User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:41:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Knight will fuck up the samurai.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:45:48 PM EDT
[#2]
Knight
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:45:55 PM EDT
[#3]
By almost* every possible criteria the knight wins.
* Samurai wins if it's trial by poetry recitation or hot beverage preparation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:47:34 PM EDT
[#4]
Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:48:01 PM EDT
[#5]
A man in full plate armor is practically invincible against someone with just a sword, especially a sword primarily for cutting.
A knight with a poleaxe can fuck up a man in lamellar armor and mail like a Samurai, easy. At the time you're thinking of, swords were backup weapons for Western European knights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:49:06 PM EDT
[#6]
Katana is just going to piss off a Crusader.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:49:33 PM EDT
[#7]
I'd like to think I'd give the edge to Samurai, simply because of their speed of attack and they could get the edge of their sword into spaces in the armor. But, if the knight lands a blow with a claymore or broadsword; yeah, it's Samurai Sushi for the King's feast tonight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:51:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Also, Katana are two handed swords. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:51:28 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Parry son. Two handed sword would break just about any Japanese blade, IMO. The handle is a club. Watch the recreations done at the War Museum at Leeds. Quick and close. The 2HS is more a sharp bo staff than hacking sword. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:52:37 PM EDT
[#10]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:54:38 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd like to think I'd give the edge to Samurai, simply because of their speed of attack and they could get the edge of their sword into spaces in the armor. But, if the knight lands a blow with a claymore or broadsword; yeah, it's Samurai Sushi for the King's feast tonight. A knight in well made and properly fitted plate armor isn't as slow lumbering as Hollywood would have you believe, they were plenty fast enough while fully armed and armored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:56:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Thinking samurai might find weakness/sweet spot in armor. Speed vs weight of armor.........I like gladiator fights
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:57:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Parry son. Two handed sword would break just about any Japanese blade, IMO. The handle is a club. Watch the recreations done at the War Museum at Leeds. Quick and close. The 2HS is more a sharp bo staff than hacking sword. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Parry son. Two handed sword would break just about any Japanese blade, IMO. The handle is a club. Watch the recreations done at the War Museum at Leeds. Quick and close. The 2HS is more a sharp bo staff than hacking sword. Do you have a two handed sword? Have you swung one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:58:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Yeah, I'm gonna say flail + shield (+dagger) should beat a samurai handily.
Flail is a great weapon against a swordsman, the problem is, it sucks against a polearm. On that note, a samurai with a heavy polearm would have the best chances against a knight, but AFAIK they didn't use anything heavy. A greatsword (No-Dachi) would be the next best thing, then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:59:12 PM EDT
[#15]
Knight would win against most samurai.
I would like to point out that samurai had weapons other than katana, some of which would be somewhat effective against even heavy armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 7:59:38 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you have a two handed sword? Have you swung one? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Parry son. Two handed sword would break just about any Japanese blade, IMO. The handle is a club. Watch the recreations done at the War Museum at Leeds. Quick and close. The 2HS is more a sharp bo staff than hacking sword. Do you have a two handed sword? Have you swung one? It ain't a baseball bat. And no, I don't have one. And no, they didn't swing them like cricket wickets or hurling sticks. They had "ready" and "rest" positions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:00:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Knight would win against most samurai. I would like to point out that samurai had weapons other than katana, some of which would be somewhat effective against even heavy armor. Yeah, they were big believers in pole arms especially. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:01:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, they were big believers in pole arms especially. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Knight would win against most samurai. I would like to point out that samurai had weapons other than katana, some of which would be somewhat effective against even heavy armor. Yeah, they were big believers in pole arms especially. Yari: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:02:11 PM EDT
[#19]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:03:39 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thinking samurai might find weakness/sweet spot in armor. Speed vs weight of armor.........I like gladiator fights Me too, but I'm just a hack. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:05:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:06:41 PM EDT
[#22]
Knight wins.
