User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:42:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
mobility wins Being essentially invulnerable to your enemies weapons while still being highly mobile and having weapons that can harm them makes you win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:49:28 PM EDT
[#2]
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? Are you high? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:50:50 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thinking samurai might find weakness/sweet spot in armor. Speed vs weight of armor.........I like gladiator fights  "He said samurai might find a weak spot" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:52:19 PM EDT
[#4]
By the way, the samurai would have to get past an arming doublet, skirt of mail, shirt of mail, breastplate, and placard.
And given that his weapons are essentially complete garbage at piercing, he's going to have a hell of a time actually harming the knight even if he had trained to fight against plate-armored opponents. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:53:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. Go look it up. 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.
You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:56:27 PM EDT
[#6]
We can debate this all day, but there is only one real way to tell.
Have Samurai Sword will travel, I just need to source a Tsuka.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 8:59:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nope. Go look it up. 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.
You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. 5-6 lb bastard sword? What the fuck? An average longsword is around 3 pounds. A 5-6 lb bastard sword would be an unwieldy beast. Where the fuck did you buy that? 5-6 pounds is the weight of a fucking claymore or zweihander. Most rapiers are around 2 3/4 - 3 lbs. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:13:52 PM EDT
[#8]
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. You do realize that an actual knight has trained since they were a child, right? Knights are on-par with Samurai in regards to skill. But given that the knight is armored in 5 layers of armor, and essentially invulnerable to slashes, the samurai is fucked. Samurai don't train to fight plate-armored opponents, and even if they did, their weapons suck for piercing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:23:55 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. Okay the traditional two handed scottish blades most people mean when they say claymore (because the term claymore was also used for the shorter, one-handed basket hilt swords used by the highlanders often in conjunction with a buckler) then those are a shorter than most zweihander/montante etc, which means you are by default in the 'long sword' camp, even if most RPGs would term it a 'bastard sword' or 'hand-and-half' You have you basic one handed sword which is really built around using with one hand only and the other hand handling a shield. Next, you have some thing that can be used with one hand or both hands (the bastard/hand and a half) which had longer blades and hence were called LONGSWORDS, and were primarily meant to be used with both hands, no shield, BUT could be used with a shield and still be 95% as handy as a regular sword. Note that even when one hand wasn't holding a shield, many long sword techniques involved using just a single hand on the blade. and a traditional longsword (bastard/hand and a half) were 3 pound weapons, or a few ounces more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:25:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Oh yeah.
European horses > Japanese horses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:27:37 PM EDT
[#11]
The Myths continue
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:30:01 PM EDT
[#12]
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' looking up Japanese archer accuracy i decided to change my answer the tanegashima. guess there is a bonus to being stagnate for centuries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:36:27 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
looking up Japanese archer accuracy i decided to change my answer the tanegashima. guess there is a bonus to being stagnate for centuries. 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' looking up Japanese archer accuracy i decided to change my answer the tanegashima. guess there is a bonus to being stagnate for centuries. Distance wins. England. Plus they had accuracy too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:38:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YYfRmH-4IMI'm liking the shield throat jab at 1:41 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:40:00 PM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:42:32 PM EDT
[#16]
this thread makes me sad the Higgins armory exhibit closed
fuckers... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:54:25 PM EDT
[#17]
The real question would be who would win a battle of 100 vs 100 with the OP's conditions? For sake of argument, battle lines start 100m apart and no ranged weapons.
Change rules again to extend starting range to 500m and allow each faction to their premier ranged individual weapons. Would the samurai be able to penetrate knight's armor before knights could? Would the battle be over before hand to hand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:56:04 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nope. Go look it up. 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. You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. humm...then let's consult the Wallace Collection Rapiers. one at 1.34 KG and one at 1.29kg (A567 and A596) Longsword - this tag is on many blades that have various extra bits coming off the hilt to form an early cup grip, aka, a transitional type not the 'classic longsword'. Scan the first row, the first one with a basic crosshilt (A475) is 1.53KG, but may have a blade that is 100 years younger than the rest of the sword. Next is A479, now that's a proper looking sword, wide blade. It too is 1.54 KG so yea, those two swords are within 0.2 KG of eachother. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 9:58:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. This. And Im a samurai man |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 10:02:01 PM EDT
[#20]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 10:04:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Knights, hands down.
