the pieces together. Winter fun in a pre-industrial society. Were I am murky is how complex the European mail was. I know the Perisans had a riveted double weave, and I know Europe used riveted mail, but I cant remember if they used a double weave or not.

Some sources would claim that the Norsemen's most important asset was the mobility of their long boats. They could strike, loot and burn a town to the ground before it could be relieved by stronger forces, and laugh at the law enforcement from a distance.

I am equally murky about mail, but Erik D Schmid who has solid credentials in mail armor research (Curator of Wallace Collection endorses him) said that once you have mastered the metallurgy, it was faster and cheaper to make plate armor rather then mail. He was also convinced that well-made mail armor would be able to absorb dart fire and take the sting out of the bite. Good mail had to be made of softer iron, which is counter-intuitive but it sort of acts like the collapsable egine compartment of a modern car. This requires considerable skill.

The Romans clad their footsluggers in laminate plate, centurions in mail, and force commanders in bronze. That would be rather odd practice to give your officers less protection than enlisted men to save resources. It usually goes the other way arround.

The problem with two-handed Axe is that it required the use of both hands, and the soldier had to forgo both mount and shield. They could kill mail-clad lads easy, but they would be vulnerable to missiles. That was what got them in Hastings, when the Huscarls were put under constant harrassing fire and a contingent was finally provoked into making an ill-considered charge.

Dunno about how the Crusaders worked in the wars with the Turks. Allegedly, the Turks found their arrows incapable of killing the crusaders, some of whom were described by their chroniclers as "stuck like porcupines" and fought with no appreciable detrement in their ferocity. The Crusaders were equally irked by their enemies ability to inflict numerous painful flesh wounds at stand-off range. If I ever got arround reading Joinville's Chronicle of the XIII Crusade, I will sure tell you what he said about the issue. He was an odd fella for his times, being a literate fighting man.

Triple C
09 Jul 08,, 12:03
Maybe somebody should make a movie about ninjas fighting knights.

I don't see why not. After all we have had a movie about Spartans fighting Persian mutants and Rhino riding grenadiers.

astralis
09 Jul 08,, 17:13
triple C,


The weapons that were needed to overcome maille defenses such as the mace and the two-handed battle axe had serious short comings as battlefield weapons which limited their presence in combat. The idea of crushing a knight under his armor with an axe or mace had its appeal, until you realize that a Frankish single-handed sword forged with Rhineland steel could easily severe limbs with one blow, and was much quicker in the hand thanks to superior ballance.

the way i see it is that there was a decisive transition from the stab attacks used in roman period, to slash attacks in early medieval period, to finally blunt attacks (which then gradually gave way to gunpowder fires). the example of the frankish single-handed sword somewhat fits in with this: one doesn't sever limbs with a stab attack, one creates a gaping hole.

stab attacks were used excellently by the legions: efficient, didn't open the body to counter-attack, and had the most punch. but stab attacks require lots of training and discipline, and worst yet against growing levels of armor and stirrup cavalry the lethality went down.

slash attacks were then used as armies transferred to cavalry. for example, byzantine cavalry, a type of "medium" half-armored cavalry, relied on a combination of sword and horse archery. existing infantry at the time either configured to anti-cavalry or did not have the discipline to create stab armies.

as time went on and better armor was developed, first one-handed and later two-handed swords were needed (zweihanders) to create the blunt attack needed. the development of pikemen made these weapons even more massive in size, so that they could first attack pike shafts and then the pikemen themselves (doppelsnolders).

in any case, the quality of steel needed for slicing through the heavy armor of the period certainly precluded most infantry from having that. so blunt blows were needed. however, as i've said, this period didn't last for too long: the inclusion of musketeers into pikemen ranks made even the massively armored doppelsnolders wary of charging into pikemen.

