PDA

View Full Version : In a real life fight



IGotNothing111
08-25-2016, 03:15 PM
Who would you think would win, me myself i cannot decide but it would be between Samurai And Knights. I don't feel like Vikings are that sophisticated and a knight would probably beat them, but i guess it's just depends on the person fighting, but who do you think would win

Patient_Fodder
08-25-2016, 04:27 PM
There are so many things to consider when you ask that question. Besides the actual individual being whichever, there are so many circumstances that can influence a fight, not to mention which weapons and armour are used (are we talking early medieval knights, or the ones after the Dark Ages?), Without those parameters set, it is a pure stab in the dark I am afraid.

IGotNothing111
08-25-2016, 04:32 PM
Alright, let's just say that
These warriors where equally matched. And they used traditional weapons and armour kind of like what we see in game, who would you think would win based on the technology provided during that time period and the training that each of these soldiers had and there fighting styles remembering that a knight is a lot more sophisticated than a viking

Optionism
08-25-2016, 04:36 PM
Wardens. End of thread.

IGotNothing111
08-25-2016, 04:38 PM
Wardens. End of thread.

?

Patient_Fodder
08-25-2016, 04:47 PM
I am not sure still. Whenever the battlefield conditions become more troublesome, the more mobile fighter will win.

So on a sunny day with a flat underground and no major obstacles; Knight
On a Rainy day, in a forest; Samurai
In the midst of winter on a mountain; Viking

Assuming we are talking 1 on 1.

T_Sesh
08-25-2016, 04:51 PM
While this is a very interesting thought experiment, there are many reasons why one can't really draw any kind of valid conclusions about it. This video provides some decent reasoning as to why this is the case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo

That said, one can generally draw some conclusions on who might be more likely to win a fight if you establish more specific parameters than just "Knight vs Samurai". A samurai's armor in later periods is largely comparable to a knight's plate armor in terms of strength, comparisons there are largely fruitless. However if you were to pit a samurai wielding nothing but a katana vs a knight using a mace or hammer, the knight is more likely to win simply because a katana is virtually useless against plate armor. Samurai didn't typically use katana's in battle however, usually only using them as side arms/backup weapons to their spears or bows, for beheading defeated enemies, and in unarmored duels with other samurai. In this case, you'd really be comparing martial arts styles, which for the most part we don't know enough about (especially European side of it, as everything we know is from old manuscripts rather than masters who have been taught over generations) to make direct comparisons.

handheld brando
08-25-2016, 04:54 PM
The Knights would win.

In history they had better armor, Weapons, and extremely advanced and complex martial artes, utilizing every part of the weapon in combat. Medieval Knight armor was so good that pretty much any of the current weapons in the game. Besides the Kanabo and the flail (flail is actually debated on whether it was really used) would be nearly ineffective. Hence the reasons why we had maces and Warhammers because a sword could not pierce the armor.

A historical Katana would never be able to cut through the Knights armor and would most likely break if they tried, Japanese steel was just not as strong as the weapons used in Medieval times. The Vikings are at a significant disadvantage due to their lack of armor and the only one that might actually stand a chance against the knights is the Valkyrie and even then her lack of armor would get her killed quickly. Of the knights the Warden probably comes out on top followed by the Lawbringer.

Patient_Fodder
08-25-2016, 05:13 PM
If it were the case that vikings had a significant disadvantage period, then why would they have been able to rape, loot and pillage most of the british isles for over 200 years.

Danelaw/Danegeld anyone?

MisterWillow
08-25-2016, 05:27 PM
Wardens. End of thread.

Technically true, but with caveats.

The traditional Viking Age---the aggitators within which being from where the game draws most of its inspiration---ended around the year 1100, while the sort of weapons and armour used by the Knights looks more akin to that of the mid-to-late medieval period, which would be roughly 1200-1500, meaning that's a few hundred years of technological advancement in terms of metallurgy and armour development the Knights depicted here have on the Vikings represented.