The Mongols would completely fucking own the Japanese in a field battle, and often DID. The biggest reason the Mongol Empire failed in their conquest of Japan were that their fleets were wrecked by storms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 10:06:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question would be who would win a battle of 100 vs 100 with the OP's conditions? For sake of argument, battle lines start 100m apart and no ranged weapons. Change rules again to extend starting range to 500m and allow each faction to their premier ranged individual weapons. Would the samurai be able to penetrate knight's armor before knights could? Would the battle be over before hand to hand? A typical High Medieval army was more advanced and organized than it's Japanese counterpart. (they were pretty much singling each other out for duels in 1200's Japan, even on battlefields) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 10:10:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question would be who would win a battle of 100 vs 100 with the OP's conditions? For sake of argument, battle lines start 100m apart and no ranged weapons. Change rules again to extend starting range to 500m and allow each faction to their premier ranged individual weapons. Would the samurai be able to penetrate knight's armor before knights could? Would the battle be over before hand to hand? Formations, communication, coordination, tactics, logistics... Knights win every category. Feudal Japanese were awesome at making war against other Japanese, but against anyone else? Not so much. When it comes to extended campaigns, the Europeans just had more experience, and they were good at it. The Ottomans would have monkeyplooked the Japanese too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 10:21:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Last time we did this subject, someone mentioned the few incidents when drunk Portugese sailors would get into tussles with Samurai when in port.
They'd fuck them up, drunk, with a rapier. To the point that the Samurai, late in the game, incorporated a second edge to their katana blades, so they could get slashes on the backswing. So yeah.... Gonna go with the knight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 10:38:04 PM EDT
[#25]
I may not be giving the Japanese enough credit.
Before they discovered cigarettes, they might have been more bad ass. Now, if there was a smoking olympics, Japanese would win it every time, with Eastern Europeans second, and South Americans taking the bronze. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 10:54:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I may not be giving the Japanese enough credit. Before they discovered cigarettes, they might have been more bad ass. Now, if there was a smoking olympics, Japanese would win it every time, with Eastern Europeans second, and South Americans taking the bronze. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 11:40:55 PM EDT
[#27]
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= Yeah, I think a Samurai in lighter armor or even no armor would have no problem staying out of reach of a knight if he were armed with a Yari or even better, a Naginata. The knight would tire out and the be at the mercy of the Samurai. This would be dependent on armor levels and how trained each one is of course. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 11:48:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Last time I saw a real two-handed sword for sale it was just north of 5.5 feet long and weighed just shy of 5 lbs.
The $14,000 price tag said I could not have it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2016 11:59:37 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryThat is an awesome link! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:04:09 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Knight will fuck up the samurai. Certainly fuck them up. The Samurai's primary weapon (Katana) isn't meant for metal-armor penetration, although it might be able to do a little in certain places. The European armored knight has all of the advantages in an open-field battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:13:41 AM EDT
[#31]
I will put Miyamoto Musashi against any knight
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:26:49 AM EDT
[#32]
GUNNY likes the Samauri
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:29:33 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote History
R. Lee Ermy is knowledgeable about a lot of things, but medieval arms and armor are certainly not one of them. ETA: You do realize you can shatter a bullet with a razor blade, right. 
I swear to god, some of you must have watched Samurai Jack and assumed that EVERY katana was a master-level god-slaying weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:30:25 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, I think a Samurai in lighter armor or even no armor would have no problem staying out of reach of a knight if he were armed with a Yari or even better, a Naginata. The knight would tire out and the be at the mercy of the Samurai. This would be dependent on armor levels and how trained each one is of course. 
NO. ETA: Most knights also used polearms, particularly in the Late Middle Ages. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:39:10 AM EDT
[#35]
Yup. Katana is a two handed sword and European armor beats Japanese armor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:41:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tuklPjtAU
R. Lee Ermy is knowledgeable about a lot of things, but medieval arms and armor are certainly not one of them. ETA: You do realize you can shatter a bullet with a razor blade, right.
I swear to god, some of you must have watched Samurai Jack and assumed that EVERY katana was a master-level god-slaying weapon. Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5tuklPjtAU
R. Lee Ermy is knowledgeable about a lot of things, but medieval arms and armor are certainly not one of them. ETA: You do realize you can shatter a bullet with a razor blade, right.
