PDA

View Full Version : Realistic Factions: How For Honor would be if true to history



Spitfire094
09-28-2018, 12:48 AM
r
When I played for honor for the first time I was excited as it was the beta, the player base was new and the game fresh. I decided to go Samurai because I love Japanese History and culture and the Samurai culture is probably the one fascinating in personal opinion but I didn't realize when the game came out that the faction would be ridiculed as a weeb faction... seriously and Knights and Viking players act like they are the best and most epic but after playing the story and wondering who let a child write up the story, I wonder if the game designers when open a history book to learn about the history of each faction, so lets take a look at how they factions were in history (and yes this is me taking a slight stab at the knights and vikings, I am still a samurai at the end of the day :o )

The Knights

If the knights had stayed true to their role in history, they would probably have a sub division of knights known as Templars who would be spending most their time invading the other factions trying to control Territory's in the name of their religion, otherwise classed as a crusade. The knights had a habit of doing these in our past, in fact they loved them so much they had 9 crusades, one after the other which spanned over 200 years. they slaughtered anyone who opposed them, be it innocent or not. Thought the Faction in the game does hold true to some qualities they are still a little over rated in my opinion and the opinion of history. this isn't the only event that knights were involved in but it saves me
time writing if I stick to one for each faction.

The Vikings

Fun Fact, the Vikings were not as strong and powerful as the game suggests they were or are (in fact I believe the devs seem to favor the faction in game)
The vikings in real world history were not known for being strong but aggressive and used more scare tactics to win their battles, but if the game stuck to this style of combat the vikings would have died out long before the story was set in the game as neither Knights or Samurai would have feared them as much as farmers and Innocent villagers which was the biggest targets when Vikings raided and plunders. Vikings would rape, pillage and plunder to survive and personally I am not up for that kind of style. besides scare tactics the Vikings didn't have much going for them, though in history there have been cases of a few impressive viking fighters recorded in history not as many as Knights and Samurai. which is why during the story when the vikings raid the Samurai fortress I lost interest in the story ( Not to say I didn't finish it, I completed it on realist in the first few days ) The Vikings would have been destroyed no matter how much of a surprise attack they had, Samurai train hard to fight to hone and master their art of combat, some screaming farmer with two axes would never have been able to beat them. Once they were beaten, they would have starved to death and the vikings would have been no more but this would have happened a in the past of the games setting.
(Another Fun Fact: The Vikings served no real purpose in the games story. they were attacked and beaten down and then after getting back on track they raid the samurai for no real reason [Should have lost] and then their next appearance is at the end of the game when they randomly appear rushing the castle you fight apollyon and then during the ending the Viking blames the Samurai for everything.... Like what???)

The Samurai

The Samurai Actually holds true to how they were in History and this isn't favoritism, the samurai in the story have closed borders and have closed themselves off from the other two factions, they live in peace (with the ruling evil). In real world history the Shogun closed off Japan from the rest of the world for 200 years, otherwise known as the Edo period in which no one was allowed to enter or leave the country. Though it sounds bad, Japan came out of poverty and prospered for those 200 years until America came along and cause mayhem (as they do). In the games story the samurai are seem training constantly in their art of sword fighting, It was well documented that samurai would train hard with their swords. They were formidable foes and not to be taken lightly in fact one samurai was in a fight and didn't have his sword but managed to defeat his foe using a boat ore (True Story)

Summery

SO! all in all though the knights and vikings would take the piss out of the samurai for all being weebs, then sure fine call me a weeb but know that I see anyone who plays a viking as a possible wannabe rapist savage and and anyone who plays knights a Idiot who's can't accept others opinion and would kill anyone who says otherwise because they can't stand to either be wrong or made to look foolish. where as the samurai are skilled warriors who keep getting pestered by the rest of the world.

This is just a Joke thread but I still expect a bit of hate.