That being said, since we're discussing history, part of the reason the Viking Age ended was because people from Scandinavia made treaties, and integrated, with the rest of Europe---the most obvious example being the Normans (Rollo swore fealty to King Charles of France, who, in return, gave the Vikings Normandy)---which means from a historical point of view, the Knights would have a little Viking in them anyway. :p

The Samurai, on the other hand, existed well into the 1800s and still couldn't match the technology of historical medieval knights from two-hundred years before. They only weapons in their arsenal that would really be of concern to a knight in plate armour would be the yari and kanabo---the former because it could exploit armour's natural gaps and the latter for the same reason a mace or warhammer was effective---since the rest are primarily slashing weapons.

Now, having said that, if they were all to meet with equal technology, I personally think the Vikings could give the Knights a run for their money. There's a reason they were able to take land in a Europe where they had equal footing technologically and hold it long enough for the local kings to be willing to sign treaties with them instead of fighting and driving them off. Samurai's a bit of a wild-card, since if Japan advanced technologically in the same way Europe did, by the Edo (or even Kamakura) period it's entirely possible the katana would be nothing but a ceremonial object remembering a time when slashing weapons were viable in warfare, since their swords would have probably been oriented toward thrusting.

We'll never really know, though, since, as I said, we're not just looking at disparate cultures that never met, but also at culture that existed at disparate times, which would make meeting impossible.

Patient_Fodder
08-25-2016, 05:33 PM
..............
That being said, since we're discussing history, part of the reason the Viking Age ended was because people from Scandinavia made treaties, and integrated, with the rest of Europe---the most obvious example being the Normans (Rollo swore fealty to King Charles of France, who, in return, gave the Vikings Normandy)---which means from a historical point of view, the Knights would have a little Viking in them anyway. :p
.......

Not to mention that the vikings were forced into christianity, which will have fast forwarded the process considerably.

T_Sesh
08-25-2016, 05:36 PM
The Knights would win.

In history they had better armor, Weapons, and extremely advanced and complex martial artes, utilizing every part of the weapon in combat. Medieval Knight armor was so good that pretty much any of the current weapons in the game. Besides the Kanabo and the flail (flail is actually debated on whether it was really used) would be nearly ineffective. Hence the reasons why we had maces and Warhammers because a sword could not pierce the armor.

A historical Katana would never be able to cut through the Knights armor and would most likely break if they tried, Japanese steel was just not as strong as the weapons used in Medieval times. The Vikings are at a significant disadvantage due to their lack of armor and the only one that might actually stand a chance against the knights is the Valkyrie and even then her lack of armor would get her killed quickly. Of the knights the Warden probably comes out on top followed by the Lawbringer.

While it is correct that most of the weapons seen in the game would be mostly useless against plate armor, it would be naive to say that samurai would be incapable of defeating a knight based on techniques and weaponry. A samurai's armor during the Edo period was made out of riveted steel in addition to chain mail on certain parts made similarly to the Europeans, so rest assured they would be well trained in taking down armored enemies using spears and kanobos.

Speaking purely in terms of the game, the Knights would most certainly win. The kanobo is the samurai's only useful weapon for using against armor in the game, whereas the nights have halberds and (historically iffy) flails. Longswords would be useless as a cutting weapon of course, but using mordhau strikes would be effective against samurai armor since the sword effectively becomes a pick hammer. Vikings in this game are not historically accurate at all really (even aside from the obvious in accurate depiction of horns on their helmets), as they are largely shown wearing almost no armor at all, whereas in reality they would be wearing chain mail for the most part. I would disagree on the Warden vs Lawbringer bit though, as the Lawbringer is shown wearing later period armor that would be nigh-indestructible, and also uses a halberd, which provides both better reach and armor piercing potential than a longsword.

yote224
08-26-2016, 01:50 PM
I think the armor plays as a positive and negative. Sure, slicing it open with a sword isn't the most likely way to defeat a knight but the other two factions have various ways to go about that.
For one, I've seen small heads on dane axes that could possibly smash into plate similar to a pick. Not to mention you don't have to use the sharp end, effectively doubling as a club to dismantle the tin man.

On another note, weapons are fine and dandy sure but are we going to overlook the unarmed techniques? In judo there was an old joke that it isn't a discipline of throwing your opponent but the art of hitting your enemy with the planet. The idea behind it is that a thrown opponent will be shocked by the force of impact long enough for a knife to be drawn and stab the opponent in a weak spot before recovering. Having had the displeasure of being on the receiving end of a good throw more than my fair share of times I would reckon it would be extremely hard to recover if in full plate.