I swear to god, some of you must have watched Samurai Jack and assumed that EVERY katana was a master-level god-slaying weapon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:45:07 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOh for fuck's sake. That's UH-HARDENED SHEET METAL. You do realize that medieval plate was hardened, don't you? http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/aams/hd_aams.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:51:10 AM EDT
[#38]
[youtube]http://youtu.be/f_oTUVtUqcM[/youtube 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:54:58 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thinking samurai might find weakness/sweet spot in armor. Speed vs weight of armor.........I like gladiator fights |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 12:59:22 AM EDT
[#40]
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? I do it's faster than most think... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:01:50 AM EDT
[#41]
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. But plate armored knights didn't typically use the zwei/bidenhander type swords. IF they were using a sword, earlier era was an arming sword (about 2 pounds) and shield, or a longsword (2.5-3 pounds typical). Those are not heavy, and they move far, far faster than most people think. A poorly made sword, without a reasonable distal taper, would not weigh much more, but it would handle like an absolute pig compared to something made competently, and men who made their living and held their station largely because of skill at arms would know the difference, and avoid a poorly made blade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:06:33 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nope. Go look it up. 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.
You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. I have a full sized bastard sword...it is a museum replica ...it is 2.4 lbs |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:06:43 AM EDT
[#43]
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. He's correct. I have two legit Del Tins. One is a the St Maurice (Oakeshott XII) and it weighs 2.96 lbs. The other is a hand and a half sword and it weighs 3 lbs 14 oz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:14:51 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nope. Go look it up. 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. You're using modern construction replicas (and a heavy horseman's weapon) for your comparison? A French rapier would run about 1 kg/2.0-2.2 lbs. Depending on the kind of long sword and country of origin, you could compare something as simple as a 41" single grip sword (essentially a rapier with the blade widened and thickened enough to add a fuller, with the basket replaced with a simple guard) to full 5-6 lb bastard sword with a 8-9" grip. My wife is asking why I'm arguing on the internet while on vacation so I'll exit the conversation. If you're ever in Atlanta you can borrow mine and for $20 a swing, I'll give you 10:1 if you can hit me with it. What a turd of a "weapon." That's what the local village drunk, who has an ancient, rusty anvil, turns out when he's asked to make a sword. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:20:54 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: NO. ETA: Most knights also used polearms, particularly in the Late Middle Ages. http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/images/Product/large/XD637.png http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w62/Razor-_2007/English%20%20bill/DSCN1041_zpsc8b8b8f2.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, I think a Samurai in lighter armor or even no armor would have no problem staying out of reach of a knight if he were armed with a Yari or even better, a Naginata. The knight would tire out and the be at the mercy of the Samurai. This would be dependent on armor levels and how trained each one is of course. NO. ETA: Most knights also used polearms, particularly in the Late Middle Ages. http://www.medievalcollectibles.com/images/Product/large/XD637.png http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w62/Razor-_2007/English%20%20bill/DSCN1041_zpsc8b8b8f2.jpg You must be making that up.  Or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:27:30 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He's correct. I have two legit Del Tins. One is a the St Maurice (Oakeshott XII) and it weighs 2.96 lbs. The other is a hand and a half sword and it weighs 3 lbs 14 oz. 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. He's correct. I have two legit Del Tins. One is a the St Maurice (Oakeshott XII) and it weighs 2.96 lbs. The other is a hand and a half sword and it weighs 3 lbs 14 oz. Or, we could look at stats, available with simple web searches, of weapons in museum collections...and find that they are generally even lighter than what you own, for a similar sword. I'll just wait for someone to bring up the 6'6" monstrosity in the Wallace Collection, which weighs over 14 pounds, or the 8 foot long, 14 pound 11 ounce sword from the Higgins Collection...oh, but those are bearing swords. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:28:46 AM EDT
[#47]
The question of which would win depends entirely on the individuals we are matching up; and, which time period. The Japanese were horribly primitive and disorganized at some points in the history where you could legitimately pull a "samurai" from, and then there were times when they were enormously more organized and sophisticated than their European counterparts.
One thing that a lot of folks completely miss is that the Japanese figured out drill a hell of a lot earlier than we did. The armies of the Shogun were doing things with firearms that we didn't start to figure out until William of Orange started the infantry revolution. You start digging into the histories, and the question of which was "better" starts to look awfully conditional and iffy. I would love to have been able to see the match-up between Musashi and someone like Hans Talhoffer. I suspect that a battle between masters would turn out a lot different than fights between equivalents lower down in the scales of skill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:31:05 AM EDT
[#48]
I always think it's funny how people picture knights as moving like a robot from a 1950s sci-fi movie vs reality.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:35:52 AM EDT
[#49]
Is this a thread meant for outing weaboos?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2016 1:37:20 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this a thread meant for outing weaboos?
Seems like it. |
|
|
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.
