[Sir Kenyth]

It is not so simple as this is being made to be. It's like asking which is a better tool, a screwdriver or a wrench? The answer is that it depends upon what you want to use it for.

Swords in general were ineffective against good full plate armor, but then again, good full plate armor was a relative rarity. Only the wealthy could afford such a luxury. Most men would be lucky to posses a chain shirt, metal helmet, and wooden shield. Most commoners wore boiled leather and used rags as padding.

At any rate, the weapon of choice against full plate is a piercing and/or hacking weapon such as a flanged mace or narrow axe. Something that concentrates the force of the blow on a smaller area. Other effective weapons were spikes and long thin spearheads that could fit through the joints of the armor.

Samurai wore armor made from wood and cloth. Their combat style was fast and agile. Their weapons were designed to defeat such armor and accent the combat style.

Rapiers are not designed to pierce armor. They are designed to be light and agile, and are meant to defeat others similarly armed. Certainly a heavily armored foe would easily overpower the swordsman, but that's what the flint-lock pistol was for!

Each tool is meant to do a certain job. Though full plate may seem the ultimate, it's not good to wear for long periods. Heat and cumberance will take their toll before long. It's also very expensive to make and high maintenance.

Remember the weapons that made metal armor obselete? Ranged weapons! In comparison, they are cheap, light, easier to make, and are VERY effective. Archers guarded by pikes were deadly opponents, regardless of their armor.

Combat style also makes or breaks the war. Remember the Mongols? Light cavalry armed with good short bows. Their tactics were ultimately even more deadly than their weapons.