Real Combat

[iSuck345]

I want to see what you think. BUT before this becomes a f***ing rage fest, please consider that it can be of ANY era, the 1200s, the 1500s, ANY. The samurai comes from one culture, but the knight comes from a whole different thing: it can vary in religion (catholic, orthodox) and region. Each knight of a different region was awfully different from each one of the others, thus there are things to reconsider. Also, this will be a dismounted combat with no missile/projectile weapons. In other words, a typical and classic sword vs sword duel. BUT WAIT! What kind of sword shall they use? Consider this: english swords were made of a material that was yes maybe of worse quality, but it could BREAK a japanese sword with ease. Why? Because of how it was shaped. You must also consider many other things, like:

How much they know about their adversary;
Their psycological condition;
Their training

And so on. In fact, I encourage that you see this site before posting: http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

You know what? It won't matter, let's also see how they wold deal with each other in mounted and ranged combat. It's your choice, I can't wait to see what you will post. And also, armour variated with each region. Yeah. It's that complex.

[Blxz]

ANY. The samurai comes from one culture, but the knight comes from a whole different thing: it can vary in religion

The jedi knight obviously wins. He can use the force, he has a light saber that will fuck up any armour the samurai uses and he can predict slightly in advance what the samurai plans to do.

And unless you plan on narrowing the discussion then this discussion is complete.

[iSuck345]

Ok without jokes Blxz, and don't try to finish this. And yes, I find your joke a little amusing (f***ing jedi are worse that crusaders O.O). My conclusion after a short analysis is that only if the knight uses heavy armour and a thrusting sword, then he can win. This is because the samurai has heavy armour and a thrusting atack is easy to dodge, but heavy armour makes it hard. Not only that as it's more lethal than the slashing atack. Now the reason of the armour is because the samurai's sword is for slashing, because the militia wold normally have little to no armour and it was quite frequent, and it's really innefective against heavy armour, making the knight have little to no need to dodge, although it still does damage.


However if the knight used light armour and a slashing sword, then it wold be different. The samurai's sword wold take him out quick with slash atacks which are harder to dodge, and even though less powerfull than thrusting they are still lethal. The slashing wold be innefective against the armour, and therefore the samurai wold win in that case.

That is my conclusion, now it's time for Blxz to post his opinion without joking. Seriously, I want to see another one of your well-elaborated posts.

[Wicked001]

If the pirate has a pistol, doesn't that mean he can kill anyone of the others first? He could potentially kill the one who would otherwise come out as the winner if there was no pistol involved.
Just a thought that came to my mind...

I think that this point is interesting, but a little bit lacking in foresight.

I suspect the pirate would probably win the fight by defending himself long enough to be one of the final 2 standing, and then use the pistol to finish off the runner up.

As disjointed as I was about the original Jack Sparrow reference, this is specifically a tactic that Sparrow would have employed were actually the pirate in the bar.

I am ashamed to admit that I did not read all of the other posts in this thread in their entirety.

-Wicked001

---------------Edit---------------------
After feeling so ashamed for not reading the whole thread, I went back and read in more depth. I still think that the sneaky pirate might use the pistol to surprise the last warrior standing and possibly win.

However, I think the whole argument would be better if they were stripped of their gear and left to only their wits and will. A butter or steak knife from the tavern would be nearly as useful as a mug or stool. This would possibly give an advantage to a different contender?

I have a best idea! Lets strip them of all their gear except for a pair of pants and a rusty old katana and leave them in the middle of the desert with only 1000 cats. May the best man win!

[Mask]

The pirate is the easiest to kill, so it makes sense he would die first if he stayed around at all.

Earlier in the thread, I talked about the shortcomings of pistols and why it gives the pirate little advantage.

Out of the warriors, only the Spartan would be unable to recognize a powder weapon. So surprise isn't a great option.


Cats win. Shred all four guys to pieces and have them for lunch.

Out of the four warriors, the Spartan is most likely to win on average--but really, the results would vary hugely based off their training and skill.



That was a very amusing topic, but I think we discussed it to the maximum extent. We need a new question or item of conversation.

[Old Man Liver]

That was a very amusing topic, but I think we discussed it to the maximum extent. We need a new question or item of conversation.

How about uuh.. Okay, I've got it!

On June 22, 1941, Operation Barbarossa began. Nazi Germany invades the Soviet Union. German intelligence that underestimated the strength of the Soviets, and the notorious Russian winters lead to the overall failure of the operation. The high casualties and overstretched German army that was fighting a war on too many fronts contributed greatly to the result of WW2 that we know today.

So, the question is.. If Germany did not invade the Soviet Union while still at war with the United Kingdom, what would the outcome of the war be?

Things to keep in mind..

-Relations between Germany and the Soviets are unchanged. The decision to invade was not influenced by some secret alliance, or outside force. Hitler and his generals just thought it was too risky to attack.

-Hitler will not change his mind a month later. The Germans will not invade the Soviet Union, unless the war on the Western front ends.

-The Soviet Union can take the offensive and attack Germany. Whether they do or not is part of the question. Only you can decide!