The Japanese never really got past the "Jesus, everyone's a tin can, better move away from slashing weapons." There's only a handful (typographically speaking) of bludgeon weapons. Europeans spent hundreds of years making weapons with multiple purposes, many of which were to defeat armor. Japanese armor design also leaves more open areas. Knight with a pollaxe wins. Sword as backup. As a side note, there's a huge auction coming up with some original polearms. Might need to buy more.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:06:42 PM EDT
[#23]
In before the ARFCOM weebos?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:07:57 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah, they were big believers in pole arms especially. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Knight would win against most samurai. I would like to point out that samurai had weapons other than katana, some of which would be somewhat effective against even heavy armor. Yeah, they were big believers in pole arms especially. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:07:58 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It ain't a baseball bat. And no, I don't have one. And no, they didn't swing them like cricket wickets or hurling sticks. They had "ready" and "rest" positions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Parry son. Two handed sword would break just about any Japanese blade, IMO. The handle is a club. Watch the recreations done at the War Museum at Leeds. Quick and close. The 2HS is more a sharp bo staff than hacking sword. Do you have a two handed sword? Have you swung one? It ain't a baseball bat. And no, I don't have one. And no, they didn't swing them like cricket wickets or hurling sticks. They had "ready" and "rest" positions. I have a legit hand-and-a-half sword. A two hander is another 2-5 lbs depending on length and material. I'd bet you couldn't hit me with either in 20 tries. The medieval knight was fearsome against unarmored opponents on foot, and against anything while mounted (the equivalent of a killdozer). Against other knights, who were equally encumbered, most injuries and deaths were due to broken bones and internal injuries. Against someone with equal or better sword skill and speed/mobility, they lose nearly every fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:11:03 PM EDT
[#26]
Another modern approximation of the two fighting styles against each other.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:11:12 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. No, they were not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:11:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Depends on the knight, depends on the samurai.
For the most part, size, strength and metal armor rule, so knight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:15:10 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. Attacking armor is a dumb idea, no matter what it's made of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:16:18 PM EDT
[#30]
Knight with mace/warhammer and shield wins IMHO. Close combat was the knight's specialty. The samurai were more horse archers. Put them on horses across the field and I change my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:17:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they were not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. No, they were not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:22:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An average rapier weighs the same as an average medieval longsword. You don't think a rapier is a heavy, unweildy weapon, do you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. No, they were not. 
I don't even know where to start. That's like saying a F250 and a Ferrari weigh the same, and therefore the truck has nimble handling. ETA - just so we're clear, you DO realize a long sword has roughly 2-3 times as much steel in it as a rapier. Right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:23:02 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Knight with mace/warhammer and shield wins IMHO. Close combat was the knight's specialty. The samurai were more horse archers. Put them on horses across the field and I change my opinion. English Longbow > Jap bow on the ground Ground vs mounted? Longbow wins because distance Just sayin' |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:23:30 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd like to think I'd give the edge to Samurai, simply because of their speed of attack and they could get the edge of their sword into spaces in the armor. But, if the knight lands a blow with a claymore or broadsword; yeah, it's Samurai Sushi for the King's feast tonight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:24:52 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a legit hand-and-a-half sword. A two hander is another 2-5 lbs depending on length and material. I'd bet you couldn't hit me with either in 20 tries. The medieval knight was fearsome against unarmored opponents on foot, and against anything while mounted (the equivalent of a killdozer). Against other knights, who were equally encumbered, most injuries and deaths were due to broken bones and internal injuries. Against someone with equal or better sword skill and speed/mobility, they lose nearly every fight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Parry son. Two handed sword would break just about any Japanese blade, IMO. The handle is a club. Watch the recreations done at the War Museum at Leeds. Quick and close. The 2HS is more a sharp bo staff than hacking sword. Do you have a two handed sword? Have you swung one? It ain't a baseball bat. And no, I don't have one. And no, they didn't swing them like cricket wickets or hurling sticks. They had "ready" and "rest" positions. I have a legit hand-and-a-half sword. A two hander is another 2-5 lbs depending on length and material. I'd bet you couldn't hit me with either in 20 tries. The medieval knight was fearsome against unarmored opponents on foot, and against anything while mounted (the equivalent of a killdozer). Against other knights, who were equally encumbered, most injuries and deaths were due to broken bones and internal injuries. Against someone with equal or better sword skill and speed/mobility, they lose nearly every fight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:25:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
English Longbow > Jap bow on the ground Ground vs mounted? Longbow wins because distance Just sayin' Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Knight with mace/warhammer and shield wins IMHO. Close combat was the knight's specialty. The samurai were more horse archers. Put them on horses across the field and I change my opinion. English Longbow > Jap bow on the ground Ground vs mounted? Longbow wins because distance Just sayin' On foot, yes. Mounted, Japanese > English. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:25:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
thier sword is made for slashing,,not too good against armor Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'd like to think I'd give the edge to Samurai, simply because of their speed of attack and they could get the edge of their sword into spaces in the armor. But, if the knight lands a blow with a claymore or broadsword; yeah, it's Samurai Sushi for the King's feast tonight.
