Knight or Samurai ?

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

Vikings are obviously the best. They did everything from discovering America to drink soup made from hallucinogenic mushrooms to make them enter a nearly uncontrollable, trance-like fury in battle.

[PinkieatHeart 208]

I was totally ready to pick samurai, but then you HAD to throw in Vikings. XP

 

 

I guess Vikings. I have Scandinavian heritage, so it just kinda makes sense.

 

Even though I'd prefer to be a ninja. >.>

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Knights all the way, they don't have to kill themselves if they lose a battle.

 

*sigh* Neither did Samurai. Look honor was important, and still is, to Japan as a whole the concept was not unique to them. Just because you lost a battle didn't mean you had to commit hara-kiri. If it did, no Daimyo during the warring states period would have lasted long enough to make seizing control worth the effort to fight over.

Perhaps in duels, but knights were also dirty pragmatist during wars. I dunno, samurai image are so over the top that they seem ridiculous to me nowadays

 

So were samurai. As you said, in a duel, there are predetermined rules, in war though, which Samurai fought plenty of, they were just as much pragmatists as knights. Attacking at night, killing or enslaving workers to starve the enemy, blackpowder weapons. Honor was important to them certainly, but that didn't mean they weren't allowed to seize a tactical advantage when they saw one.

 

 

I do prefer special forces though,

 

Ah, then maybe the Ninja are more your speed, the precursors to modern Special Forces. 

 

 

I'd never downgrade from a gun to a sword

 

Well yeah, who would? But they weren't always around so you couldn't make use of a weapon that didn't exist yet. Plus even when they did, they were shit at first. In fact, a knight in full plate armor could actually take a few musket balls. Armor smiths of the time actually used that as a sales pitch, showing how great their armor was by showing it was "proofed against bullets" e.g. "bullet-proof." So a mounted knight against a grounded rifleman actually favored the knight as he could close the distance far quicker than it took to reload period weapons. Hell that was even assuming the shooter actually hit his target because the reason muskets were fired in volleys was because that was the only way to actually hit something with them.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Steel Accord

[IcyHaze 593]

Samurai are extremely over-rated, and werenot nearly as good as people make them out to be. Their swords weren't amazingly durable and sharp - at least, no more so than european steel.

 

Knights on the other hand tend to be under-rated. People tend to think fo them as being this big, burly, slow lords who could die form a single stab wound, when in reality, qhile being limited by their armour, they were extremely well trained and their armour could protect them from most swords, which is why many were taught hoiw to use "half-handing" or "Half-Sword" - the technique of holding the blade in the left hand and using it as a thrusting weapon to drive the point into weak spots on the armor. Along with that, the sword could be held by the blade swung like a hammer, using the crossguard to damage the enemy's armour.

 

Vikings...well, vikings are from a different time. Their time ended around the time of the Normans, I believe. I'm fond of vikings, since Ireland has numerous cities that are of viking origins, but I'd prefer the later eras.

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

Knights.  Because why not?  Samurai are cool and all, but they can't hold a candle to a fully armoured knight for sheer intimidation value.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Knights.  Because why not?  Samurai are cool and all, but they can't hold a candle to a fully armoured knight for sheer intimidation value.

 

Well Samurai had their own suits of intimidating armor as well.

 

 

 

 

Samurai are extremely over-rated, and werenot nearly as good as people make them out to be. Their swords weren't amazingly durable and sharp - at least, no more so than european steel.

 

I agree with absolutely everything else you said, but just because Samurai can't live up to the exaggeration doesn't mean they didn't deserve a rep at all. One of, if not the greatest swordsman to have ever lived, Miyamoto Musashi, was a samurai after all; and schools of kenjutsu originating in samurai clan techniques are still practiced to this day.

 

I mean yeah, check my post history, I'll be the first to cry fowl when someone calls knights lumbering brutes and samurai superhuman bullet cutters but that doesn't mean the samurai were not impressive in their own right. (Of course when I say that, I don't mean ALL of them, but I assume you mean the same with knights.)