Drakeawish
09-28-2018, 01:40 AM
Which faction is truly supreme? The truth is below: (viking swords were ignored in the making of this post)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Knights vs Samurai:

- The knights have the strongest metal armor than any armor worn by a samurai. While historically, not all samurai wore wood armor, the metal used for some samurai armor was fairly weak and easily dented. Therefore, knights have stronger defense than samurai.
- Longswords will slice up any poorly made katana. Sorry weebs. Therefore, knights deal much more damage.
- The knights have slower mobility than samurai due to the heavy metal armor knights wear. However, anything a samurai throws at a knight will simply fail. So despite the low speed of the knight, the samurai will simply run out of stamina using various mobility moves that will achieve nothing in offense.

Summary: Knights will kill all samurai.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Samurai vs Vikings:

- Vikings were not big on armor, but did wear some sort of chainmail piece. I'll have to say, samurai armor and viking armor are rather similar in flexibility and defense. No clear advantage exists when it comes to defense between these two factions.
- Axes are not that strong against katanas, as the edge of axes will not lay as much of a slice as a longsword will. I guess the weebs have a damage advantage here.
- Samurai, as mentioned before, have various mobility moves, meaning that they are quite skilled when it comes to speed. Vikings are known to charge, which can be a big mistake when samurai are capable of quick dodges. Guess the weebs win this one too.

Summary: Samurai will kill all vikings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Vikings vs Knights:

- Vikings have chainmail. Knights have actual armor. Knights have the advantage of defense against vikings.
- Longswords will cleave axes. Knights have an advantage when it comes to damage.
- Vikings are more mobile than knights. Although knights have heavy armor, this does not completely shut their mobility out. They will still have enough speed to take long ranged swings to slay their viking enemies. Vikings, being the aggressive hack and slashers they are, will run out of stamina trying to dent knight armor. The knights win this one.

Summary: Knights will kill all vikings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So in the end, we realize that the knights have advantages against the vikings and samurai.

However, the knights don't have advantages against ALL the factions. We are missing out a faction. That's right. Im talking about the new upcoming faction for DLC.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knights vs Americans:

- Americans consist of different ethnicities that allow their faction to be diverse. This gives the Americans an advantage because they have knowledge of multiple cultures, including Italian, British, German, Chinese, Mexican, Spanish, Greek, Irish, Hungarian, Japanese, French, Nigerian, etc. Therefore, the Americans have the knowledge of various cultural weapons and tools (perhaps even access to replicas or actual ones found in display cases at museums). Knights only have knightly weapons. Therefore, the American offense is much more threatening.
- Americans have multiple rights in society, such as the right to free speech. This allows Americans to easily communicate with one another and express their own ideas and thoughts. Therefore, Americans will be able to work better as a team when it comes to fighting other factions. The knights have a code of chivalry that they need to follow strictly. Americans can basically do whatever they want as long as they are following the law of the US government and its constitution that consists of various amendments that are implemented to ensure control and safety over American society in which citizens can live in peace with a low possibility of societal chaos and disorganization.
- Americans are more mobile than the knights. Americans have access to various forms of transportation and can have various skills. For example, Americans can use planes to get to other countries, boats to travel across water (like the vikings), bikes to ride on the sidewalk or street, the subway to travel underground, etc. Americans have a variety of transportation options that allow them to be much more mobile than knights riding horses. Also, Americans can have mobility skills as well. The US consists of various martial art schools where children and adults can learn about kung fu, karate, etc. This will excel the movesets of Americans higher than the movesets of knights.

Summary: Americans will kill all knights.



FINAL SUMMARY: AMERICANS ARE THE STRONGEST FACTION

ChampionRuby50g
09-28-2018, 01:44 AM
The Vikings owned swords too you know.

And America had access to all that but still lost to farmers in Vietnam, so conclusion is Vikings win agaisnt all.

Spitfire094
09-28-2018, 08:52 AM
where did you get the idea that samurai had poorly made swords?and in skill samurai were much better than knights. though knights had some skill their fighting style is all over the place and a mess at best.