Kicks ass against unarmored peasants though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:25:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't even know where to start. That's like saying a F250 and a Ferrari weigh the same, and therefore the truck has nimble handling. ETA - just so we're clear, you DO realize a long sword has roughly 2-3 times as much steel in it as a rapier. Right? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Medieval European swords, even the big bastard swords, were fairly light. A knight's broadsword typically weighed between 2.5 and 3 pounds, and was made for both cutting and piercing attacks against plate armor. The samurai slashy slashy curved sword was designed for cutting attacks, and they had boiled leather lobster plates for armor. That doesn't even get into the impact weapons, like the mace or flail or war hammer. Or polearms. The Knight quite simply owns the Samurai. No, they were not. I don't even know where to start. That's like saying a F250 and a Ferrari weigh the same, and therefore the truck has nimble handling. ETA - just so we're clear, you DO realize a long sword has roughly 2-3 times as much steel in it as a rapier. Right? ETA: Did it for you. Took about one minute. Longsword: http://arms-n-armor.com/sword194.html Weight: 2.6 lbs. Rapier: http://arms-n-armor.com/rapier164.html Weight: 2.875 lbs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:26:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
On foot, yes. Mounted, Japanese > English. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Knight with mace/warhammer and shield wins IMHO. Close combat was the knight's specialty. The samurai were more horse archers. Put them on horses across the field and I change my opinion. English Longbow > Jap bow on the ground Ground vs mounted? Longbow wins because distance Just sayin' On foot, yes. Mounted, Japanese > English. Combined arms, England wins again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:28:32 PM EDT
[#40]
Knight hands down.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:32:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A legit "zweihander" type sword was never a knightly weapon. They were used by very lightly armored men intermixed in pike blocks at the beginning of the gunpowder age. Your "hand-and-a-half sword" is a longsword, which is the typical knightly sword from the late middle ages. It's commonly called a "two handed sword" by people who don't specialize in semantics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Parry son. Two handed sword would break just about any Japanese blade, IMO. The handle is a club. Watch the recreations done at the War Museum at Leeds. Quick and close. The 2HS is more a sharp bo staff than hacking sword. Do you have a two handed sword? Have you swung one? It ain't a baseball bat. And no, I don't have one. And no, they didn't swing them like cricket wickets or hurling sticks. They had "ready" and "rest" positions. I have a legit hand-and-a-half sword. A two hander is another 2-5 lbs depending on length and material. I'd bet you couldn't hit me with either in 20 tries. The medieval knight was fearsome against unarmored opponents on foot, and against anything while mounted (the equivalent of a killdozer). Against other knights, who were equally encumbered, most injuries and deaths were due to broken bones and internal injuries. Against someone with equal or better sword skill and speed/mobility, they lose nearly every fight. When he said "two handed" I assumed he meant something between mine and a claymore. You could wield mine one handed if you're muscle bound gym brah....for a few minutes. It doesn't have real two handed reach, nor enough grip for a serious two handed torque. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:33:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Is the samurai Bruce Lee?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:34:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Lol at the samurai worshipers.
Those guys were like the 120 lbs wet and 5 foot 2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:34:50 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Knight with flail & shield could win. Two handed swords are too slow and require too much energy vs the faster samurai. The knight slow down inside of 5 minutes enough for the samurai to find a critical opening in the armor. Two handed swords, you use the handle in such a way as to give leverage, making it a very very fast sword. Also 'slow' due to armor? Nope. Gothic plate, when properly adjusted for the wearer, distributes the weight evenly and is very fluid to move it. Now, there it a whole gamut of 'samurai armor' from none to very heavy and extensive. The heaviest is heavier than gothic plate. The style of shoulder spaulder and waist cussie limited freedom of movement to a higher degree than you see in gothic plate. Samurai is toast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:36:26 PM EDT
[#45]
i Always underestimated medievil platearmor (thought it made you completly immobile) unil i saw some of that combat reenactment they do here.
the Samurai armor would win on cool but would suck againts an opponent with plate armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:38:39 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Knight would win against most samurai. I would like to point out that samurai had weapons other than katana, some of which would be somewhat effective against even heavy armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:38:47 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: English Longbow > Jap bow on the ground Ground vs mounted? Longbow wins because distance Just sayin' Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Knight with mace/warhammer and shield wins IMHO. Close combat was the knight's specialty. The samurai were more horse archers. Put them on horses across the field and I change my opinion. English Longbow > Jap bow on the ground Ground vs mounted? Longbow wins because distance Just sayin' |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:39:26 PM EDT
[#48]
mobility
wins |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:40:45 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Knight would win against most samurai. I would like to point out that samurai had weapons other than katana, some of which would be somewhat effective against even heavy armor. Yeah, they were big believers in pole arms especially. Yari: http://www.sharecg.com/images/medium/64961.jpg%3C/a%3E%3C/div%3E%3Cdiv%20class= Umm....no. While more effective than a katana, yari weren't developed for puncturing armor and would fear no better than a common spear. Spears only became effective anti-knight weapons when they were very long and used in tight formation vs mounted knights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:41:04 PM EDT
[#50]
You'd have to be fucking retarded to pick the Samurai.
Samurais aren't trained to fight armored opponents, and aside from that their weapons and techniques aren't suited for it. Knight wins by a fucking mile. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
