I think he did know what he was doing. If I was the person in the armor I would think something like this:
"So my friend does not have any protection. Hmm, I think it's best that I don't try to cut at him. It looks like he got a lot of adrenaline pumping so if I as much as point my sword towards him he might run into it and lose an eye or something. Best I just let him hit me and then I give up, this is just for fun anyway." =)
@gurkfisk89 : That's not how you fight with any kind sword, let along a european sword. Not to mention he obviously doesn't have the muscle to swing a sword with one hand.
Of course it's not how you fight. It's how you fool around with your friend w/o hurting him. It I was the armor guy and the katana guy was someone that I really hated and I wanted to hurt him as much as possible then I would do something completely different. Like a zornhau-ort (or if it has an other name for one handed swords, the equivalent) or something.
This is the stupidest gayest shit ive ever seen neither of these guys know what they are doing and no sword slashes through plate armor anyway. this was a waste of 40 seconds
Maybe he doesn't know how to fight. Bit I think it has more to do with that he don't want to hurt or injure his friend that have no protective gear whatsoever.
as lame as you might think this is, that is how a real fight would happen because when faced with an uncertain threat you have no time for flashy moves.
apples and oranges.. this is a pointless flame.. katana is merely a sidearm..
wars in feudal japan is fought with spears(yari), long pikes(nagae yari), yumi (longbow) and muskets (teppo).. the japanese also had chain, plate and lamellar armors.. however it is pointless since ashigaru(footsoldiers) are the ones that consists an army..
you cant see 1000+ knights and 1000+ samurai clashing on each other with swords.. it's like pitching 1000 military officers into war with only 9mm..
@pjohns92 actuarially it happened allot more than you would think .. ive read a story about a eroupen posably Knight that was stationed in Japan as a Marshal or some such he was training some of there fighters altho i can not rember where i read it but i know the sorce was good u can see evadince of some fo the weapons found that date around the same period they ahve Katana blades with Eroupen hilts
@Graywolf116 Really? From every single piece of evidence I've ever seen from the 16th ca. Warring States period which is when Japanese armour really reached its pinnacle it more closely resembled European transitional armour from the 14th ca. A 16th ca. suit of gothic or milanese plate represents the only time in human history that a soldier has been completely encased in steel plates.
@imperialus no doubt, but I'll clarify: the samurai was as heavy as the medieval knight. gothic armor, though the most advanced melee armor developed, was obsolete when it was invented - the prevalence of gunpowder made it so until it was altogether dropped in warfare. the medieval period is accepted to have ended in 1453 with the capture of constantinople so what I meant was the period between 1066 and 1453.
There actually isn't really a "hard" date when the medieval period is stated to end. Different people use different time periods to start and end the Medieval period. For example, the "War of the Roses" in England was a medieval war, but it lasted from 1455 all the way into the 1480s. There is not consensus that the Medieval period ends in 1453. Others suggest that it ends at the start of the Age of Discovery, in 1492-1498, for instance. It's better to use "general" time periods.
Further, the actual differences between society in 1433 and 1453 are not that great. You still had many of the same conditions in politics and economics, but the differences, for instance, between European society in 1492 or 1500 and 1512 or 1520 are much greater with the discovery of the americas and geopolitical shifts in power from Mediterranean forces to more Atlantic ones, making the date of 1453 seem artificial or convenient at best.
I'm not sure about that, many later european swords (broadsword can mean almost any sword) like the one handed arming sword or the longsword are very hilt heavy compared to a normal katana and they tend to have about the same weight, with the arming sword a bit lighter on avarege. So I think it's possible that a katana may hurt more.
Btw, why would anyone go into battle with a blunted sword?
@gurkfisk89 You can't expect that the sword perfectly made for slashing can do more damage than swords which evolved along with the intense metal armoring. Why would something so isolated turned better, concerning all of the aspects?
Hilt heavy long sword? Now why would any European sword be hilt heavy? You need all the force concentrated at the tip of your sword.
Because of armor, some european swords, like the longsword, evolved to not be a slaching weapon. Instead they become more thrust orientated. (They can of course still cut really well.)
