[Nico]

Originally posted by Styxx
Samurai bows weren't anything impressive - it took longbows to get through heavy plate at any useful range. The knight's heavy armour and shield would probably shrug off the arrows at range, and if you're going to allow all weapons, the samurai is screwed once the mounted knight starts a galloping charge from medium range and sticks a heavy lance on him before he can draw, aim and fire another arrow.

In all reality, the guy's assertion is mostly valid - they're fairly equivalent opponents, each with his own strengths and weaknesses, and the battle would most probably be decided by  unpredictable circumstances.

But knights are still cooler.

Fact 1: long bows are nowhere near as effective as people think against armors and chainmails
Fact 2: the samurai would obviously shoot at the horse
wich woul lead to
Fact 3: a grounded, recovering from the horrible crash that follows the death of the galloping mount knight is no threat for a samourai. Or for a squire, in fact.
regardless of fact 1 to 3, no matter what, an heavier knight would not "screw" a samurai loading another arrow while riding a horse that is galloping more easily.
Samourais are not stupid standing targets for knight practice, they do move, actually. Yes, I don't kid you, they do.

But the guy is wrong, I've seen real armors, my country is full of real armors, you can get old pieces of full plate armors in about any city with a medieval history ( and they don't lack, in France ), and no, no, a full plate mail is not light, damn, a simple chain mail is AWFULLY heavy, so if you add the plate mail over it, well, no, man, it's not easy to move in it. US aluminium armors are not how armors actually were.
And you don't see a thing with an helmet on, btw.

Anyway, knights are not cooler, they're different. Samurai helmets are cool, and those shoulder plates are cool too

[Styxx]

Warhorses used by medieval knights were heavily armored too - sometimes as much as the knight himself on the frontal section - so the argument for shooting the horse doesn't really work. Europe had bows and arrows back then too, and the knight still was predominant on the battlefield.

And dodging a lance charge isn't as simple as it sounds either. Contrary to what Hollywood wants you to believe, knights actually maneuvered their horses and aimed their lances during charges.

[Grey Wolf]

I'd say it would depend on the equipment and skill of each of the combatants. Vague generalizations will get us nothing at all.

[Nico]

Ever ride a horse? I do, and I assure you that if the guy wants to avoid you and your 1/2 ton horse, he'll have no problem . And the "horse armor" ( name's caparaçon ) don't cover parts leg the neck, the legs, the bottom half of the body, so they were relative protections. And 90 times out of 100, it was just fabric anyway

And you didn't agree that the samurai's shoulder plates are cool, so I'm not pleased

[Styxx]

Originally posted by Nico
Ever ride a horse? I do, and I assure you that if the guy wants to avoid you and your 1/2 ton horse, he'll have no problem . And the "horse armor" ( name's caparaçon ) don't cover parts leg the neck, the legs, the bottom half of the body, so they were relative protections. And 90 times out of 100, it was just fabric anyway

And you didn't agree that the samurai's shoulder plates are cool, so I'm not pleased

Bah, your opinion, as an anime fan, should be promptly disregarded on this debate.

And samurai helmets and shoulder plates are dorky.

[Nico]

Bah, you suck

[Flipside]

Well, I shot Archery for quite a while, what needs to be uderstood here is that the size of the bow it not actually so important as the tension of the string itself. Also, horse-bows tended to be recurve bows, which curve back on themselves, thus giving extra surface area.

The British Longbowmen who served aboard US navy vessels string their bows at around 110lb. That is, quite likely, more than most people could pull back more than an inch or two, but these guys were trained to pull them full stretch. Longbows had an advantage over pistols of longer range and faster reload, but required far more training and practice. It is that which killed the bow, not it's effectiveness. A Bow is still more effective Kill-range wise, than many pistols.

Arrows are also often a part of Medieval Bows that are ignored. You don't just get 'pointy' heads on them, you got Armour-piercing points, with Bullet-shaped heads and hardened tips, you got 'rippers', which were vicious inverted blades, designed to be removed only with the maximum of damage.

A decent Archer can hit the Bullseye of a target 60m away without using any kind of telescopic sight, only the sight on the Bow. A good Archer won't even need a few practice shots to set up the sight.

Longbows, such as the sort used by Welsh Longbowmen, could effectively rip an armoured unit to shreds. Only the Crossbow was more effective and that was because of the nature of the Bolt, not the power of the weapon.

Edit : And note I say 'could' not 'would', Archers had their weaknesses. Weather affected them greatly, as did Ammo reserves. The shorter the range, the higher the chances of piercing armour, but the less time to get out the way. Life as an Archer was never dull

[TrashMan]

LOL...no it wasn't.......

Remeber Braveheart? Shooting at Scottish asses only to trampled by the cavarly from the rear!

It's a shame there are no war horses around anymore....I would really like to see one of those beasts....

[Flaser]

First - full plate was not the common form of armor - half plate is more like it, but even that was smg. only the rich (as rich among nobles) could afford.
....as for being so "heavy" - these men wore these armors from a young age.For reference, Nico, ever wore one of them?
I saw these armors too and since we also have quite a few. Their looks are misleading - the weight is distributed over the whole body. I'm roughly 67-70kg, and can lift and carry a 80-90kg person. I could probably wear a 40kg armor, and if I were actually a strong/well endowed person I could probably cope with it for a couple of hours.

However what most of you seem to forget is that the Medieval Knight was almost never the exclusive form of a Medieval Army.

Beside the heavly armored cavalry you had spearmand and archers - and used the proper weapon for the proper job.

....and no one spoke of crossbows the famed weapon of the crusaders. That thing was vicious, for it could be fired from a horse, and didn't need that long and tedious training to use.
It was banned by the pope and anyone using it against fellow Christians marked a heretic.

As for bows - what sets the samurai's bow apart is that it was assymetrical so a long bow could be used when riding a horse.

[Cabbie]

I wonder if the knights have a developed system of unarmed combat.

I know the samurai also practiced jujitsu which is the art of twisting joints and breaking them (not necessarily throwing the body to the ground, which would be impossible against an opponent with a ton of plate on him) and they are very effective against armored opponents since the wrist, ankles, joints were prime targets. In fact, I think that was jujitsu designed for.


The fellow's Katana vs Raiper was also concluded as "moot and answerable" Go figure .

[TrashMan]

What's so strange..it simply is..

Stupid question, stupid answer.
And knight did practice unarmed combat too, alltough it was more like wrestling:D