AOE3 Forums

Henry Clay a.k.a. jacklope:

Put on 100 pounds of armor and see how fast you can swing a sword 5 feet tall.

ok samuria had armour too, and it was fancier and less practical, it did not offer much defense, and it still had considerable wieght.

and hard forged plate armour, simply would not cut. on a good day it could stop a longbow arrow, witch at peak verlocity the projectile has more momentum than that of an m-16

momentum = mass(velocity) 

longbow arrow=(95.9grams) (can fire up to 249.9m, velocity unknown, but i know that an bow with less than 200fps would never make that distance.)

M-16 round= (4grams) (3100fps)

so if you roughly calculate that out, you  can see the longbow arrow has significantly more momentum than the m-16.

 and those giant badass broad swords, where wide, but some what thinner, witch made it an excellent weapon. though a katana was not in any way a bad weapon.

NOTE: there seems to be a little bit of confusion in this thread

THIS IS IMPORTANT

a samuria did not carry a two handed sword, he wielded a wakuzashi(spelling)in his left hand and a katana in his right.

this could be confused with japonais warrior monks who used a dia-katana, a massive two handed blade. 

RasRas:

Henry Clay a.k.a. jacklope:

Put on 100 pounds of armor and see how fast you can swing a sword 5 feet tall.

ok samuria had armour too, and it was fancier and less practical, it did not offer much defense, and it still had considerable wieght.

and hard forged plate armour, simply would not cut. on a good day it could stop a longbow arrow, witch at peak verlocity the projectile has more momentum than that of an m-16

momentum = mass(velocity) 

longbow arrow=(95.9grams) (can fire up to 249.9m, velocity unknown, but i know that an bow with less than 200fps would never make that distance.)

M-16 round= (4grams) (3100fps)

so if you roughly calculate that out, you  can see the longbow arrow has significantly more momentum than the m-16.

 

 

 

 and those giant badass broad swords, where wide, but some what thinner, witch made it an excellent weapon. though a katana was not in any way a bad weapon.

 

NOTE: there seems to be a little bit of confusion in this thread

THIS IS IMPORTANT

a samuria did not carry a two handed sword, he wielded a wakuzashi(spelling)in his left hand and a katana in his right.

this could be confused with japonais warrior monks who used a dia-katana, a massive two handed blade. 

 

 

I like this post but I find the above statement^ however to be untrue. Samurai is a fairly general term just like "knight" is. Thus, it's impossible to characterize them wiith a specific weapon. Both were just a relativly high social class devoted to waging war for their fedual overlords.

EDIT: Also I'm not sure the momentum is completely acurate, as I'm almost certain a m-16's round has more momentum then an arrow, even from a long bow.

UnknownCow:

I like this post but I find the above statement^ however to be untrue. Samurai is a fairly general term just like "knight" is. Thus, it's impossible to characterize them wiith a specific weapon. Both were just a relativly high social class devoted to waging war for their fedual overlords.

 im not an expert, but in general, that what they did carry, (they also would use bows nd other weapons too, but in general)

the point i was trying to make is that a katana is not a two handed sword which a few people seemed to think.

though of course, they would not all act alike, and you are right about samuria being a very broad term.
 

I'm seeing a lot of talk about the Knight being at a disadvantage due to bulky and heavy armor. Now IIRC, Knights wore this armor to deflect enemy projectiles such as arrows, rocks, and bolts from crossbows. If the knight knew it would be a sword fight I can see him using less armor than normal for increased mobility. With all this armor off, what makes the samurai any faster or agile than the Knight? What keeps the knight from taking the defensive, waiting for the samurai to slash at him, block with his shield, then stab the Samurai in the gut?

People need to wake up and realize that Samurai can't jump 60 feet in the air and singlehandedly kill 200+ people at one time. They are human, just like knights. 

UnknownCow:

I like this post but I find the above statement^ however to be untrue. Samurai is a fairly general term just like "knight" is. Thus, it's impossible to characterize them wiith a specific weapon. Both were just a relativly high social class devoted to waging war for their fedual overlords.

EDIT: Also I'm not sure the momentum is completely acurate, as I'm almost certain a m-16's round has more momentum then an arrow, even from a long bow.

1.yes it is accurate, actually its an understatement, a longbow has way moere momentum than an m-16 round, because its velocity is probably closer to 250 or even 300 fps.

2. m-16 is an odd comparision however, because it is better at armour penetrating cause it only has a calibre or .223, which is very low (though a bodkin arrow is also quite thin), but a massive muzzle velocity, so it can punch small holes in thick body armour.

3. if you had a glove witch could catch an m-16 round, it would be surprisingly weak, but it is good at punching armour.

A Japanese "knight" or Samurai versus a European knight. Taking an average Samurai versus an average Knight, the Samurai wins. First off its sword was better, and a Samurai carried a bow. If on a battle feild a Samurai has the chance of killing a knight before a hand fight breaks out. Here the Samurai has the chance of cutting through the opponents sword. A Samurai was taught better hand to hand combat too. All together they had better training so the knight stands no chance. they even did a TV special on this and these are experts who came up with these conclusions so i am not pulling this out of my ass. Samurai wins bar none.

why does everyone think the knight will lose? I personally think he'd win since katanas aren't lightsabers, and knights weren't blind clunky idiots in trash cans as hollywood seems to make out. European plate armor was as good as it got wasn't it? If the armor was curved it could probably deflect most hits, I'm pretty sure euro swords weren't nothing to sneeze at either, ditto with their swordsmanship.

 Then again, I am just a man, for a question of this magnitude we should consult the Almighty Google.

 http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Bond wins.