If you want to thrust you want low moment of inertia so that you can control the tip better. This will give you a more hilt heavy sword. If you want to cut well, you want high moment of inertia to get more /wollop/ in your blow. To cut thru mail or plate armor is not a easy task, so you don't.
To correct myself, of course you don't want too much or too little moment of inertia. Too much will make your blows slow and to little will make them weak.
Still a more cut oriented blade will often have more than a thrust oriented one.
well oviously if the knight could actualy use his sword and actualy go for kill shots the crazy rapid retard monkey fuck thng with a sword woulda got fuckd lol
thing about a knight is that with armour like that, they will not be able to get up. This was the problem with war back in the dark ages in Europe or Britain. If you ask me, the Roman-style armour (I don't know if the origin was Rome) was the best as it was usually hard-leather or a single metal torso piece and helmet with the rest leather. It was surely less protective, but with they way the Romans, Spartans, whatevers fought with their sword and shield was pretty good. Even spears.
@Ranziel1 alot of knights wouldve fought from horseback so it was to defelct bows as you rushed thru lines. And you can get up if you fall its just not easy to do
The "Dark ages" end around 1,000 CE. Plate armor emerges in the latter half of the 1300s; this is smack dab in the middle of the Italian Renaissance.
No, plate armor won't prevent you from getting up if you're knocked down. Plate armor only weighs roughly 40-65 pounds; this is equal to and often lighter than what modern soldiers carry into battle.
@Caliburnis its not the weight its the mobility issue man. you can get up you just wont do it in a rush. And a full set of plate weighs more than 40 pounds a chainmail shirt can weigh that easy
There really isn't a mobility issue though. People can get up rather easily from a prone position. There are numerous videos demonstrating this. For instance;
watch?v=xm11yAXeegg
watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg
watch?v=0kKLgSTkCEo
watch?v=RTo9780s89A&feature=related
Yea, it doesn't seem like there's that big of a problem getting up.
And there are numerous full suits of plate armor which weigh no more than 40 pounds. Many are in the Wallace Collection, I'll show you them.
@Caliburnis well youclearly use very different armour from us then. Like 1700's pikemans armour n stuff is bulky but pretty good mobility in that 1300's german armour we use is heavy as fuck and you cant friggin get up without help or time and alot of effort
By the 1700s armor is pretty much gone from European infantry. That's the true height of the musket.
Then the armor you're using is incredibly historically inaccurate. Why would anyone wear armor that prevented them from getting up on their own if they fell down; a common feature of ground combat?
@Caliburnis no it isnt in the 1300s the technics werent fully developed so they used thicker steel n iron rather than using more advanced hardening methods. And yes it was more or less gone 1700's wasnt just muskets though. Pikemen still existed and wore armour albeit a stripped down version for instance little to no leg protection
Actually the weight came from the addition of full suits of maille and such. Remember, transitional suits are only 10-15 pounds heavier than full plate. While armor techniques improved, there is no evidence that knights in the 1300s couldn't get up when they fell.
Whatever little armor pikemen would have would not be "heavy and bulky".
@Caliburnis never said pikeman armour was heavy tis bulky though much bulkier than the armour you use for the press ups guy. Consisted of gauntlets helmet breastplate. bracers and pauldrons would occasionally be seen as well but werent commonplace. As for the getting up i never said they could'nt do it just that it wasnt such an easy task
And just found those items A22 is from the 1500's armour was getting lighter by then thanks to new technics in the forging process. The armour i was referring to is more 1300's european and this is why periods should always be clarified lol
You still have pieces that light from the 1400s and late 1300s.
For much of the 1300s you don't have full plate armor, so much as transitional plate armor; even then you can still get up easily while wearing it. It's stupid to wear armor that makes it hard to get up if you fall; that's why no one did it.
The video I showed of the man in 80 pounds of transitional plate armor doing rolls is what you would see in the 1300s.
Actually hard leather was rarely used in Roman armor. Usually it was maille (lorica hamata), or potentially the lorica segmentata. Both used iron or steel.