Just some things I don't see people mentioning.

Personally, in terms of full scale war? Probably knights. The counter to a mounted knight in full plate is crossbows or another mounted knight in full plate.

Individual 1v1? ...I'd say a toss up between Samurai and Knight .

sweeptheleg1981
08-26-2016, 02:48 PM
I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse.

Don't get me wrong, my chosen class when the game comes out is going to be Knights, but realistically I don't think they have a chance with 1v1 in real life.

iHunny
08-26-2016, 07:00 PM
I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse.

Don't get me wrong, my chosen class when the game comes out is going to be Knights, but realistically I don't think they have a chance with 1v1 in real life.

Knights had superior weapons and armor. the two others would not stand a chanse. Reinactment is made of people not used to wear armor for long periods of time, and knights were.

NephthysIV
08-26-2016, 08:49 PM
I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse.

Don't get me wrong, my chosen class when the game comes out is going to be Knights, but realistically I don't think they have a chance with 1v1 in real life.

Samurai armour weights nearly the same like a European plate armour...
And can move quiet well in a European armour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q
A complete suite of plate armour made from well-tempered steel weigh around 15–25 kg. The gear from special forces is often around 70kg and they walk more than 50km in one day. 25kg is nothing. And the really important thing is the weight of the armour is spread evenly throughout the body. You have no problem to wear it a whole day....

You can probably move better in a European plate armour than a samurai armour because the armour is much closer to the body.

I really hate it that most of humanity believes samurais were some super warriors.... I'm sure in a real fight samurai vs knight the samurai would have a really hard time because he can't penetrate the armour or block the attack from the knight, because the Katana would just break by a block. So he has to evade and parry which is much harder.

I believe in duels it would be better to fight without armour. But in war you want to have always an armour because you won’t fight 1vs1. You will always take some hits. But with armour they are often no problem. Without one you are hurt and will have a much harder time to stay alive. And every soldier who could afford an armour used it in battles. So they had to be useful.
And I really hate it that the Vikings fight nude in this game. Vikings used mail or Lamellar armour or at least cloth or leather.

ZenBearV13
08-26-2016, 08:54 PM
On another note, weapons are fine and dandy sure but are we going to overlook the unarmed techniques? In judo there was an old joke that it isn't a discipline of throwing your opponent but the art of hitting your enemy with the planet. The idea behind it is that a thrown opponent will be shocked by the force of impact long enough for a knife to be drawn and stab the opponent in a weak spot before recovering. Having had the displeasure of being on the receiving end of a good throw more than my fair share of times I would reckon it would be extremely hard to recover if in full plate.

Knights practiced wrestling just as much as Samurai practiced Judo, and contrary to what pop culture will tell you, just because it's Japanese doesn't make it better. I've been thrown around plenty as well in my MMA training, and I can say that while it certainly does hurt to get thrown, it would hurt a lot less if I was armored in plate over thick cloth padding.


I think it honestly would come down to the Vikings and Samurai. If you've ever seen any reenactments of medieval warfare knights armor severely impedes their movement, speed, and range of motion. Not to mention carrying all that weight around will tire you out faster than a Vikings or Samurais would. A knight on horseback is probably a different story, but one on one and on the ground the Knight would get stomped by either Viking or Samurai. Also their helms seem more of a liability than anything. It's like putting blinders on a horse. .

The Knights' armor graduated over time from the chainmail that the Vikings wore into plate armor because plate armor was fundamentally superior. If plate armor slowed a fighter down so much that he was at a disadvantage against a mailed opponent, they wouldn't wear it.

***

The answer to this question is so obvious. The Knight would win, hands down, based on skill alone, because I'm on their team. :cool:

Echo_Magnus
08-26-2016, 10:02 PM
It seems there is a lot of opinions basing a victory on the technological advances alone. While I believe technology gives the advantage over an inexperienced fighter, a trained Warrior is not as easily overtaken by technological advances.

