|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 22:45:45 GMT
I believe that the samurai skill with swords are better than the knight's knowledge of the sword. Though they are two different types of swords and techniques, The samurai's technique would be more effective IF there was no armor. The reason the knights would possibly beat the samurai in a basttle is because of the armor. If the samurai had knights armor and knights had samurai armor...the conclusion would change And where do you draw THAT conclusion from? What exactly do you know of a knight's training in combat? From what I see, neither samurai nor knights outstripped each other in terms of skill. A skilled knight would beat a poor samurai any day of the week. The opposite holds true, as well. why do I even bother.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 22:46:50 GMT
Ok, we can agree on one thing. They would all die! There I went there... I am part Scandinavian, which originated in Germany I believe. But I also love the samurai fighting style, but someones gotta defend the Vikings!  just think of it... the mighty samurai with the relentless vikings= UNFREAKINGSTOPPABLE the knights would be crushed by the hammers and axes of the vikings, and the Spartans would fall to the mighty blade of the Samurai.. its so poetical if you thnk about it. But I love the Spartans. I think that they were even tougher than the vikings..possibly but not as tall. |
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 17, 2008 22:50:03 GMT
Fuedal society replaced that of barbarism. Seems to me the knights have pretty muched "beat" the vikings historically already.
Aye, what a great force! People who've never fought against anyone except themselves and have little experience of the outside world tag teamed with those who have lost every major war they've been in. A force to be reconned with, I'd bet!
And they didn't....use....hammers.....
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 22:50:24 GMT
Hmmm, the swiftness of samurai and strength of vikings... That is like a differently hardened blade! Genius!
|
|
|
|
Post by oos3thoo on Jan 17, 2008 22:51:48 GMT
Fuedal society replaced that of barbarism. Seems to me the knights have pretty muched "beat" the vikings historically already. Aye, what a great force! People who've never fought against anyone except themselves and have little experience of the outside world tag teamed with those who have lost every major war they've been in. A force to be reconned with, I'd bet! Think of it, the samurai's war knowledge and swiftness and the vikings strength! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 22:53:41 GMT
I believe that the samurai skill with swords are better than the knight's knowledge of the sword. Though they are two different types of swords and techniques, The samurai's technique would be more effective IF there was no armor. The reason the knights would possibly beat the samurai in a basttle is because of the armor. If the samurai had knights armor and knights had samurai armor...the conclusion would change And where do you draw THAT conclusion from? What exactly do you know of a knight's training in combat? From what I see, neither samurai nor knights outstripped each other in terms of skill. A skilled knight would beat a poor samurai any day of the week. The opposite holds true, as well. why do I even bother.... yes yes yes, true true true. nice conclusion about the samurai and knights. It all depends on personal skill and valor |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 22:57:41 GMT
Fuedal society replaced that of barbarism. Seems to me the knights have pretty muched "beat" the vikings historically already. Aye, what a great force! People who've never fought against anyone except themselves and have little experience of the outside world tag teamed with those who have lost every major war they've been in. A force to be reconned with, I'd bet! Think of it, the samurai's war knowledge and swiftness and the vikings strength! yep very effective combination. It would be like giants fighting with kung fu midgets on their side lol. And ramm. dont just say that they fought themselves.. They fought against china....korea...and the mongolians and owned them all. plus the spartans most of the time fought athenians... thers no difference |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 23:09:55 GMT
Nobody mentioned the Huns?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 23:11:44 GMT
uhm, thats cuz the huns strength was arrows...and this post doesnt allow the warriors to use arrows
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 23:32:10 GMT
pity cause the samurai's primary weapon were bow and arrows, followed by polearms, the sword never really got to see much action... Im going to go and say that who would win was deendant on where th ebattle was held, it had to be held somewhere, and everyone had to get there, which means some forces will be that much more fresh than the others |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2008 23:43:38 GMT
I am going to give it to the Spartans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2008 0:03:40 GMT
pity cause the samurai's primary weapon were bow and arrows, followed by polearms, the sword never really got to see much action... Im going to go and say that who would win was deendant on where th ebattle was held, it had to be held somewhere, and everyone had to get there, which means some forces will be that much more fresh than the others true the sword wasnt used as much till 1700's. That's why I said they can use any weapons beside projectile type weapons |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2008 0:55:20 GMT
The answer is: there is no answer. This is all pure speculation and while entertaining to some, is ultimately a waste of your time, as no final solution can be obtained. But, what the heck? If you enjoy such activities, have at it, boys! And take no prisoners! My thoughts exactly |
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jan 18, 2008 9:40:46 GMT
Now if you add the Romans to the mix, all bets are off.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2008 14:28:41 GMT
How about Huns vs Mongols vs Parthians vs TAMNT?? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Jan 18, 2008 16:55:35 GMT
What's a TAMNT?
Of the ones I recognise, the Mongols, for sure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2008 17:06:16 GMT
Well, it should be TMNT. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2008 17:42:53 GMT
I disagree that all samurai fight as individuals. Japanese warriors do have their war tactics and strategy that are based on teamwork.
I feel that a well trained samurai MIGHT have a slight advantage to an equally well trained knight, assuming both of them have equal or no experience in any warfare, and both using swords. Its due to a technique taught in most traditional Japanese martial art.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2008 18:01:45 GMT
Well, it should be TMNT. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!!!! Bingo! Teenage or Teen-Age, take yer pick. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2008 18:28:31 GMT
I had to go through this as a process of elimination.
The vikings are raiders using hit and run tactics. They do not go into fair fights. They preferred to attack monasteries. So they are out. Norther people were bigger and stronger then Mediterranean people, but that did little for the Germanian's when they faced short Romans.
I have issue with the samurai's ability to adapt quickly enough to different environment and fighting styles. I think they would be defeated by sheildwalls. They are also an elite class, so there is less of them.
Knights with their heavy charges, armor and weapons proved they they could adopt to changing situations across Europe and the Middle-East. Problem with knights is that they are from an Elite class and expensive to finance. They were at a disadvantage to larger, cheaper armies of pikemen. They also are not very good at forming and keeping alliances.
The Spartans are citizen soldiers who fight on foot in large formations. They have proven the ability to improvise, use the terrain advantageously, and form fruitful alliances. These are all characteristics that are lacking to some degree in the other contenders.
Spartans win!
(note: If you included Romans... Romans would win. They were the best organized 3rd cent B.C. to 3rd cent A.D.)
|
|