@MasterMaxD Spartans used metal armour for their torso and bracers too they didnt run around naked like in 300. And a knights armour made it difficult to get up not impossible
Knight looked like he won. the hit to the head wouldn't pierce through since Plate Mail is damned tough and that sword being held under the arm...he's fucked. A little turn and unless the Samurai is hopped up on heroin he's fucked when that thing twists a little and slices his arm up a bit. Suddenly he'd drop that sword and its over and out.
That comparison makes no sense at all. An arrow and a mace have completely different impacts and therefore completely different affects. Arrows can also glance off wood, leather, and even padded cloth at random chance. And as for flexing back, sure if the metal isnt broken, it could possibly flex back. BUT if you are strong enough, you're going to crush it against the person, not just give it a little dent that can flex back. If the metal is against your body, it restricts movement, period.
@UltimaWeaponDeux The arrmor glancing off wood? Well, if it strikes the surface at an angle, maybe, that's not what I was talking about though. An arrow produces a much greater impact per inch than a mace hit ever would and it's still not enough to buckle it significantly. Maces were used to great effect against mail or unarmored people in tight formations, where you can't swing a long blade. It can also cause concussion, but not crush armor.
@Ranziel1 Ok, honestly, where is your information coming from. I have seen 14 and even 12 gauge steel dented to cause a concussion. I've seen 14 gauge plate of armor bend in so painfully the guy had to quit. This was done with solid bamboo rattans. The equivalent of a wooden sword. With sufficient force a wooden sword can do this. A metal mace definitely can. I dont want to argue anymore, if you still think im wrong thats fine, but I really dont care after this.
@UltimaWeaponDeux Whatever. What were their armors made of? High quality high carbon steel or iron, self-made or bought in the local fantasy fare store steel with no proper heat treatment?
@Ranziel1 guard open has nothing to with it other than getting a clear hit point is make it out of carbon titanium 3 inches thick it would still fuckin dent. Can you dent a car with a baseball bat yes. and a car packs more steel than a suit of armour.
samurai swords r the penical of sword making, hearden steel with a soft steel core it is truelly and amazing sword and will cut through flesh like paper. the broadsword is a sound weapon as well. b4 i forget samurai did have shields but the were for their bowmen. the out come to a fight between samurai and night would be the samurai for one reason he is faster and woud be able to get in close knock the knight to the ground an stab the knight in his armors weak points(the joints and throat) end
Katana are actually not the "pinnacle of sword making". They're just a sword. A sword that's made in a way that would be familiar to Europeans before the founding of Rome, as similar forms of blades were made around the 7th-8th centuries BCE (Look up "Pattern welding"). This continued until the end of the early medieval period when newer and better furnaces rendered the older processes obsolete.
It's actually foolish to try and decide a decisive 'victor'.
A samurai is certainly not any faster, nor would he just be able to "knock him down" and stab him so easily. Fighting in that manner may actually work to the Knight's advantage, as he trained extensively to resist people trying to fight him like that. It's a primary component of "Harnischfechten".
the night armor was harden steel very good a stoping arrows and swords but its fatal weakness is it makes the wearer very slow and cumbersome. at the battle of agincourt french knights in armor were killed by the hundreds because they could not move well in the mud. samurai armor allows u this movement and speed. as for if breaking a knight shield can break his arm that is a yes. if hit right the sheild and the arm will break. as to the swords both r great weapons.
Plate armor actually doesn't hinder your movements significantly. You can swim in it, perform cartwheels, push ups, and so on. Samurai armor also isn't composed in "layers", but more "segments" sewn together in more or less the same 'layer'. The weight of the armor is also relatively similar, in both cases, the weights range from about 45-65 pounds, depending on the individual suit.