All things being equal, I'd have to say that it really could go either way at any time. Each of these Warriors, while maybe not representing the Apex warriors in history, all have something unique to bring to the table, but they all have their weaknesses as well.

It really would come down to the individuals (Knight, Samurai, and Viking) ability to adapt to the situation on the spot, and recognize how to best maneuver around their opponents strengths in order to exploit their weaknesses.

My bias says Samurai, but my gut says any one of them.

iHunny
08-26-2016, 10:41 PM
It seems there is a lot of opinions basing a victory on the technological advances alone. While I believe technology gives the advantage over an inexperienced fighter, a trained Warrior is not as easily overtaken by technological advances.

All things being equal, I'd have to say that it really could go either way at any time. Each of these Warriors, while maybe not representing the Apex warriors in history, all have something unique to bring to the table, but they all have their weaknesses as well.

It really would come down to the individuals (Knight, Samurai, and Viking) ability to adapt to the situation on the spot, and recognize how to best maneuver around their opponents strengths in order to exploit their weaknesses.

My bias says Samurai, but my gut says any one of them.

... Lets assume 3 equaly strong warriors, the one with the best weapons and tecnhology would win, since they are all 3 equaly good. Sorry, but your Samurai just lost. Or, why not have the strongest viking fight the weakest knight and samurai, now the viking won. Your argument makes no sence how to find the strongest since you throw around fighetrs skills around. They must be equaly skilled, then you count in technique, weapons and armor to see who would win. And knight would come top cos they had better technologie then both of the others.

Echo_Magnus
08-26-2016, 11:01 PM
... Lets assume 3 equaly strong warriors, the one with the best weapons and tecnhology would win, since they are all 3 equaly good. Sorry, but your Samurai just lost. Or, why not have the strongest viking fight the weakest knight and samurai, now the viking won. Your argument makes no sence how to find the strongest since you throw around fighetrs skills around. They must be equaly skilled, then you count in technique, weapons and armor to see who would win. And knight would come top cos they had better technologie then both of the others.

Technique is factored in with Skill. More they are of the same makeup.

I am compelled to disagree with you that Weapons and Armor irreversibly change the tide of battle assuming Skill Level is equal. While I understand there is a bias in favor of factoring in Technology, etc.; this is not the end all factor when considering opponents of equal skill.

I'm sorry, but the reality is that technology does not play near the role we're giving it here. Technology doesn't actually become a factor until there are monumental differences between the two levels of technology.

And my Bias is because I identify with Samurai more then the others, but not because I genuinely believe they would come out on top. If I HAD to pick: Viking all day every day.

iHunny
08-27-2016, 12:56 AM
Technique is factored in with Skill. More they are of the same makeup.

I am compelled to disagree with you that Weapons and Armor irreversibly change the tide of battle assuming Skill Level is equal. While I understand there is a bias in favor of factoring in Technology, etc.; this is not the end all factor when considering opponents of equal skill.

I'm sorry, but the reality is that technology does not play near the role we're giving it here. Technology doesn't actually become a factor until there are monumental differences between the two levels of technology.

And my Bias is because I identify with Samurai more then the others, but not because I genuinely believe they would come out on top. If I HAD to pick: Viking all day every day.

Is this ingame or outgame toughts? Cos in real history a Knight would win cos of its training and armorment. And this is not my personal bias, becos if I would take that into account, Viking every time. But, they are however underarmed vs a Knight. And sword and board would do quick work out of a Samurai who is not trained against it.

Echo_Magnus
08-27-2016, 01:59 AM
Is this ingame or outgame toughts? Cos in real history a Knight would win cos of its training and armorment. And this is not my personal bias, becos if I would take that into account, Viking every time. But, they are however underarmed vs a Knight. And sword and board would do quick work out of a Samurai who is not trained against it.

I'm speaking for both in and out of game. But if I am being honest with myself, Technology in game can and does often make the difference between victory and defeat -- but this is do to programming.

Out of game, Technology does play a role, but it is not such a benefactor until there is an obvious overwhelming difference between the technological levels of the combating parties.In the case of Knights vs Samurai vs Vikings, there is not such a leap in technological advances that, even on an equal skill level, is the sole reason for victory.