Samurai would destroy knights hands down

Tundra 793
09-28-2018, 10:04 AM
where did you get the idea that samurai had poorly made swords?and in skill samurai were much better than knights. though knights had some skill their fighting style is all over the place and a mess at best.

Samurai would destroy knights hands down

Historically, Japan didn't have access to decent quality iron with which to make their weapons. Even a well made Katana would be considerably more brittle than any standard European counterpart. Their inherent skill with the weapon was because you couldn't just pick up a Katana and make it work, because it's far more likely to shatter than a Knights longsword, so you need special training with it so it doesn't shatter on your first strike.

ChampionRuby50g
09-28-2018, 10:33 AM
To piggy back of my man Tundra, Katanas where a last resort weapon instead of a first resort. Katanas were designed to slash through cloth or leather armor and would be next to useless agaisnt chain mail let alone platemail. Then as a stabbing weapon, the sword would most definetlely break or bend.

To say a samurai would win agaisnt a Knight is wrong, of course there would be exceptions, but Knights come out on top 9/10. Vikings also had chainmail, they also praised Odin so they win 10/10 times agaisnt Samurai. They also conquered England, so that covers the Knights aspect.

Vikings rule, the rest drool.

Jazz117Volkov
09-28-2018, 10:45 AM
Lawbringer > everyone else. A seven foot tall psychopath covered from head-to-toe in hardened steel, wielding an eight foot long pole-axe would laugh at the idea that bamboo armour would mitigate his wrath. Only, he doesn't laugh.

Also, "Knights are English" has some overlap with "Prehistoric is dinosaurs".

Siegfried-Z
09-28-2018, 10:48 AM
Haha anyway guys that's just a subjective opinion on this topic ;)

On my side i have my heart for Samurai too which are really interesting for their history, their codes, their habits etc

But of course the biggest army over ages has been Knights.. Vikings were more sauvages than real armies and Samurai were stick to Japan, they were not conqueror.

Anyway, don't forget big iron armor and longswrod also makes you very slow.. no way for a knight to put a hand on a well rounded samurai.. impossible. And good Katana could kill despite of armors (always few weak parts on big armors.

Samurai were also without a doubt warriors with the best fighting skills (technically). Who haven't seen Rurouni Kenshin ;)

Jazz117Volkov
09-28-2018, 11:08 AM
If I were to critique western culture, we let things die when we're not using them. Historical European warriors were skilled in all sorts of martial arts; very disciplined, very effective, but when firearms happened it all got replaced and forgotten. There's movements happening to reclaim some of the history and revitalize the western martial arts, like the longsword techniques used in Germany and Italy, but there's a long way to go. Nevertheless, to claim Samurai are somehow more skilled because they have more serious faces while wearing their pajamas is pretty ignorant.

The collective consciousness understands historical western martial arts as stage fighting, because that's whats in all the movies--movements are slow, telegraphed, performed by unskilled actors, and the objective is to strike the sword, not the person--similarly, the concept of a Samurai warrior is an artifact of pop-culture more than history. But the identity of the three factions in For Honor is one of the least realistic aspects of the game for other reasons. After a thousand years of fighting, they'd each evolve into three new factions, similar to each other and exhibiting all the most effective aspects of the original three. And while they'd probably still be distinguishable, they wouldn't much resemble their original selves.

Siegfried-Z
09-28-2018, 12:55 PM
If I were to critique western culture, we let things die when we're not using them. Historical European warriors were skilled in all sorts of martial arts; very disciplined, very effective, but when firearms happened it all got replaced and forgotten. There's movements happening to reclaim some of the history and revitalize the western martial arts, like the longsword techniques used in Germany and Italy, but there's a long way to go. Nevertheless, to claim Samurai are somehow more skilled because they have more serious faces while wearing their pajamas is pretty ignorant.

