Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

Malthaussen · 11-23-2004, 07:17 PM

I believe the original poster wondered "who would win" if both antogonists were unarmored... so the knight's superior Oven of Honor is immaterial to this question.

Everything I have read indicates that the western knight employed little finesse in his attacks. Whatever weapon he used, he essentially just bashed away until he wore down his opponent. Fully-armored knights rarely killed one another, due both to the fact that an enemy was worth more as ransom-bait and that their armor made them extremely hard to kill. Only peasants, who weren't eligble to receive ransoms and didn't play by the rules to begin with, killed many knights in battle.

In reference to breaking points and weapons quality, remember that force is the product of mass but the square of velocity. A cloth-yard shaft weighs virtually nothing, but can punch through the finest plate at 100 yards. Because the katana is lighter than the longsword, and because the samurai's training focussed on speed, not smashing, the katana is more than likely to defeat the longsword, other things being equal. It is also true that the average katana was of quality far superior to the average longsword; while there were European blades comparable to the "katana of 14,000 folds," they were outstanding blades, not the average knight-killer.

In point of honor, both samurai and knight were bloody insane, and would fight beyond any rationality. Just read Barbara Tuchman's description of King Sancho (in A Distant Mirror) if you don't believe me.

In an unarmored match between a knight and samurai, the latter would probably win most of the time, because knights were not accustomed to fighting without armor, whereas samurai were. Incidentally, I have never seen any reference that suggested that knights "parried" very much, and all one has to do is try to parry with a 4 lb longsword to discover that it is a non-trivial exercise. Knights relied on their armor and shield to defeat their opponent's blows, not the interposition of their weapon.

A question you might ask yourselves: if the armored knight was the acme of the foot soldier, why were rapiers and foils developed? Why did an unarmored style emerge in the Renaissance? A good man with a foil could beat an armored knight, because he could put his point in a vulnerable spot, and was light enough to dance away from the knight's smashes.

-- Mal

11-23-2004, 07:17 PM	#12
Malthaussen Manshoon Join Date: May 10, 2001 Location: Horsham, PA USA Age: 69 Posts: 151	I believe the original poster wondered "who would win" if both antogonists were unarmored... so the knight's superior Oven of Honor is immaterial to this question. Everything I have read indicates that the western knight employed little finesse in his attacks. Whatever weapon he used, he essentially just bashed away until he wore down his opponent. Fully-armored knights rarely killed one another, due both to the fact that an enemy was worth more as ransom-bait and that their armor made them extremely hard to kill. Only peasants, who weren't eligble to receive ransoms and didn't play by the rules to begin with, killed many knights in battle. In reference to breaking points and weapons quality, remember that force is the product of mass but the square of velocity. A cloth-yard shaft weighs virtually nothing, but can punch through the finest plate at 100 yards. Because the katana is lighter than the longsword, and because the samurai's training focussed on speed, not smashing, the katana is more than likely to defeat the longsword, other things being equal. It is also true that the average katana was of quality far superior to the average longsword; while there were European blades comparable to the "katana of 14,000 folds," they were outstanding blades, not the average knight-killer. In point of honor, both samurai and knight were bloody insane, and would fight beyond any rationality. Just read Barbara Tuchman's description of King Sancho (in A Distant Mirror) if you don't believe me. In an unarmored match between a knight and samurai, the latter would probably win most of the time, because knights were not accustomed to fighting without armor, whereas samurai were. Incidentally, I have never seen any reference that suggested that knights "parried" very much, and all one has to do is try to parry with a 4 lb longsword to discover that it is a non-trivial exercise. Knights relied on their armor and shield to defeat their opponent's blows, not the interposition of their weapon. A question you might ask yourselves: if the armored knight was the acme of the foot soldier, why were rapiers and foils developed? Why did an unarmored style emerge in the Renaissance? A good man with a foil could beat an armored knight, because he could put his point in a vulnerable spot, and was light enough to dance away from the knight's smashes. -- Mal __________________ \"Of two choices, I always take the third.\"