On the Sword and Board case you made, Samurai were known to also use Dual Weilding, which does help to compensate for the shield.

Now I am not trying to suggest that technology is not a factor worth noting; but in the event that all three are equally skilled, it doesn't play as much of a role as it would against the same Warriors of lesser or unequal skill. What I am suggesting is that a highly skilled version of the KvSvV scenario wouldn't be as ruled by the technological difference between them as is being suggested. If the Casual Knight came against the Casual Samurai/Viking -- Knight all day every day. If we took the Apex example of each KvSvV, then I don't think technology alone is the deciding factor in who ends up victorious.

This is why I don't believe a victor can be clearly decided.

But I do hear you iHunny.

MisterWillow
08-27-2016, 02:10 AM
Technology doesn't actually become a factor until there are monumental differences between the two levels of technology.

There are monumental technological differences between historical Knights and the other factions, though.

The European armour of the 1500s was thick enough that the only way you could harm someone was with blunt force trauma (via maces and warhammers) or finding gaps in armour for something pointy to go through. A sword's edge would do next to nothing---cause some dents, probably, but not cut through it---so a katana would be near useless unless used as a thrusting weapon (which isn't its primary purpose), and neither would a naginata. A kanabo would probably be a Samurai's best friend, or a spear, since the former could pulverise whatever's underneath the armour and the latter provides adequate range (unless, of course, the Knight has a polearm as well) and could find necessary gaps.

The Samurai, on the other hand, had weapons that would be inadequate to deal with plate-maille (as alluded to), unless the entire regiment were armed with kanabo, and while their armour would probably provide adequate protection if hit by a sword, the way it's fitted provides for many more gaps than European armour, and the Knights would have more ways of dealing with it, between maces, warhammers, half-swording/mordhau, halberds, and whatever else. All this is working under a presumption that a knight is without a shield, which would add another layer of protection, which the Samurai would be unprepared to deal with, since they didn't develop it within their own culture to the extent of pretty much everyone else.

Vikings---judging what we know of them---would also struggle to match Knights in the armour department, because even though they did have steel armour, they never developed plate-maille. Aside from their helmets, if they did use steel, aside from chainmaille, it was mainly lamellar construction, and would be about as vulnerable gap-wise as the Samurai. I also believe that Knights had advanced their metallurgy a bit by the 1500s, so their steel would have been of a better quality than their 1100s counterparts, which would include the Vikings. Vikings would have a bit of an easier time with the Knights, I feel---maybe not much, but still---given that they had shields, they had well developed battle tactics (again, from what we know), and axes would factor in more prominently, which could not only do more blunt damage (obviously not to the extent of a mace), but could be used to hook weapons, hook shields, hook legs or arms, and throw someone in plate armour off their game (possibly off their feet), making for easy dispatches.

If everyone were using exactly the same tech---or if all war tech had developed at the same rate, and focused on the same things---it would be a bit of a toss-up, but I'd still give a slight edge to Vikings, and not just from bias. They fought and defeated people with at least the same war tech as them (maybe a little more advanced, since technically plate armour had existed in Europe since the ancient Greeks) for long enough---and on their home turf, no less---that I feel their battlefield prowess is beyond question. They only really 'disappeared' because of the aforementioned circumstances of integration, religious conversion, some in-fighting, etc. And like I said earlier, Samurai would be a wild-card, since, if their tech had developed the same way, they would probably be unrecognisable, so there's no telling what they would bring to the table.

Echo_Magnus
08-27-2016, 03:41 AM
There are monumental technological differences between historical Knights and the other factions, though.
"Snip"


Thank you for taking the time to lay out this information; it was very well presented. With this I'm now going to take the time to reconsider my opinion.

iHunny
08-27-2016, 12:14 PM
The problem with this question is, Vikings weapons, armor and techniqus did not devolope to muh since they excisted in such a short period of time compared to Knights and Samurais. Samurais were isolated and did not need to adapt to surrounding countries weapons, armor and tactics. When guns were introduesed they banned it cos it demishided the Samurai warrior cast and made the pesant cast as good in battlefield cos of the guns easy to use and killing power. Knights in Europe constantly "evolved" to suite the ever changing warfare and disapeared when the gunpowdered weapons got more reiable and advance. Samurais was isolated and did not change with the times, Vikings had a short history, Knights had to change cos of better weapons and arms. 1868 was the last of the Samurai, by that time the West was way superior in warfare.