Agincourt is actually less about the armor and more about the fact that it's hard to fight in the mud /anyway/, while you have a disorganized crush of bodies bearing down on you and preventing you from moving properly. You'd have this same problem today with riots and panicked people all trying to move through a confined space, and they're not wearing /any armor at all/.
i would like to ask everyone here one thing have any of u used the weapons and armor in question? i have on all three(ninjas dont where ne) spartan shields were bronze but bronze is a softer metal and can loose its shape. speaking as im a knights desendant and have armor in my house the difference in samurai and knight armor is little. both provide great protection from weapons of their area. samurai armor was made to have layers to absorbe the damage but still be light enough to where in combat
god that stupid japanese kid thinking his in a manga. if that was a real fight between a knight and a stupid fag ass samurai the knight would destroy the samurai. the samurai's armor is shit. the samurai has no shield. and the knight has so many fierce weapons. the mace, the flail, the great halberd. all of wich were better then the overrated katana. samurais werent even that good of warriors. they lost to ninjas all the time.
@TheRedHelm are you kidding me? that thing is fucking made out of wood. it hardly could break a bronze spartan shield in deadliest warrior. besides, the great halberd could tear through samurai armor like paper and the samurai doesnt have a shield to block it with
@nior000 The samurai is much more flexible and quick, the halberd is slow and unorthradox. The Kanabo wouldn't nessacarily shred armor, but cause excruciating pain. The ammount of PSI inflicted on the shield would break the Spartan's arm.
@TheRedHelm if an average guy just put on what the U.S. military soldiers today wear, he'd be slow to move as well. knights trained to wear their armor all their life.a real knight moved in armor verry easy.
@TheRedHelm the same would go for the samurai in that case. get over yourself, samurais arent superior to knights. for god sakes they didnt even have shields. and even if the knights armor was so flawed as you say, at least it would protect the knight against a katana "slashing weapon".
@nior000 Alright, now your fucking pissing me off because it's evident you have the memory span of a fucking lobotomized goldfish. I said before, Samurai wore seperated plates of steel laced together with leather. Not just all fucking steel. And I say again, the kanobo demolishes armor. I say AGAIN. The samurai would use his intelligence and speed to counter-act the need for a shield. The knights shield would also be taken out by the kanabo.
@TheRedHelm yea like leather is actualy gonna protect someone. the samurai got their asses kicked by the ninjas so they obviously werent that good. a knight's morning star wouldnt even allow the samurai anywhere near him. besides, the knight also has a mace wich is like your kanabo thing but its made out of steel or iron rather then wood. the mace would destroy the samurais armor. the kanabo thing would be blocked by the shield anyways.
@nior000 Your fucking retarded, I said in my last comment that KANABOS SHRED THROUGH SHIELDS. And it's laced together with leather, and under the steel plates is a leather cushioning. And the reason ninjas beat the samurai is due to dirty fighting and stealth. The morning star isn't better then the kanabo because of the fact it's a crushing/peircing weapon.
@TheRedHelm so you hate ninjas and knights? my god your a horrible person. yea it could crush the shield but it would be unlikely it would break the knights hand with it especialy since the knights have hand armor as well. the knight would onely need to block it one time while the samurai is in close and open and then the knight could kill the samurai with a broadsword, a morningstar, or a mace. that or the knight could just wield a great halberd and slice him from a distance. samurai armor suck
@nior000 I fucking love ninjas, thank you. And knights are cool. Samurai armor was made of steel plates and was laced together with leather. Giving more movement without the cost of less protection. It doesn't matter if the knight had hand armor anyways, the shock wave from the connection would break his arm. And your a hypocrite, stating I'm an imbecile for watching deadliest warrior when as in the beginning of this you stated how the kanabo didn't break the Spartan shield. Fail.
@TheRedHelm the spartan shield was made out of bronze. the knight shield i think was usualy wooden. so thats why the knight shield could understandly break. however a swing at the shield would not break the knights arm. thats ridiculas. besides, if a spartan could take on a samurai then a knight should have no problem. the knights had the best armor and weapons.
The armor you refer to is called "lamellar", and is not particularly special. It also doesn't do much to make the armor more maneuverable. This is why the Japanese themselves would go to great lengths to buy Plate armor from europeans over the course of the 1500s. Europeans also used Lamellar forms of armor, and it was never recognised to be particularly special.
@TheRedHelm Samurai never used kanabo. I wonder who used those horrible weapons. At any rate, no a club doesn't shatter a properly made shield. Watch less deadliest warrior, that show is for american imbeciles who don't give a damn about history.
