AOE3 Forums

You would have thought the knight would win yet an army of english bowmen took down a french army of knights .The one thing about plate armour is it is heavy and there are vunerable points like the joints where tendons are siruated . Ever heard of the term hamstrung - well hamstrung means that the tendons behind the knee have been cut - you cant crawl or move very much at all .

So , a lightweight samuri knowing what he is doing is gonna strike for the weakpoints in a hit and run attack - now guess who wins 

Also i hate repeating myself, i was watching a PBS program on this. The Samurai wins and it was a quick fight simulation. This is not me pulling something out of ones ass but an experts opinion. The Samurai were better trained and their only true weakness was there armor.

First a Samurai carried a bow into battle so if this was on the feild he could actually injure or kill the knight before the battle started.

Both sets of armor are not all that they are hyped up to be. Samurai had horrible armor yet their agility makes up for this, aka they can move to avoid the sword or block it with their light Katana. Then the Kight may have a great set of armor yet it had holes only covered in chain mail and that could easily be cut through by a Katana.

The Katana was very light and could be directed and handled a lot better than a kights sword. As long as the Samurai was not fighting William Wallace(this guy is not even a knight, and killed knights as if it was his born right) i am pretty sure that they would win. The Katana could even get the chance of cutting through a sword if hit correctly, yet this is only a very slim chance. 

If this was a long fight then again the Samurai would win due the the fatigue that the Knight would suffer from a heavy sword and armor. 

So everyone stop forming your own educated opinions and start listening to the experts and well.

S A M U R A I    W___I___N___S

grilko:

You would have thought the knight would win yet an army of english bowmen took down a french army of knights .The one thing about plate armour is it is heavy and there are vunerable points like the joints where tendons are siruated . Ever heard of the term hamstrung - well hamstrung means that the tendons behind the knee have been cut - you cant crawl or move very much at all .

So , a lightweight samuri knowing what he is doing is gonna strike for the weakpoints in a hit and run attack - now guess who wins 

Thank You some reason. They picture the armor as a liquid that covers the whole body. Come on it was heavy and full of wholes just asking for a Katana to sneak through.

EdyPegasus:

grilko:

You would have thought the knight would win yet an army of english bowmen took down a french army of knights .The one thing about plate armour is it is heavy and there are vunerable points like the joints where tendons are siruated . Ever heard of the term hamstrung - well hamstrung means that the tendons behind the knee have been cut - you cant crawl or move very much at all .

So , a lightweight samuri knowing what he is doing is gonna strike for the weakpoints in a hit and run attack - now guess who wins 

Thank You some reason. They picture the armor as a liquid that covers the whole body. Come on it was heavy and full of wholes just asking for a Katana to sneak through.

What's not so reasonable about this post is that it turns the samurai into a demi-god that with some quick slashes renders the knight defenseless. Yes, the plate armor is no a liquid that covers the body this doesn't change the fact that a single swing of the average knight's sword would crush through the samurai's armor. This is not the same as highly protective plate armor designed to have as little holes as possible.

But if this logic does not speak to you, I will use grilko's own faulty reasoning through my own composition:

The samurai would be so dead! All the knight has to do is stab his radial nerve then the knight can easily proceed to kill the helpless samurai. Have you had your radial nerve cut?! Then shut up! Cuz it's impossible to live after that!

Himmelmann16:

WesternKnightSpar

EuropeanSwordMelee

Id would have no prolem putting all my money on the knight first off their armour is better there weapon is designed to crush bones rather than cut so the curved katan would be near useless and also european have same if not more speed with there swords

I have to agree with you, European equipment would be too much for the Samurai.:)

EdyPegasus:

Also i hate repeating myself, i was watching a PBS program on this. The Samurai wins and it was a quick fight simulation. This is not me pulling something out of ones ass but an experts opinion. The Samurai were better trained and their only true weakness was there armor.

First a Samurai carried a bow into battle so if this was on the feild he could actually injure or kill the knight before the battle started.

Both sets of armor are not all that they are hyped up to be. Samurai had horrible armor yet their agility makes up for this, aka they can move to avoid the sword or block it with their light Katana. Then the Kight may have a great set of armor yet it had holes only covered in chain mail and that could easily be cut through by a Katana.

The Katana was very light and could be directed and handled a lot better than a kights sword. As long as the Samurai was not fighting William Wallace(this guy is not even a knight, and killed knights as if it was his born right) i am pretty sure that they would win. The Katana could even get the chance of cutting through a sword if hit correctly, yet this is only a very slim chance. 

If this was a long fight then again the Samurai would win due the the fatigue that the Knight would suffer from a heavy sword and armor. 

So everyone stop forming your own educated opinions and start listening to the experts and well.

S A M U R A I    W___I___N___S

ok points going into this, u think u know everything but you don't.

1. plate mail has no armour parts covered by chain mail, some older versions did, but good true platemail did not have any chain mail on it.

2.you can break ANY sword if u hit is correctly even a katana, but a katana is not for choping so it would have great difficulty smashing a broad sword. the key to breaking a sword is hiting it square on the side with your blade going into it. but a good sword master would never let that happen, because when you block you want to deflect the sword, or somtimes you can hit it with the blade of your sword.

3. about slashing armour did you read my previous post? ill bring it up again in case any one missed that, since it could cause a debate. 

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 armor, 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.

Actually they never fought. but the Knight wins. They got a better armor, they are heavier, and they are stronger with their swords because of its weight.And like i said before, their swords could kill in 2 ways: Cutting, or killing or breaking bones with the hit by itself.