|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 3:06:37 GMT
then I get to ask you - 11th c. knights or 16th c. knights? 12th c samurai or 19th c. samurai? 7th c. vikings or 11th c vikings? etc. etc. Once we get into this, the entire thing is still too murky for any connclusions. My money's still on the knights or spartans though edit: I had thought ireland was caledonia, but apparently I'm wrong ;D. Anyways, thanks for the dispelling of the "barren" comment Ken. I wasn't even aware of either side of the argument ;D. As I said, Roman history is sort of a backseat passion to medieval for me. Of course, there was a point a few years ago where I was certainly deeply into the romans . btw, very true as to the celts, it's what I've been saying all along. An answer can't ever be given unless someone defines what they are referring to be "celts."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:07:52 GMT
The Romans didn't have...what? Are you seriously that...not smart? Have you seen Rome? Sorry, that just seals it right there. From the moment I saw this thread created I knew it needed to die, and fast. But that just does it all in. Where the devil do you people come from? Seriously. This grew to another page while I was typing. Either I'm typing slower or you guys got an early start. Either way, this needs to stop some nine pages ago. It hurts my brain. well like I've said before there is no answer to this. But this is just fun speculation
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:08:48 GMT
the latest of each army..
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 3:10:50 GMT
so, a 16th c. knight vs a 19th c. samurai.
Bit messed up here considering that in the 19th c. "Knights" were fighting with rifles and baoynets....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:14:41 GMT
Well, the Vikings are gonna quit the field when things start to go bad and go look for some monastery to sack or a village to plunder, take a few slaves, etc. Maybe ambush a few samurai and carve a blood-eagle on 'em as a sacrifice to Odin, then sail back home to Norway for the winter and get drunk until spring. Unless there's a blood-feud to settle. Gad, what a life! Inge! Get me another flagon of ale!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:19:50 GMT
so, a 16th c. knight vs a 19th c. samurai. Bit messed up here considering that in the 19th c. "Knights" were fighting with rifles and baoynets.... lets make it 15th century then, and no, the samurai would not use guns on their left hand either like they historically did in the late 18th century
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:21:24 GMT
I do admit that the samurai would lose to the knights, but they would give the knights hell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:23:51 GMT
Quick question: If the Spartans die to the last man (and being Spartans, they will, of course), who's gonna haul 'em back home on their shields?? This has been driving me crazy here. I'm loosing sleep over it.
Oh, and Ric: Rome Rulez!!
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 3:26:31 GMT
Knights "might" have more of a disadvantage here, depending on what half of the 15th c. Early 15th c, they would still be in relatively exposed plate, leather, and chain mixed. None of which, though could be cut through.
I'm not very up to date about samurai from 1400's. Knights would have a very strong grasp of longsword fighting, though, and would be a fair match against any equally trained samurai. Same dexterity and speed (well made armour does not impede ANY of this!). Armour would have been better for the knight, but many areas wouldn't protect from the conversion of the sword blow into blunt force. The samurai's armour wouldn't be too much worse, maybe more protective in some areas but leaving other areas for more open. The knight would be skilled in the art of halfswording, which I think may throw the samurai off his rocker, and the crossgaurds yet again, will proof tricky to learn by the samurai.
Maybe a slight edge to the knight, but it seems pretty equal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:33:22 GMT
yes, ur right, if the samurai fought against people with guards, then lost, then learned and adapted, then came back and fought again usuing what they learned, it would be dead equal, almost.
Is it true that japanese men had a stronger lower and middle body while eauropean men had a stronger upper body?? I heard this somewhere and i'm curious.
one of my favorite units of the samurai are the archers on horses. They would circle around units while firing arrows at them. Totally effective. I think that formation was called the cantraban circle or something like that
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 3:37:25 GMT
Probably read the statement from me.
The ideal japanese male body was a broad base at the hips, whereas we westerners are taught that the ideal male body is broad shoulders and a narrow waist. We see this sort of belief of the perfect body in armour, where the european knight bore most of the weight on his strong upper body and the samurai carries his burden on his wide and able hips.
Of course, this is just an "on average" example, there are many exceptions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:44:32 GMT
I can't believe this thread has spawned 11 pages already. It's ridiculous.
Even broad shouldered, narrow waisted people have a center of gravity around the navel in most cases. And knight's armor was was distributed over the whole body and not just on the shoulders - you should know that Ram. Even the boy scouts learn to carry weight on their hips rather than their shoulders cuz it's just intelligent.
Also, I'd suggest being careful with your phrasing as saying that "the ideal JAPANESE male body was a broad base at the hips, wehreas We WESTERNERS all KNOW that THE IDEAL male body..."(emphasis added) can be taken the wrong way. Very very easily.
Not that I have authority or anything. Just trying to do my part to prevent a flame war from starting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:45:22 GMT
that is awesome I have both. I am 1/16th Spanish 1/2 Philippino 1/4 Swedish and 1/4 German. I should start learning more about the knights, I dont know that much about them and I was sorta biased with the samurai and partially vikings in this debate
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 3:48:33 GMT
Ah you're right adam, sorry, that came out wrong. (glad yu caught it though, karma for helping avoiding an altercation)
From what I've seen, european armour is indead carried on the shoulders. At least that's what I've read a lot of, although I can't say I've read it at all during my recent submergence into historical accuracy. If you feel it's wrong (and I'm not calling you out, I'm genuinely interested) please cite something if you could?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 3:53:36 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 4:06:09 GMT
According to Wikipedia: While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle.
According to Higgins Armory Museum:
Well-made armor did not greatly restrict the wearer’s freedom of movement: it was designed to move the way the human body moves.... Unless stunned or seriously injured, knights could get to their feet quite quickly. While not light, the weight of an armor was well-distributed.
According to the Central European University, Budapest:
It is fatiguing to fight in heavy armor, but fighters wearing this protective gear are far from the clumsy behemoths often portrayed in film. If armor were that encumbring, no fighter in his right mind would have bothered with it, because being slowed that much would be tantamount to suicide. Modern reconstructions have shown that fighters in full suits of mail or plate can perform cartwheels, leap up directly from the ground, and even sprint for short distances.
Have you ever tried to leap up from the ground with 50-60lbs of weight resting on your shoulders? No easy task. But conceptualize leaping up from the ground wearing 50-60 lbs of armor spread over your whole body and things start becoming feasible...
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on Jan 19, 2008 4:14:53 GMT
Hm...I've always thought that armor wasn't cumbursome because the weight was born on an area of the body that could take the weight. Obviously I'm not a power lifter, so thanks for the disabusing of that for me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 4:18:50 GMT
You mean the hips?
lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 4:23:07 GMT
1+ karma for sharing that was a fun read One quote of his I really like "From this, it can be seen that a direct comparison of a European sword to a Japanese one is not possible. They are “apples and oranges”, so to speak. They’re both fruit, both delicious, but you can do different, though very similar, things with each.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2008 4:29:08 GMT
Anyone for tennis?? ;D
|
|