-The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact remains in effect, but it can be broken by anything that isn't Germany invading the Soviet Union. How this effects relations between Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan are also up to you to debate.

-Forgive poor old, weak and weary Liver if the answer to this is too complicated for the Kenshi forum.

Will the soviets just attack Germany anyway, and end the war even quicker?! Will the Soviet Union remain neutral, preventing Germany and Japan from forming a military alliance?! Will Goku and his friends stop Hitler before he finds the dragon balls, and becomes immortal?!

[Mask]

Their are probably too many factors to that to give a proper answer. It certainly would've been helpful to Germany that the Stalingrad fiasco never happened--but then if the Soviets manage a successful offensive which surprises the Germans at a critical moment, it may've been even worse for them.

You could speculate that Russia would've been more prepared for the war with the extra time, and that the West would've been in a more terrible state afterwards. That would have some interesting ramifications on the balance of power during the Cold War--assuming Germany didn't just take over Europe and sue for peace with Russia, then wipe out the US later.

'Course, Germany and Russia hated each other so much... seems hard to imagine that working. You could get all kinds of weird results, depending on what happens with that change--could even get the same thing that happened in our history, more or less, with just a few changes related to Hitler not expending troops on that campaign.

[DarkPonzu]

The Japanese samurai would win hands down

Assuming the knight is in full plate armor, he will be terribly slow. This would be very advantageous to the much faster and more flexible samurai. The samurai could simply wear the knight down, and go in for the kill. Not to mention if the knight is knocked to the ground, it will be impossible, or close to it, to get back up in the armor.

Even if the knight could conceivably break the Samurai's sword, any Samurai worth their salt would not let that happen unless it was some freak accident or miscalculation. Since Samurai didn't have full metal armor, they had to rely on their reflexes and accurate attacks to win the day. The slim katana could easily weave around a knight's ungainly broadsword.

Knights were nobles, and while I'm sure they got adequate training time and practical experience, Samurai were warriors first and foremost. They would have likely trained obsessively on a scale that I think a feudal European knight would not have.

Psychologically, the Samurai would also have an advantage. Knights typically came from the upper classes, probably owned some amount of land, and connection to the nobility. In other words, they had a lot to lose, and would have wanted to live through the fight. This would make them hesitant in battle at least.

The Samurai's sole duty is to die in the service of their master, and in fact, would die an honourable death to lose against the knight. They wouldn't hold anything back in the battle compared to the knight. A trained from birth warrior with nothing to lose, even their life, is a dangerous thing.

For ranged combat: A competent archer was rare and the best bowmen had to learn from an early age. A samurai would have begun training with bows as soon as they could walk. Knights had a lot of functions to perform than just fighting, and at least in historical depictions, you don't see a whole lot of knights wielding bows and arrows. They usually use a sword and shield, or lance. I'm willing to bet the samurai had more practice time, and thus, would be the better marksman.

On horseback, I think it would be an even match. Both would probably be equally competent riders, so I think it would be anyone's game. I think it would come down to who was the better pole-arm fighter. But in this scenario, I think the knight is still too slow and would have the disadvantage.

[Old Man Liver]

uh oh! http://www.lofigames.com/phpBB3/viewtop ... f=5&t=2885

[iSuck345]

The Japanese samurai would win hands down

Assuming the knight is in full plate armor, he will be terribly slow. This would be very advantageous to the much faster and more flexible samurai. The samurai could simply wear the knight down, and go in for the kill. Not to mention if the knight is knocked to the ground, it will be impossible, or close to it, to get back up in the armor.

Even if the knight could conceivably break the Samurai's sword, any Samurai worth their salt would not let that happen unless it was some freak accident or miscalculation. Since Samurai didn't have full metal armor, they had to rely on their reflexes and accurate attacks to win the day. The slim katana could easily weave around a knight's ungainly broadsword.

Knights were nobles, and while I'm sure they got adequate training time and practical experience, Samurai were warriors first and foremost. They would have likely trained obsessively on a scale that I think a feudal European knight would not have.

Psychologically, the Samurai would also have an advantage. Knights typically came from the upper classes, probably owned some amount of land, and connection to the nobility. In other words, they had a lot to lose, and would have wanted to live through the fight. This would make them hesitant in battle at least.

The Samurai's sole duty is to die in the service of their master, and in fact, would die an honourable death to lose against the knight. They wouldn't hold anything back in the battle compared to the knight. A trained from birth warrior with nothing to lose, even their life, is a dangerous thing.

For ranged combat: A competent archer was rare and the best bowmen had to learn from an early age. A samurai would have begun training with bows as soon as they could walk. Knights had a lot of functions to perform than just fighting, and at least in historical depictions, you don't see a whole lot of knights wielding bows and arrows. They usually use a sword and shield, or lance. I'm willing to bet the samurai had more practice time, and thus, would be the better marksman.

On horseback, I think it would be an even match. Both would probably be equally competent riders, so I think it would be anyone's game. I think it would come down to who was the better pole-arm fighter. But in this scenario, I think the knight is still too slow and would have the disadvantage.