The collective consciousness understands historical western martial arts as stage fighting, because that's whats in all the movies--movements are slow, telegraphed, performed by unskilled actors, and the objective is to strike the sword, not the person--similarly, the concept of a Samurai warrior is an artifact of pop-culture more than history. But the identity of the three factions in For Honor is one of the least realistic aspects of the game for other reasons. After a thousand years of fighting, they'd each evolve into three new factions, similar to each other and exhibiting all the most effective aspects of the original three. And while they'd probably still be distinguishable, they wouldn't much resemble their original selves.

Hum anyway not have to take this subjects too seriously ;)

But you can't talk about their martial arts culture as "pyjama" wearing ^^

I am a national french competitors in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu and i'm in martial arts and combat sports since i am 6 years old, i know well about the japan history. Almost all martial arts came from Japan.

They've made severals swords arts too, Ninja assassins tech come from them as well.

They really have a warrior history with Edo government and Tokugawa area with the Shogun, the Shinsengumi, the 4 Hitokiri assassins, many Clans etc etc

What destroy that is the Meiji area and the rule as wearing a Katana became illegal. That's not about having a serious face, that's a mindset and strong habits code they had and this is well known the most sharping blade arround history are the Japanese Katana (quality ones)^^

Europeans didn't invent any type of combat system or close to.

But, knights were far stronger in terms of numbers, armors, logistic etc They were also more physical, as we have to take in consideration Samurai are Asian people usually not as tall and big as Europeans or Northern guys ..

Jazz117Volkov
09-28-2018, 01:18 PM
I meant the pajamas bit as a joke. Japanese are known to be quite stoic.


Europeans didn't invent any type of combat system or close to.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DenseWaryFurseal-size_restricted.gif

Halvtand
09-28-2018, 01:50 PM
Fun and cool thread. It is true that this setup of vikings v knights v samurai would not work in reality, but that is a question that has been brought up many times here...

I would like to point out a few flaws in your statements about the vikings as they are my specialty as a historian. I'm not trying to say that you're wrong, only that you may not be considering all the facts.

"The vikings in real world history were not known for being strong but aggressive and used more scare tactics to win their battles"
Aggressive, yes. This is the part that FH really wanted to take to heart, and as we can see it can be hard to convert such an aspect to a game. About their strength I would argue that the Scandinavians were among the best fed and trained people in Europe at the time. There is a stubborn "theory" that says that the vikings raided and conquered land because of their barren homelands, food shortages and violence. However, there is no evidence of this. Scandinavia, once a seabed is incredibly fertile almost on par with the Levant.
When Ibn Fadlan describes the vikings in his chronicles he states "I have never seen more perfect physical specimens, tall as date palms, blonde and ruddy; they wear neither tunics nor caftans, but the men wear a garment which covers one side of the body and leaves a hand free." This does not sound like starving people to me.
In the end, the vikings raided and took colonies because they could, they had the manpower, the training and the supplies to send that kind of expedition out in a time when no other culture in Europe could.
Yes, they used scare tactics. The Scandinavians are still today a highly pragmatic people. If your are mounting an assault, do you warn them first just because you're more powerful? Do you go in during the day and let them see you just because you can win anyway? This is a life or death-scenario, and a smart fighter will want to tip the scale in his favour, no matter what. These people wanted as little risk and as high reward as possible.

"...as neither Knights or Samurai would have feared them as much as farmers and Innocent villagers which was the biggest targets when Vikings raided and plunders."
After pillaging what is today known as norther France Rollo (Or Gange-Ralf "Walking Ralf" because he was so big that no horse could carry him) and his army sailed south along the Rhen toward Paris. In order to stop them the king of west Francia gave them the lands they had conquered. Rollo, his men and their offspring and later the people who lived in their territory became known as Normans. The same Normans that later spawned a guy known as William the Conqueror, first king of England.
Yes, they primarily targeted farmers and villagers, but make no mistake, people from all walks of life were scared ****less of these people who could appear silently in the night, kill and plunder and be gone by daybreak.