@Ranziel1 A mace would completely devastate plate armor, but your correct it wouldn't as much against a good shield. An axe was the preferred tool for shield breaking and cleaving.
@Ranziel1 you try swinging your arms around when a wedge point of metal (that used to be part of your armor) is sticking into your ribs. If you can;t move your dead. If it just causes pain and distraction, your probably still dead. that's what it was designed to do, to beat the hell out of armor.
@UltimaWeaponDeux Well, the point is that a late-era plate armor can even flex back from an arrow impact, let alone a mace hit, it's just too resilient. Besides, it doesn't cover you like a swimsuit, there is gambeson underneath too, so a little buckle won't trouble you.
The kanabo is a more mythological weapon than historical, and rarely ever used by Samurai.
Intelligence and speed is actually used by Knights as well. No successful warrior would ignore attributes that would give them an advantage over their opponents. By no means would the Samurai just "counter-act" a shield, considering that shields are one of the most widely used tools from China, to India, to the Middle East, to Africa, to Europe, to the Americas, all independently developed.
Field plate armor is actually about 45-65 pounds. Armor that was in excess of 75 lbs would be Jousting armor, never designed for actual combat. Potentially it might be post-medieval armor designed to be musketproof.
Actually samurai armor isn't really more flexible or quicker. It tends to weigh about the same, while hanging off of the shoulders like dead weight whereas Plate armor and such hangs off of the body in accordance to the location on the body, making it more comfortable than more 'flexible' armor'.
Kanabo are more mythological than anything else. Historical examples are also not the weights which pop culture states. No more than 4-6 pounds usually; about the same as European pole arms. Regardless, they were never a very popular weapon amongst Samurai, who almost universally preferred the sword, the spear, the bow and historically the naginata.
Sense none of us (presumably) alive today ever met,fought against or trained as a knight or samurai i dont believe its possible to "know" who was better, anything we claim to "know" is usually based off a of third to 5th hand knowledge. They say its impossible to know what its like to be a soldier unless you are one and im sure that gos double for warriors so please for the sake of making yourself look like an ignorant fool dont presume to know who would win especially when your facts are wrong.
i dont get why everyone always goes around obsessing over samurais yet no one likes the knights. samurais were ok i gues but in reality the knight would win. knights have better weapons and a shield.
Katana's blade angle is designed to cut unarmored flesh. It will do this better than any blade on earth, I believe, and a well-made katana wielded by an average swordsman will happily cut you in two at the torso without too much trouble.
But...it can't handle armor. It's a slicer like a fine kitchen knife, not a chopper like a heavy, dull machete blade. You can fillet an onion in .5mm strips with a $400 Wusthof kitchen knife, but you can't punch it through a piece of leather, much less steel!
The katana have a variety of edge geometries, but nothing that's really unique to Japan. For instance, a lot of katana have a "lenticular" edge to them; this was standard fare for European swords from at least the 8th century CE. There are even curved, two handed swords with similar edge geometries. For instance, in Germany we have the curved hand and a half "Kriegsmesser".
Additionally: a katana is also useless against ring mail. Any kind of real armor will not only deflect a katana blow but likely ruin the edge. Samurai did not wear or plan to fight against heavy steel armor like the Europeans did.
@Bullzeye95 I believe it is possible to defeat chain mail if you use a stab instead of a slash. I also believe you are correct that slashing a katana against heavy armor could damage its edge but swords are not made to cut through heavy armor but through flesh so yes a katana would probably not be effective but neither would any sword ive ever heard of, that was the purpose of the mace to bash an enemy in his armor. Also I believe the samurai were traind to cut the exposed parts of their enemy.
@XXGDUBSXX Everybody is trained to cut and stab at armor joints, but it's quite difficult, obviously, and the such training is far from making armor obsolete. As for a stab, well, a stab has more penetrating power, naturally, but a properly made chainmail (riveted, not butted, like people make it today, it was never used historically) is extremely hard to pierce with a sword, especially the one like katana, which is curved and lacks a piercing point.