I have to say, your post is good, however, do know that plate armour wasn't the only one avaiable: the chainmall armour, for example, allowed only slightly restricted movement. When the plate parts began appearing, they were only at first reinforcements to shoulders, the chest and other vital areas. Also, not all knights wore a sword, some wore axes, others spears and other times they wold use maces.

[[Old Soldier]]

For ranged combat, I have to disagree. Assuming that todays traditional yumi archers use the same techniques as the samurai, they might have a disadvantage when it came to facing a medieval european or eastern asian archer.

I'll direct your attention to this video of a danish archer named Lars Anderson:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g


And compare this to the yumi bow:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhJotVk7nGk

I'm not a historian, but I believe they used spears for hunting in feudal japan, not bows, where as a european noble would be able to hunt, legally, and would probably have used a bow as well as a spear.

[mr. wong]

There are also the different sword styles to consider, especially concerning the samurai

for example, Miyamoto Musashi, considered to be the most famous swordsman in japan killed over 60 opponents, all man of skill, in single combat using his famous "two heavens, one sword" style. He was 13 when he killed his first opponent!

The samurai can also use the two-sword style or nitojutsu using both the katana and his wakizashi.

If the fight is before the 1500's they use different swords all together.

AAAAAH, so much to consider, so little time

[iSuck345]

What do you mean "so little time"?

[TheCowabungaKid]

^^^^^This
Judging from the fact that we post here, I'd say we all have plenty of time on our hands.

So, regarding the Spartan/Knight/Samurai/Pirate scenario...If they all fight each other at the same time, I say there is no way of determining who would win. There are too many unknown variables unfolding during the fight.

Among these four, one against one in close quarters, instead of hopping on the Samurai-fanboy-train, I'd bet my money on the Spartan unless he is caught unawares by the Pirate and gets shot in the face (which is not likely, but still a possibility).

Let's deal with the Knight and Samurai first: by the 15th century, knights would wear full plate armor due to the introduction of firearms. Although he enjoys the greatest protection by far and it would take forever to take him out, he is at a disadvantage for three reasons:
1) He does not have a shield. While the protection value of the shield is unnecessary because of the plate armor, a shield (which only the Spartan has in our scenario) gives a huge tactical edge against an opponent with only one weapon.
2) He is mainly fighting from horseback. Although knights did train fighting on foot and developed quite sophisticated techniques, mounted combat was still the main purpose.
3) His full helmet impedes his vision.
The same applies to the Samurai:
1) By the 16th century, firearms had been introduced to Japanese warfare by the Portuguese. Hence he loses a lot of agility and speed because, like the Knight, his armor is quite heavy and restricts his movement.
2) Plus, and again not unlike the Knight, he lacks a shield because Samurai were primarily fighting as lancers and mounted archers.
3) The face mask of his helmet impedes his vision.
The Pirate, although I would consider him a skilled swordsman simply because he kills and robs for a living, loses to the Spartan mainly for reasons of equipment (again, the shield - and probably no helmet), and the Spartan's indoctrination and training. As was stated already in another post, the war gear of any of the three opponents would render the pistol ineffective.

Although I would say the contest is not fair at all. An "average" member of the above groups would still make the Spartan the absolute peak of martial prowess and ability in his time, while the Knights and Samurai were already in decline because warfare was changing throughout the periods given.

If they all went in at the same time, if I had to make a decision, I would probably go with the Knight for the simple reason of staying power due to his immense advantage in protection. No one would pick him to be the first target. But again, with all four fighting each other at the same time, there's really no telling who would win.

[hypekillah]

The samurai has a sharper sword then the knight. it can literally cut trough armour. the knights sword cannot. it is also quiker to mannuver a katana then a longsword. so ina thight space like a bar. the samurai wins over the knight atleast.

[TheCowabungaKid]

The samurai has a sharper sword then the knight. it can literally cut trough armour. the knights sword cannot. it is also quiker to mannuver a katana then a longsword. so ina thight space like a bar. the samurai wins over the knight atleast.

The Samurai's sword is not "sharper" than a longsword. Because of the curved edge, it has a better cutting performance, but that is useful against unarmored opponents, not armored ones. and it sure as hell doesn't cut through plate armor. Not even through riveted mail.

[Sydious]

The winner is an easy call. The Spartan. They are the only one who would never give up or run away. Even losing a limb or 2 they would fight to their last breath with no remorse or care for their own saftey

[hypekillah]

History channel seems to dissagre with the whole no armor slicing idea you guys have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

[TheCowabungaKid]

History channel seems to dissagre with the whole no armor slicing idea you guys have.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

LOL. Dude I didn't even bother watching past the point where they use a 1.5 mm thick deerskin as a substitute for "Leather Armor". Sorry but this video is plain bullshit. As a rule of thumb, anything broadcasted on History Channel is.

[iSuck345]

The winner is an easy call. The Spartan. They are the only one who would never give up or run away. Even losing a limb or 2 they would fight to their last breath with no remorse or care for their own saftey

Not only that, as they live a warrior life. And also I think that they have severe family issues...