"though in history there have been cases of a few impressive viking fighters recorded in history not as many as Knights and Samurai."
This is because the vikings themselves didn't write stuff like that down. The only sources we have of great viking fighters comes mainly from France or England. There is a different cultural focus on preserving the memory of great men both among the "knights" and the "samurai" of the real world. That there are any known viking fighters at all is almost a miracle. Don't confuse scarity of source material with scarcity of specimens.

"The Vikings would have been destroyed no matter how much of a surprise attack they had, Samurai train hard to fight to hone and master their art of combat, some screaming farmer with two axes would never have been able to beat them."
The Scandinavians were known for their rigorous training regiments that often started when they were children. By law every man was forced to not only own weapons and armour, but to keep them healthy and to train with them. The Scandis also developed a game, a martial art that is still practiced in its original form today called Glima. The goal of which is to keep your balance while having a guy as big and strong as you trying to throw you to the ground. Fun fact was that you were supposed to be able to do this, and still not harm your opponent. If your opponent got hurt, you lost. Ask any martial artist what makes a good fighter, they will answer - balance, control, power.
Some screaming farmer with two axes could never beat them. Well, the dual-wielding axeman myth is debunked in Egil Skallagrims tales. The Warlord is by far the most accurate portrayal of a viking warrior as this game gets. How about an army of those? We also have to add in the fact that most would not fear death for a better afterlife and believe that they were protected by magic. Like I said earlier, these people like to tip the scales in their favour, they're not going to walk up to a fortress in broad daylight and start a siege. They'll start with psychological warfare weeks before and miles away. Once the invasion starts there will not be a single soldier in the enemy ranks that hasn't heard about what the vikings have done so far.
The samurai fight in a very different way from the vikings, so the victor would be the one who comes out on top. Just speculating about it on a forum is nowhere near enough to come to a conclusion, but I fully believe that the fight would be a lot closer to call than most would like to admit.

"Another Fun Fact: The Vikings served no real purpose in the games story."
I never thought about this, but you're damn right. The vikings are mainly a story element that puts the warden on the path against Apollyon and a segue into the Samurai faction that would probably have worked better if the first meeting between Knights and Samurai were when Orochi first meets Warden.

Anyway, that's it for me. Have fun.

Halvtand
09-28-2018, 01:57 PM
Almost all martial arts came from Japan.

No. Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Asian_martial_arts.
Almost all Japanese martial arts are reinterpretations of Chinese martial arts that are in turn borrowed or brought from India.

The_B0G_
09-28-2018, 02:05 PM
I noticed a little bit of misinformation about knights in the thread that I thought I might clarify.

Although heavy, knights armor was very maneuverable if well fitted and knights could move fast, it was just heavy, hence why they would stay on horseback as much as possible, but to say they were slow, is just false.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc#

So would a leather armor wearing warrior be faster? Sure. Would it be a big difference in speed? No. On top of the small speed disadvantage knights have, they gain a massive advantage in armor which had chainmail covered with metal plates.



The other fake news I've seen being spread is that Samurai were the only warriors with martial arts training.

Vikings were basically self trained as far as I know, farmers who became warriors after a few raids. They would have the more experienced train the less experienced. Correct me if I'm wrong, they were illiterate so obviously training would come from the most experienced warrior in each clan, like everything else, knowledge was passed by word of mouth with vikings.

Knights however did practice martial arts, European/Western martial arts. Which revolved around long sword, knife fighting, pole arms and brutal hand to hand techniques that were based on hyper extending joints and breaking bones with as little effort as possible.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_European_martial_arts


So knights weren't just rich people who had amazing armor and used it alone to win all their fights, they were highly trained and could most definitely hold their own against any warrior of their time, and in combination with that ridiculously good armor not many equally skilled opponents would stand a chance against a knight, where a missed block would equal a scratch or dent for a knight, for a viking or samurai a missed block would mean death or dismemberment.

Siegfried-Z
09-28-2018, 02:16 PM
I meant the pajamas bit as a joke. Japanese are known to be quite stoic.