In short, the Samurai would lose cos of there isolation diminishing there armor and weapons.

Mlacis
08-27-2016, 05:46 PM
Samurai armour weights nearly the same like a European plate armour...
You can probably move better in a European plate armour than a samurai armour because the armour is much closer to the body.
I really hate it that most of humanity believes samurais were some super warriors....
You are wrong, here was dry facts - samurai armor was very effective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9OvaL2W6BA and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_6BU7SYf8 . Ah yes, you say, knight armor is easy use? Look this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eStDPtR1vc . Is it? By the way knights armor optimized for horse riding not for foot fight. My opinion - we need forth fraction - Chinese. They can be very dangerous enemy - armor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlS46LBznLA and nice weapons :cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4a7uwc5QU .

Mlacis
08-27-2016, 06:04 PM
I'm sure in a real fight samurai vs knight the samurai would have a really hard time because he can't penetrate the armour or block the attack from the knight, because the Katana would just break by a block. So he has to evade and parry which is much harder.

Question to you - Witch black belt master win - kung-fu, hapkido, aikido, karate, Jiu-Jitsu, judo, MMA, boxing, kraw maga, muay thai, capoeira or systema korean? What marshal art is the best? Who win?

Mlacis
08-27-2016, 06:39 PM
I really hate it that most of humanity believes samurais were some super warriors....

For education purpose :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmXghaxTfTo

Willaguy2010
08-27-2016, 07:54 PM
You are wrong, here was dry facts - samurai armor was very effective https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9OvaL2W6BA and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_6BU7SYf8 . Ah yes, you say, knight armor is easy use? Look this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eStDPtR1vc . Is it? By the way knights armor optimized for horse riding not for foot fight. My opinion - we need forth fraction - Chinese. They can be very dangerous enemy - armor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlS46LBznLA and nice weapons :cool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR4a7uwc5QU .

A knight was trained from the age of six, as a squire. During this training they would of course exercise and practice swordsmanship and marshal arts. This made the knight very fit when he came of age. Also, back then if you were rich enough to afford full plate then you were rich enough to have it fitted to your body, further decreasing the encumberence. As stated previously, special forces have about 70kg of equipment with most of it on their back and chest, whereas a knight has about 25kg of armor distributed throughout their body. I don't believe plate armor when equipped by a knight is as cumbersome as you or other make it out to be.

Would not this comparison be a bit unfair? The samurai were isolated and restricted by their own government to evolve technology-wise and the Vikings weren't around nearly as long as the other two factions.

NephthysIV
08-27-2016, 10:11 PM
Question to you - Witch black belt master win - kung-fu, hapkido, aikido, karate, Jiu-Jitsu, judo, MMA, boxing, kraw maga, muay thai, capoeira or systema korean? What marshal art is the best? Who win?
I still think that you can say that some are better than others. I practiced many material arts like Kung Fu Kempo, Karate, Jui Jutsu, Judo, Kickboxing, Boxing, Thaiboxing and MMA over 11 years.
Kung Fu and Karate have so many useless and stupid moves. They only look fancy and you need much training to do it. I still think simple things are the best, like Boxing, Thaiboxing with a bit of practining in Grabbling.
You can make some of the fancy material arts like Tiger Kung Fu work but you need to invest so much more time into it than in material arts that I considered to be good. If you would invest this time in useful material arts you would have been a mucher better fighter. Most modern material arts are good, because they mostly use easy and effectiv moves.