Edited March 1, 2016 by Steel Accord

[IcyHaze 593]

 

 

Well Samurai had their own suits of intimidating armor as well.

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with absolutely everything else you said, but just because Samurai can't live up to the exaggeration doesn't mean they didn't deserve a rep at all. One of, if not the greatest swordsman to have ever lived, Miyamoto Musashi, was a samurai after all; and schools of kenjutsu originating in samurai clan techniques are still practiced to this day.

 

I mean yeah, check my post history, I'll be the first to cry fowl when someone calls knights lumbering brutes and samurai superhuman bullet cutters but that doesn't mean the samurai were not impressive in their own right. (Of course when I say that, I don't mean ALL of them, but I assume you mean the same with knights.)

 

 

 

Oh absolutely, they were still fantastic warriors, and have a very interesting history.

[Ze Ubermage 226]

I prefer samurai better. They just seem really awesome .

[Roughshod 719]

I'd go with the Samurai. Their swordsmanship seems to have been based on much more disciplined training and the katana is probably the best designed sword of its time period, if not all of history.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Roughshod

[Steel Accord 6,658]

I'd go with the Samurai. Their swordsmanship seems to have been based on much more disciplined training and the katana is probably the best designed sword of its time period, if not all of history.

 

(That's thrice I've had to use this first video and twice the second just to disprove the "knights didn't have REAL swordsmanship" fallacy.)

 

Also the katana is A good sword but it's not THE BEST EVAR! No sword is because they were all made with different functions. The Scottish Claymore could decapitate a man with a hard swing at near twice the distance a katana could, while a Chinese jian was a better thrusting weapon than a katana is.

 

The reason the katana is a good sword is because it's a very good balance of durability and lethality. The sharper a blade, the more fragile it is. Glass can slice through human skin and flesh like paper but it's evidently easy to shatter. Meanwhile a more durable weapon is not going to be able to cut as well. Japanese sword smiths found a balance to this, the curved blade of the katana is fashioned to a keen edge, while the inner curve is made thick to receive incoming blows.

 

As with most things, history fades into legend until legend becomes accepted as history. Europe had swords of equal cutting ability to the katana but the katana's function makes it more interesting, it is a sword made for fencing. Sure, other weapon systems have parries, guards, binds, etc. but the ultimate function of say, an arming sword isn't to meet your foe edge to strong over and over again.

 

As demonstrated in the video, European martial arts (yes they did exist), are more about attacking and defending in one motion. Most forms of Kenjutsu however, have a two step parry and riposte patten, similar to rapier and saber fencing which makes sense as the katana is more similar to Renaissance era weaponry than medieval ones. 

 

. . . . Yes I've dabbled in both forms of swordplay.

Edited March 1, 2016 by Steel Accord

[Concerned Bystander 2,901]

Well Samurai had their own suits of intimidating armor as well.

 

 

 

 

It comes down to individual preference of course, but I find that  ↑

a lot less intimidating than this ↓

 

 

But hey, to each their own.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

It comes down to individual preference of course, but I find that  ↑

a lot less intimidating than this ↓

 

 

But hey, to each their own.

 

As you said, to each his own. Myself, I neglected to vote because I don't think one is better than the other, but I do think both are superior to Vikings. (In terms of "cool factor" not that any of the above cultures were more or less worthy to be.)

[Black Sabbath 2,484]

but I do think both are superior to Vikings. (In terms of "cool factor" not that any of the above cultures were more or less worthy to be.)

May I ask why you think both Knights and Samurai are superior to Vikings?

[Steel Accord 6,658]

May I ask why you think both Knights and Samurai are superior to Vikings?

 

Poor wording on my part, when I say "superior" I meant it as Bystander meant, in the "I like them more for personal reasons." I find knights and samurai to be superior more for what they stood for to their respective cultures. When one is knighted or born into a samurai clan, they are sworn to serve and live by ideals. (Whether an individual lived up to them or not.) I identify very strongly with this mindset.