Triple C
10 Jul 08,, 07:05
Cutting simply wouldn't 'cut it' after High Middle Age. After this peiord lethality and handling had became totally moot when one is in the business of fighting heavily armored cavalry. The one and only goal was to punch through armor, and the only way to do it was to apply massive force concentrated at the smallest possible surface area. Hence pike, hammer, arquebus.

astralis
10 Jul 08,, 15:00
i think we're on the same track. only quibble i have is that the massive force was used to cause trauma (knock-out, broken bones, internal bleeding) as opposed to punching through armor, which grew progressively harder as armor became thicker and harder.

zraver
13 Jul 08,, 03:14
Some sources would claim that the Norsemen's most important asset was the mobility of their long boats. They could strike, loot and burn a town to the ground before it could be relieved by stronger forces, and laugh at the law enforcement from a distance.

The horse was equally important to the mongols. But long boat or horse are not going to kill me, ax or bow will.


I am equally murky about mail, but Erik D Schmid who has solid credentials in mail armor research (Curator of Wallace Collection endorses him) said that once you have mastered the metallurgy, it was faster and cheaper to make plate armor rather then mail. He was also convinced that well-made mail armor would be able to absorb dart fire and take the sting out of the bite. Good mail had to be made of softer iron, which is counter-intuitive but it sort of acts like the collapsable egine compartment of a modern car. This requires considerable skill.[/quot]

The metallurgy being important.

[quote]The Romans clad their footsluggers in laminate plate, centurions in mail, and force commanders in bronze. That would be rather odd practice to give your officers less protection than enlisted men to save resources. It usually goes the other way arround.

officers had to ward off missiles- sheet metal is good for that unless the enemy had bodkin type points. Centurions needed mobility. rank and file needed heavy armor to ward off enemy blows an stabs. 3 different tactical needs, 3 diferent answers.


The problem with two-handed Axe is that it required the use of both hands, and the soldier had to forgo both mount and shield. They could kill mail-clad lads easy, but they would be vulnerable to missiles. That was what got them in Hastings, when the Huscarls were put under constant harrassing fire and a contingent was finally provoked into making an ill-considered charge.

the 'real" two handed ax is a pole arm, I was talking about norse long axes.


Dunno about how the Crusaders worked in the wars with the Turks. Allegedly, the Turks found their arrows incapable of killing the crusaders, some of whom were described by their chroniclers as "stuck like porcupines" and fought with no appreciable detrement in their ferocity. The Crusaders were equally irked by their enemies ability to inflict numerous painful flesh wounds at stand-off range. If I ever got arround reading Joinville's Chronicle of the XIII Crusade, I will sure tell you what he said about the issue. He was an odd fella for his times, being a literate fighting man.

I'd have to dig out the primary source document, but literacy was indeed not common. I have a report from a Moslem doctor on Frankish medicine-:eek:

Triple C
13 Jul 08,, 14:10
officers had to ward off missiles- sheet metal is good for that unless the enemy had bodkin type points. Centurions needed mobility. rank and file needed heavy armor to ward off enemy blows an stabs. 3 different tactical needs, 3 diferent answers.


It was alleged that laminate plate was also quicker and cheaper for the factories to forge. Axes, yeah, probably would get through mail armor. A sword was a faster weapon to handle though, and a solid hit could probably render a man hors de combat for the duration, armor or no armor. I sometimes wonder that was probably what made chivalry practicable.



I'd have to dig out the primary source document, but literacy was indeed not common. I have a report from a Moslem doctor on Frankish medicine-:eek:

Amusing stuff that was! I have read the same document. Those doctors probably killed more patients than what would have been if they just stopped to practice.

zraver
13 Jul 08,, 18:25
It was alleged that laminate plate was also quicker and cheaper for the factories to forge.

Its not hard to make thats for sure. Linen is easy enough as is glue and anyone. A`wood worker can make the molds and presses fairly easy as well, but easier I am not so sure. In a slave driven society labor intensive mail is fairly cheap and Iron is common. Lamilar is definately quicker though once the process is turned into a factory setting.



Axes, yeah, probably would get through mail armor.