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/DenseWaryFurseal-size_restricted.gif

Tell me a list of Europeans Martial arts which are proven to be efficient and still use then ;) The only one is GKW... and Even greco-roman wrestling has became an American sport now ^^

Tundra 793
09-28-2018, 02:20 PM
The Scandis also developed a game, a martial art that is still practiced in its original form today called Glima

I had a heated discussion about this last year. Someone believed Glima to be a traditional Viking codified martial art, but through the research I did, which started with the Icelandic Glima clubs, straight to the Sagas, I could find no absolute proof that Glima was something the Vikings developed, codified and practiced to any great extent.
In general I've seen no evidence that convinced me the Vikings had any form of martial art in a form we'd recognize.

From what I gathered, Glima was just a word referring to wrestling of some form, but not a unified and widely practiced single form of martial art.

Where did you learn about it, and that it was a martial art?

The_B0G_
09-28-2018, 02:25 PM
Tell me a list of Europeans Martial arts which are proven to be efficient and still use then ;) The only one is GKW... and Even greco-roman wrestling has became an American sport now ^^

After gunpowder, all martial arts became irrelevant in warfare. All martial arts in use today, are only for show and sport, or for meditation/exercise. No martial art has an actual use these days.

Siegfried-Z
09-28-2018, 02:32 PM
No. Not even close. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Asian_martial_arts.
Almost all Japanese martial arts are reinterpretations of Chinese martial arts that are in turn borrowed or brought from India.

Lol a Wiki link.. Please look at the martial arts named on this.. excluding combat sports and only looking at martial arts.. only a few are not from Japan as Tae Kwondo from Korea or Viet vo dao from Vietnam. Chinese has Kung fu which include a lots of different type as Wing chun or they have the Sanda we know nowadays (but considered as combat sport) for the ones who know about martial arts. Mogolian had their own wrestling... but that's quite all.

Do Europeans, Notherns or US people has martial arts they've made themselves and master ? no except some way of wrestling and old Pankration tournaments.

Russia has his Sambo which is very Efficient i've already train myself with David Heran the best French Heavy Sambo guy but that's sport and that's a homemade comination of all others martial arts.

But Japan alone has :

Judo
Jiu-jitsu
Aikido
Karaté
Yoseikan
Taijutsu we can know as Kempo nowadays
Sumo

They have old war art as Ninjutsu.

They had severals Blade arts as Kenjustu, Iaido or even Shuriken jutsu.

And i speak only about some general things, they had few version of each martial arts.

Siegfried-Z
09-28-2018, 02:38 PM
After gunpowder, all martial arts became irrelevant in warfare. All martial arts in use today, are only for show and sport, or for meditation/exercise. No martial art has an actual use these days.

That's personnal opinion.

And why special forces and soliders then train in Boxing, self defense etc then ? ;)

Nowadays, it can also allow you in many situation in your life to save your *** or friends ones from agressive people.

Martial arts also brings value and have a very good effect in education.

Can help womens in many inconfortable situations.

No, martial arts always gonna be usefull doesn't matter guns etc

The_B0G_
09-28-2018, 05:33 PM
That's personnal opinion.

And why special forces and soliders then train in Boxing, self defense etc then ? ;)

Nowadays, it can also allow you in many situation in your life to save your *** or friends ones from agressive people.

Martial arts also brings value and have a very good effect in education.

Can help womens in many inconfortable situations.

No, martial arts always gonna be usefull doesn't matter guns etc

Most martial arts injure, they don't kill, special forces may use parts from certain martial arts, but you can be a 8th degree black belt and still get shot and killed by a goat farmer, it's basically useless in warfare now as hand to hand combat is rare compared to how warfare used to be. So yes, gunpowder killed martial arts in warfare.


As far as education goes.. I think you mean exercise and meditation like I stated before.

As far as self defense goes for women, I wrestled at a beach party with the 80 pound Canadian judo national champion when I was when I was 18, I didn't take her serious at first and she tossed me, so I asked for round two, widened my stance and grabbed her and threw her over my shoulder, she couldn't do a thing because I was nearly a foot taller and had probably 100 pounds over her. So while it can help girls to know this, a bigger person can still win a wrestling match just by being bigger.