 

Vikings meanwhile were a specific raider group of "freemen" as they called themselves as a whole when not referring to their specific clan affiliation. One wasn't a viking all the time. Vikings were put together in raiding parties and when they returned, they returned to their normal lives. When one became a knight or samurai, you were one from the moment you wake up, to when you slept . . . sometimes forever.

 

It's that sense of vocation to both roles that I, just for my personal taste, find appealing.

[EpicEnergy 22,074]

I've always preferred knights, they have cool armor and weapons! 

[Mini 451]

imma vote samurai cos i think their armour looks cooler

[Splashee 28,537]

Again, samurai would win.

[Sparkleberry 103]

I wanna be both. Though i am from Norway so i guess i would be Viking. But i wanna be both if i could XD

[Pastel Heart 6,463]

I'm all about them Vikings!~ I'm super fascinated with l Scandinavian history!

[TBD 17,228]

Knight's armor weights a ton. Knock em' out and they are done for. Samurai has more stealth, speed and battle tactics. However, knights love taking advantage of their surrounding in order to make up the weight of their armors and slow movements.  Plus they also have combat training skills when it comes to sword fights. So if the battle takes on a sword fights, I would say, knights will take the win. Knights usually don't wear a full-bodied armors because movement are very limited. Unless ridden on horses. On foots if the knights are smart enough, they will limited their leg armors to give them more movements. Knights fights with shields so Samurai will have hard time piecing through their defense. idk, honestly either one can win in combats because they are both well trained fighters. While out in the field both have firearm weapons and battle tactics where they both love using their surrounding to their advantage. It just all comes down who can play smarter. All I know is  Knights vs samurai WONT be a walk in park for both sides.

[TheRockARooster 47,290]

I've always loved Knights, so I'll choose them.

[Treeglow Flicker 13,018]

I've always had a passion for Japanese history and culture in general, so I have to say samurai. I even own a katana.

[Tao 6,725]

8 minutes ago, Treeglow Flicker said:

I've always had a passion for Japanese history and culture in general, so I have to say samurai. I even own a katana.

Samurai,   given i also own two katana myself. 

[Splashee 28,537]

The armor of a knight seem very heavy and slow. I don't think knights can win against anything other than other knights.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

On 5/15/2020 at 12:12 PM, TBD said:

Knight's armor weights a ton. Knock em' out and they are done for. Samurai has more stealth, speed and battle tactics. However, knights love taking advantage of their surrounding in order to make up the weight of their armors and slow movements.  Plus they also have combat training skills when it comes to sword fights. So if the battle takes on a sword fights, I would say, knights will take the win. Knights usually don't wear a full-bodied armors because movement are very limited. Unless ridden on horses. On foots if the knights are smart enough, they will limited their leg armors to give them more movements. Knights fights with shields so Samurai will have hard time piecing through their defense. idk, honestly either one can win in combats because they are both well trained fighters. While out in the field both have firearm weapons and battle tactics where they both love using their surrounding to their advantage. It just all comes down who can play smarter. All I know is  Knights vs samurai WONT be a walk in park for both sides.

 

On 5/16/2020 at 8:36 AM, Splashee said:

The armor of a knight seem very heavy and slow. I don't think knights can win against anything other than other knights.

The armor thing isn't true.

Sidebar: Samurai also wore armor. Like, they're famous for their armor.

On 5/16/2020 at 8:36 AM, Splashee said:

I don't think knights can win against anything other than other knights.

You do know that knights fought pretty much everything that an army could throw at them right? Pikemen, cavalry, archers, massed infantry, firearms! Saying a knight can only fight another knight is like saying a tank can only fight a tank. Not only is a tank already nearly unstoppable to most ground forces, you usually send in a tank to kill a tank, because another tank is the only thing that CAN stop it.