NephthysIV
08-27-2016, 10:13 PM
Ah yes, you say, knight armor is easy use? Look this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eStDPtR1vc
Of course your movement in a plate armour is bad if it doesn’t fit... Most of the armour on YouTube aren’t custom made to fit your body and are often of poor quality and only available at one or two sizes….
The best thing is that the video advertises for a seller for a seller of samurai armour. How is the plate armour heavier than the Samurai Armour in the video, both should weight about 25,8 kilogram.
If you really think a samurai armour is superior than a plate armour you are just ignorant. And the video you are posted are only stupid promo videos for a seller from Samurai armours.
I would fight you to death if you buy me a fitting high quality plate armour, padding and weapon. And you are using an authentic Samurai armour and a Katana or Naginata. I’m pretty sure I live and won’t have any serious injuries unlike you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B_6BU7SYf8[/URL]
Look how slow the arrow is. Looks like 5lbs draw from a toy bow. The best thing is the arrowhead. Japans used something like these.
http://www.welt-der-samurai.de/pics/pfeilspitzen-03.jpg
I’m pretty sure a sharp arrow head with enough speed would just cut through the fabric. Unfortunately there are no other videos of the Horo where the testing is more realistic. These first air bucks are still impressive and useful. But they only protect you if you are running from the fight…



For education purpose :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmXghaxTfTo
Japan were really lucky. First Invasion 1/3 of the ships sank by a storm and second Invasion a typhoon destroyed many ships. Most of the attackers where Chinese and Korean with mostly non ocean-going ships. If Japans would have lived in China they were defeated by the Mongols horde.
Defending an Island with castle and fortified coastal lines is so much easier than defending on Mainland. And how did the Mongols attack Japan castle and walls. Did the Mongols go on land to build siege weapon or did they have them on their ships?

Question to you - Witch black belt master win - kung-fu, hapkido, aikido, karate, Jiu-Jitsu, judo, MMA, boxing, kraw maga, muay thai, capoeira or systema korean? What marshal art is the best? Who win?
I still think that you can say that some are better than others. I practiced many material arts like Kung Fu Kempo, Karate, Jui Jutsu, Judo, Kickboxing, Boxing, Thaiboxing and MMA over 11 years.
Kung Fu and Karate have so many useless and stupid moves. They only look fancy and you need much training to do it. I still think simple things are the best, like Boxing, Thaiboxing with a bit of practicing in Grabbling.
You can make some of the fancy material arts like Tiger Kung Fu work but you need to invest so much more time into it than in material arts that I considered to be good. If you would invest this time in useful material arts you would have been a much better fighter. Most modern material arts are good, because they are mostly uses easy and effective moves.

MisterWillow
08-27-2016, 10:19 PM
For education purpose :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmXghaxTfTo

Unless you're suggesting they can also control the weather, I'm not sure why you'd post that as a rebuttal. The commentator, while acknowledging the Japanese's skill in defending themselves, says that had it not been for the storm, the Mongols would have probably won. He also acknowledges that most of Kublai Khan's forces were Chinese that had little battle morale to begin with. If the entire army were Mongolian intent on conquering the island and/or remove the storm, Japan would have lost.

On another note, does anyone else actually remember when TLC stood for The Learning Channel and showed documentaries like this instead of being wall-to-wall reality shows? I miss that.

NephthysIV
08-28-2016, 12:54 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eStDPtR1vc . Is it? By the way knights armor optimized for horse riding not for foot fight.[/URL] .
I found a better video which compares Knight and Samurai armour.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2Wk4w9Z05w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RR6I-BLKbQ
As you can see the range of motion is really similar. The knights mail shirt isn't properly tailored, so it restricted his movement. With tailored mail shirt the knight would be more maneuverable.

I would say both armour doesn't restict the the movement you need to fight.
But the protection of an european is much better. European armour has lesser gaps, are out of steel or harden steel vs Lacquered iron, more rounded parts, has bigger plate parts (for example the arm protection) and is sometimes fluted.

Wildkelju
08-28-2016, 03:55 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI

General_Valor
08-28-2016, 08:57 PM
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but there is a documentary series on Medieval weapons and armor that could help inform some people. I don't recall the name of it but the presenter, Mike Loades(?), does a pretty good job at debunking some myths. Dude literally tosses himself off a horse, while wearing full plate, and is back on his feet in no time. The episode dealing with plate armor in general was really neat and shows how well someone with properly made armor could move about while also highlighting the issues of vision with certain helmet styles.

Honorhound01
08-29-2016, 11:03 AM
I'll just leave these here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeEVSYZbnO4