who would realy win?

[burnzey boi]

there have been many topics discussed about weather a katana would chop a longsword in half but yet its much more thicker.
this thread is about who would win, a ninja or a knight? things i know:

1. knights wear heavy armour making them slow in running but protects them against many attacks.

2.a ninja wears very light armour and can be cut easly but the lack of armour makes them very agile.

3.knights are allowed to parry and dodge but ninja's are not allowed to.

4.lonswords make it harder to swing when a katana is light and quick.

but who would win though?

[Link]

Heavy armour is usually plated armour. The slowness of the knight makes him a sitting duck for the samourai (ninja's don't use katana's!). The samourai would slit his katana between the plates of the armour, most likely beneath the armpit of the knight.

[Q'alooaith]

Uuuurrrhhhhh

Not, again.

Ones a battlefielf warrior, the other an assasin type.. I mean come on, apples and oragnges.

[Bozos of Bones]

There's a bunch of things wrong here...

1. knights wear heavy armour making them slow in running but protects them against many attacks.
Alright, this one may pass [img]tongue.gif[/img]
2. a ninja wears very light armour and can be cut easly but the lack of armour makes them very agile.
You need to decide wether he is fighting a samurai or a ninja.
3.knights are allowed to parry and dodge but ninja's are not allowed to.
Why are ninja's not allowed to dodge? Ninja's life depends solly on dodging blows, and evading attacks.
4.lonswords make it harder to swing when a katana is light and quick.
Their weights are the same, it's just that the katana has the center of mass closer to the hilt, makin it slightly quicker but less powerfull. Not to mention that ninjas don't use katanas.

Samurai katanas are designed to cut through wooden armor, the type the samurai and the other troops normally had, whereas the longsword is for bashing at chainmail, plate and the like. The two are incomparable, unless the one wielding the longsword were to have the wood and reed armor, and the samurai would be clad in plate mail. And then the whole thing drops as the weapons are not used with the equipment they were meant to be used with. This topic has been done to death, resurrection and then death again, and the conclusion is that the two would NEVER FIGHT AN EVEN FIGHT.

[Legolas]

Ninja? I'll assume Samurai.

And in that case,
Katana? Longsword?

You mean horse archers against heavy cavalry, don't you? If they had to resort to swords they were already too close to one another.

[burnzey boi]

but then you got the new generation of weapon, the balista made of wood and animal ligaments, ment to fire huge arrows over 1000 metres or something.. i think im talking about the japan side, but the brittish had guns which could only be fired 20 metres.
i know im talking about a different subject but like mr q said, this has been talked over and over again so i might make the topic about the 17 -19th century.

[Iron Greasel]

The ninja, of course! He has a backstab multiplier!

[burnzey boi]

nooooooooooo.. well.. maybe but i like knights that go in hard but its not the fact that you die from the attack, you most likley die from loss of blood or desiese. ninja's or samurais just chop off heads or slice the belly.

[Jotin]

In the katana vs. long sword match up, i would taket the katana.

[Thoran]

Man this one again... if you do a search you'll find a LENGTHY thread on the subject (sometime last year)

What I recall from the last thread:

-Katana is HEAVIER than the typical longsword (Katana is a two handed weapon, longsword one handed). It's Center of Gravity is also farther forward than the longsword (it had a VERY sharp blade that was a fairly uniform size through it's length, the longswords had a distal taper that left it's cg just forward of the guard). A katana wielded one handed would be MUCH slower than a longsword, however, since the Katana was intended but used two handed, I'm unsure which would be faster.

-Samurai would probably rather use a bow... and many would have chosen a spear as a melee weapon as opposed to a katana. Both would have had advantages and disadvantages in a 1 on 1 confrontation.

-A knight would be using a shield, which the Samurai would have had no experience fighting against.

There were no documented confrontations between Western and Eastern martial traditions. The closest thing was a fight between Portuguese sailors (armed with a fast weapon, the rapier) and samurai. The samurai were 'dismantled' without a single Portuguese casualty if the account is creditable (open to debate).

In my opinion the winner would be dictated by a combination of skill, training, and luck. If both combatants were equally well trained in their repsective tradition, I personally believe the Western Knight would have an advantage, but not a overwhelming one.

Give me a couple Genoese Crossbowmen and I'd spank em both (given adequate defenses).