No probably abpout it. Although the head was light the imparted force from a Viking long ax or even a smaller hand ax is quite large.


A sword was a faster weapon to handle though, and a solid hit could probably render a man hors de combat for the duration, armor or no armor. I sometimes wonder that was probably what made chivalry practicable.

swords are also expensive and thus a mark of wealth=power, and thus a badge of rank. IIRC is was illegal in some locales for the non-landed to own swords at all.




Amusing stuff that was! I have read the same document. Those doctors probably killed more patients than what would have been if they just stopped to practice.

Or continued to let Moslem physcians who were captured do thier work. The Moslems had ritual washing and the knowledge of Galen going for them.

Triple C
14 Jul 08,, 10:09
swords are also expensive and thus a mark of wealth=power, and thus a badge of rank. IIRC is was illegal in some locales for the non-landed to own swords at all.


Yep. Sort of like a handgun in WWI armies combined with a sports car.

Those Medieval / Reanissance European doctors were scary. Montaign, writing at the 16th century, expressed a sober scepticism towards the physicians of his day and thought of them as glorified witches and quacks. He was probably right.

zraver
14 Jul 08,, 21:40
Those Medieval / Reanissance European doctors were scary. Montaign, writing at the 16th century, expressed a sober scepticism towards the physicians of his day and thought of them as glorified witches and quacks. He was probably right.

I would take out the probably.

Oscar
14 Jul 08,, 21:52
Yep. Sort of like a handgun in WWI armies combined with a sports car.

Those Medieval / Reanissance European doctors were scary. Montaign, writing at the 16th century, expressed a sober scepticism towards the physicians of his day and thought of them as glorified witches and quacks. He was probably right.

Since the study of the human body was forbidden by the Church, medicine at this period was more speculation than real science, I very much agree.

But let's not forget that the Renaissance period has seen the birth, on the battlefields of Europe, of modern surgery. One of the most eminent practician of the time being Ambroise Paré

Ambroise Paré - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambroise_Par%C3%A9)

Triple C
15 Jul 08,, 06:25
Did the black death had any impact on European attitude at medical research and the art of medicine in general? Nostrodomus, otherwise known as the quak prophet that ripped off the French Monarch, practiced medicine (with a fake Uni. Paris certificate) during one of the reccurences of the plauge.

In spite of being a phony, he seemed have studied medicine, and concluded in his journals that all the established conventional wisdom on the causes and treatment of the plague was wrong.

Also the "Macabre" artistic styles that came out of the period seem to indicate an improved knowledge on human anatomy....

Oscar
16 Jul 08,, 12:31
Triple C,

Sorry for the late reply,


Did the black death had any impact on European attitude at medical research and the art of medicine in general? Nostrodomus, otherwise known as the quak prophet that ripped off the French Monarch, practiced medicine (with a fake Uni. Paris certificate) during one of the reccurences of the plauge.

It had an impact on sanitary measures like how to deal with excrements but not decisively on medicine.


Also the "Macabre" artistic styles that came out of the period seem to indicate an improved knowledge on human anatomy...

I think it has more to do with the fact that people were more accostumed to death (Plague, Hundred years' war, life expectancy at 35)...

newbee
20 Jul 08,, 19:35
Most Ninjas are spies, not fighters.

Master Chief
21 Jul 08,, 22:14
Most Ninjas are spies, not fighters.


WHAT, they are ASSASSIN! Not spys!

Sinister
23 Jul 08,, 13:14
Depends on the situation, would it be a head on battle or stealth battle?
Head on the knight might have some advantage since his armor is tough and some knights were very good trained , but ninja was still very agile and fast , so it would be a close one , stealth battle ninja hands down.

efeo
26 Dec 08,, 15:31
If knight is not mounted on a horse there would be no winner either sneak attack or head-on because knight would barely be able to slash the fast ninja while the ninjas little shruikens and else possibly tickling his plate armor. This will take long so I will put a summary;

The only time there'll be a winner from the encounter of the knight and ninja would be on a field with the mounted knight as the victor.

Mobbme
05 Jan 09,, 06:16
Anyone can be a ninja.

Only chosen ones can be Knights.


D_F_5gvVnMc

chakos
07 Jan 09,, 02:44
Considering im now playing Medieval 2 Total War im going to add my 2c worth and say that NOTHING can stand a mounted heavy cavalry charge, Ninja, Samurai or anything.

Generally speaking the only way either a ninja or a samurai could beat a Knight would be if the knight was not doing what he should. Knights generally fought by charge/withdraw/charge again.... There was no reason for them to get cought up in one on one battle nor really to dismount.

Maeda Toshiie
07 Jan 09,, 05:50
Considering im now playing Medieval 2 Total War im going to add my 2c worth and say that NOTHING can stand a mounted heavy cavalry charge, Ninja, Samurai or anything.

Generally speaking the only way either a ninja or a samurai could beat a Knight would be if the knight was not doing what he should. Knights generally fought by charge/withdraw/charge again.... There was no reason for them to get cought up in one on one battle nor really to dismount.

Cavalry is overpowered in M2TW. A knightly could still be stopped by Pikes in the old MTW. Anyway, I don't see how the performance of knights in a game should matter.

Anyway, knights have dismounted plenty of times in history to fight (and on the winning side too).

Yet another point. A 15-16th century samurai primarily fought with long spears (yari), both on foot and mounted. It is not inconceivable for a samurai to stop a heavy western cavalry charge.

Big K
07 Jan 09,, 13:59
Anyone can be a ninja.

Only chosen ones can be Knights.


D_F_5gvVnMc

but isnt that the superiority of Jiujitsu?

a Knight must use his weapons

a Ninja can use anything?

Mobbme
08 Jan 09,, 00:59
but isnt that the superiority of Jiujitsu?

a Knight must use his weapons

a Ninja can use anything?

Hmmm, interesting point Kerem. But in an all out fight, anything goes right? And Ninjas are pros at weapons aswell, so they'll be comfortable fighting with weapons in their hands.

Big K
08 Jan 09,, 12:17
Hmmm, interesting point Kerem. But in an all out fight, anything goes right? And Ninjas are pros at weapons aswell, so they'll be comfortable fighting with weapons in their hands.

if i know it well, the reason of creation of Jiujitsu is turning a simple villager into a deadly warrior who can use anything in their reach as a weapon against the feudal Samurais who are rich enough to get well crafted&shiny weapons such as Katana's and other types of Armor.

there will always be a way to thrust any type of armor but if you are not there than you'll not be hitted.

if agility means something i'd take Ninjas.

if i want to make a heavy cavalry charge i'd take Knights.

if we compare the styles in a one-to-one combat the heavily armored Knight would have a great disadvantage in mobility&agility considering that the main focus is agility for ninjas.

i can say that Knight would be in big trouble altough this does not means that Knight will surely lose it.

it is the heart and will of warrior who really matters.

Mobbme
08 Jan 09,, 13:40
if i know it well, the reason of creation of Jiujitsu is turning a simple villager into a deadly warrior who can use anything in their reach as a weapon against the feudal Samurais who are rich enough to get well crafted&shiny weapons such as Katana's and other types of Armor.

there will always be a way to thrust any type of armor but if you are not there than you'll not be hitted.

if agility means something i'd take Ninjas.

if i want to make a heavy cavalry charge i'd take Knights.

if we compare the styles in a one-to-one combat the heavily armored Knight would have a great disadvantage in mobility&agility considering that the main focus is agility for ninjas.

i can say that Knight would be in big trouble altough this does not means that Knight will surely lose it.

it is the heart and will of warrior who really matters.

Knights are also highly trained one on one fighters, or rather one against many. They are highly trained in the use of a sword. As fast as the ninja can move on feet, the faster the Knight can swing the sword. Its a very good debate, but as history tells us, the Knights ruled the land, not the ninjas; I've never heard of an army of Ninjas take over a city/country/civilization