If a man learns martial arts who is average or above in size, it can definitely win some fights against aggressive people, if they don't have a gun... you see, no matter what the circumstance, gun beats martial arts.

I'm not trying to start a flame war I'm just stating that you saying european martial arts are dead and useless is ironic, because besides entertainment, no martial art is very useful at all if a gun is involved. Unless you live in the Marvel Universe anyway.

Siegfried-Z
09-28-2018, 05:56 PM
Most martial arts injure, they don't kill, special forces may use parts from certain martial arts, but you can be a 8th degree black belt and still get shot and killed by a goat farmer, it's basically useless in warfare now as hand to hand combat is rare compared to how warfare used to be. So yes, gunpowder killed martial arts in warfare.


As far as education goes.. I think you mean exercise and meditation like I stated before.

As far as self defense goes for women, I wrestled at a beach party with the 80 pound Canadian judo national champion when I was when I was 18, I didn't take her serious at first and she tossed me, so I asked for round two, widened my stance and grabbed her and threw her over my shoulder, she couldn't do a thing because I was nearly a foot taller and had probably 100 pounds over her. So while it can help girls to know this, a bigger person can still win a wrestling match just by being bigger.

If a man learns martial arts who is average or above in size, it can definitely win some fights against aggressive people, if they don't have a gun... you see, no matter what the circumstance, gun beats martial arts.

I'm not trying to start a flame war I'm just stating that you saying european martial arts are dead and useless is ironic, because besides entertainment, no martial art is very useful at all if a gun is involved. Unless you live in the Marvel Universe anyway.

Don't worry i'm not there to start any flame too .

Of course the best martial arts of the planet can be shot by a farmer. But this is not the purpose of the thread ;)

I'm just saying martial arts can still brings a lot to people practising it in terms of confidence and values and this is important i think in the current society ;)

PS : I've met some girls which were really kicking *** guys at the gym ^^But i'm glad it never happen to me XD

Donut10k1
10-19-2018, 09:18 PM
where did you get the idea that samurai had poorly made swords?and in skill samurai were much better than knights. though knights had some skill their fighting style is all over the place and a mess at best.

Samurai would destroy knights hands down

I definitely would vote Samurai as well depending my main issue with the factions right now lets someone's up to will say level 50 and I got 30 levels in a orochi as the Maine why are they using a viking Shield

Samurai since the beginning

NHLGoldenKnight
10-19-2018, 11:40 PM
Knights would win, hands down. It is just objective observation. From weapons and armor, to training and organization.

It is funny how some think they didn't have martial arts, or hand to hand combat. They were actually very skilled in grappling and wrestling techniques which arguably are more useful in actual fight compared to many Asian techniques which are usually ceremonial or for other benefits.

HerrNein
10-20-2018, 12:55 AM
If we are going on realism. The battles between Samurai and Knights would more than likely be relatively 50/50 odds. Circumstances, terrain and all that wonderful stuff would more or less determine how the ordeal goes.

If we are going on the basis of realism, however, there would be a hell of a lot more bows being used and the sides might finally engage one another in melee combat, and even then, it depends on who is the aggressor, on what terrain and if calvary is involved.

People seem to forget that the real life knights were defeated in battle against less armored counterparts all the time; either by a different kingdom or the sultanates they were crusading against. Just cause you wear a steel can doesn't suddenly make you invincible. Granted, in a realistic scenarion it would be Shugoki's weapon, not the katana, which poses the biggest danger to a knight... that and longbows, French can tell you all about that.

But again, the amount of factors in a -realistic- scenario make it impossible to tell. Longer the fight goes, however, the less it would favor the knight.

I will say Knights vs Samurai is a 50/50, with maybe a very slight tilt towards the knights.

Vikings simply are not invited to the party, however. We all know in real life knights rofl stomped those barbarians, and it wouldn't be difficult to guess a properly trained and armored samurai would do the same.