Match 12290 Knights vs. Samurai

[undertakersymbiote]

undertakersymbiote Enter your Set-Up for the match here. This is your post - it belongs to you - and you may use the EDIT function at any time in the future to update this post.

[Callisto]

Learn More About

Knights

Read more about Knights at Wikipedia

Official Site: Public Domain Links: Wikipedia Deadliest Warrior Wiki Knights and Armor

 

Samurai

Read more about Samurai at Wikipedia

Official Site: Public Domain Links: Samurai Wikipedia Samurai Cinema How They Work

 

 

[Z451]

undertakersymbiote Enter your Set-Up for the match here. This is your post - it belongs to you - and you may use the EDIT function at any time in the future to update this post.

Dude please post something, this could be an awesome match if done right.

[Marvel Man]

Dang. Why are so many cool match ups left set up less?

[Guest Supes Rulez]

Oh LORD, this is difficult. I really can't call it, and I've done heavy research on both.

[DSkillz]

undertakersymbiote, from now on, you should really type out your match on a word editor and have it ready to copy/paste before you even choose the characters. If you've been still trying to use the "Save Fight" option, where a fight is put on hold for three hours, that feature no longer works. Whether you choose "Save Match" or "Shake Me", the match now goes live immediately.

 

I think I'll even post as much somewhere in the FAQ forum when I get time, just so fewer users will be confused in the future.

[Guest Pympy]

lol, ah the great debate.

 

 

Too much information to say who wins. Knights's armor was too strong for the Jap's arrows that they would bounce off, unless it hit a weak spot, but an army vs an army wold make it very unlikely.

 

Samurai had great metal smiths, and lighter armor if any at all (Samurai's did, but not all of them wore them)

 

Knight's had crossbows which are stronger, but not as great reloading. and the broadswords the Knights used were heavy, meaning slower, but more powerful.

 

Broadswords are for hacking away, very brutal and uncivilized, but represented a great way of life (the life of a warrior) not to take away from their honor Knights trained as squires as little children( only some people and not peasants usually) So they were intelligent and able to read and write.

 

Samurai's were the same, but had more of a buddhist way of living so it was more honor and sepuku was common (look it up)

 

If I had to choose I would say Knights would win, but in a one on one Samurai's would win for their mobility and skills being more refined than just a hack and slash type of fighting.

 

(Don't get me wrong Knights were very skilled at combat, but were more brute like) Skills does not mean finesse.

[Guest force_echo]

I remember when I was a youngin' on CBUB I debated long and hard for the Samurai. But the Knights take this. A Samurai Sword isn't getting through their armor.

[Guest skadoosh]

If they stabbed really hard they might...

[Guest force_echo]

Get past plate armor? With stabbing? What? There are so many things wrong with that.

[Guest pympppe]

lol reviewing this more, Samurai did have good armor, just not as much of it so they have more room for damage.

 

 

Play Final Fantasy Tactics, the Samurais are better than the Knights hahaha jk

[Guest sirmethos]

Depends on the scenario and victory conditions.

 

I can easily think of scenarios where both sides win.

[leroypowell3]

Yep, it depends on the fight parameters. In a full on war (ancient style) the Knights will take it.

[Guest captain Manzini]

I'm seeing the samurai winning this one. The only losses the samurai ever had were against eachother, while the knights were thoroughy spanked by Saladin and his muslim warriors during the crusades. The Samurai were also more vicous than the knights (if a knight was captured in battle, they were held for ransom as dictated by the code of chivalry. If a samurai was captured in battle his head was chopped off and mounted on a pike.) And the samurai would sooner commit ritual suicide than face defeat in battle, while the knights are willing to face defeat with grace (the chivalric code). Hence, more motivation for the samurai. Ergo, the samurai for the win.

[Guest force_echo]

Knights of the Templar weren't knights in the traditional sense. They didn't even have plate armor. Knights were pretty much tanks on the battlefield, they could hold entire castles and were almost impossible to bring down.

[Guest sirmethos]

"Knights were pretty much tanks on the battlefield, they could hold entire castles and were almost impossible to bring down."

 

Eh, that depends on what time period we're talking about.

[Mercenaryblade]

The only losses the samurai ever had were against eachother,

Mostly because Japan was very much isolationists

 

while the knights were thoroughy spanked by Saladin and his muslim warriors during the crusades. The Crusades also took hundreds of years, and cost the Saracens just as many lives.

 

 

The Samurai were also more vicous than the knights (if a knight was captured in battle, they were held for ransom as dictated by the code of chivalry. If a samurai was captured in battle his head was chopped off and mounted on a pike.) Only if said knight was worth holding for Ransom most were tortured and then executed. Really though how one was treated depended on how important they were or how pissed the other side was at you, being enslaved was also popular.

 

And the samurai would sooner commit ritual suicide than face defeat in battle,Ah, but defeat can be more instructive than victory how are they to learn and adapt if they kill themselves?

 

while the knights are willing to face defeat with grace (the chivalric code). Hence, more motivation for the samurai. Debatable, depends on the person and culture Ergo, the samurai for the win. Wouldn't be so sure of that

 

Sorry if my method of debating with you seems snarky but that was the best way I could think of.

 

Depending on the era Knights really had better armor, katanas aren't the uber awesome pwn all sword hollywood makes them out to be, they're great balanced weapons but not heavy enough to damage plate mail, and weight not sharpness is what you need against plate mail.

 

And longswords are really more versatile than a katana, any part of the sword can be used as a weapon.

 

My points and counterpoints, if you disagree please do so in a civilized manner.

[Guest captain Manzini]

Sorry if my method of debating with you seems snarky but that was the best way I could think of.

 

Depending on the era Knights really had better armor, katanas aren't the uber awesome pwn all sword hollywood makes them out to be, they're great balanced weapons but not heavy enough to damage plate mail, and weight not sharpness is what you need against plate mail.

 

And longswords are really more versatile than a katana, any part of the sword can be used as a weapon.

 

My points and counterpoints, if you disagree please do so in a civilized manner.

 

Happy to oblige. A way to get around the plate armor could be archery. The english longbowmen were able to use archery very effectively against french knights in the battle of agincourt. The Samurai were renowned masters of zen archery, and could theoretically accomplish the same thing.

[Guest a guy]

Key word:

theoretically

[Guest force_echo]

How the hell would arrows get past plate armor? And I don't think any archer is good enough to hit the spaces in between the plates, it takes a damn lot of skill just to be able to hit the target squarely in the first place.

[Callisto]

Match Final Results

USER RATINGS

F

F

F

D

F No set up. (yet all these comments)

F

SCORE

Knights: 17

Samurai: 22

FPA: 0.6

 

[DamagingRob]

I guess I'll post here, so I can see the results. Must be a bug, of some kind. If Callisto's post ends up being the first of the second page, it doesn't show up. Unless someone else posts, that is.

 

DamagEdit: Tada! There you are, match results.