@Ranziel1 I dont believe i claimed armor was obsolete if i implied that in what i said that is not what i meant i was just trying to explain how men armed with swords defeat heavily armored opponents and yes chainmail is not easy too pierce but again the samurai warrior and knight are trained to overcome such challenges and though the katana is mainly a slashing weapon and it doesnt have such a clear point as a longsword does it is still very effective at piercing through flesh.
Why is the knight in armour when the samurai isn’t? Do you really think they went around wearing that all the time?
Otherwise, don’t take it seriously, it’s obvious that this is made by Japs, and so of course they are more likely to show themselves winning. it’s just this national pride shit again. In real life it would probably be a pretty even fight, armour or no.
what a bullshi*! armoured guy dosent even know how to move in armour, dosen't use shield as weapon, in short range no kinck, no hands use, total n00b! Sorry if you'd try go aginst european trained in european martial arts you'd get steamrolled over in few seconds.
@Gim6759 Considering that a true katana could either cut into or through full-plate, could defiantly take on a broadsword, and samurai technique was arguably superior, I think not. The 'ideal' knight, in terms of technical aspects such as armor and weaponry, lasted about 100 years. Samurai lasted well into the 1800s, despite the Western influence.
@Lunar0907 You've been watching too many animes dude. A katana definitely isn't enough to cut through plate. It's not a fucking laser. The samurai imported Western breastplates for a reason.
@SirAlavian I haven't watched an anime in over three years, bud. And I'd never go to one for historical accuracy. Depending on the quality of the plate and area of the plate no, a katana could or could not cut through it. But that's the thing. More than that, full-plate had nice nitches needed to allow some amount of movement for the knight. But the armor WASN'T very good for movement, and the katana remains a superior weapon. Come to your own conclusion.
@Lunar0907 Unless your plate mail is diluted to the point where you're dumping random shit in it, no a katana could not cut completely through it when wielded by a human. Plate mail did have gaps, nice job. Except they were covered by chain. Knights could swim in their badass plate. But THAT'S OK. BECAUSE JAPANESE HONOR AND PRIDE OVERCOMES WESTERN ARROGANCE.
@SirAlavian Which still leaves the point of how horrendous full-plate was to move in, and that the design still only lasted about 100 years. Also, I'd seriously like to see a knight swim decently in actual full-plate, chain-mail included. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's not something I'd recommend. Finally, if you go back to before full-plate, then I will give the knight credit where all credit is due. The Katana, as well as Japanese chain-mail, however, is superior, imo.
As stated, and there are videos proving this, plate armor is not 'horrendous' to move in; no more than contemporary samurai armor, certainly. I would even venture to guess that plate armor is more comfortable to move around in, because the weight is distributed evenly across the body, avoiding the tendency of Japanese armor to 'hang' from the shoulders.
As stated as well, the katana is not a 'superior' weapon. There is no evidence to this point, and it is really just a short, dedicated cutter. There are many aspects of the European Longsword, for instance, that drastically outperform katana. For instance, the addition of two edges makes combat much more fluid and dynamic than a single edge; you can strike from the bind in a number of effective ways, and the extra length makes it a better weapon for using range.
@Caliburnis you are correct and wrong..it is true there is no proof that katana is Superior but there is no proof other wise, it is the sword man not the sword. the extra edge was used because the other edge got worn out and chipped while in a battle against heavy armor and shield and so the warrior would just switch to the other side +striking in the blind on a crowded battle field prolly not good idea :P
extra length might be more of range but less handling and mostly used on horse,
No proof to something doesn't really establish its legitimacy. You have to have affirmative evidence to justify a belief in something.
The second edge was used for a number of reasons; one of which being that in a fight you can actually use the second edge in a fight. This is why we have "long edge" and "Short edge" cuts; you actually cut with the back edge.
Using the second edge because the first gets worn out would only be an auxiliary function; it's not a part of the intention.
@Caliburnis exactly :) same thing back at u there is no evidence to justify ur belief either :)
If you have ever tried to handle one of these double edged swords after a while you will notice how hard it is to use the back edge in a reverse cut it is far simpler swifter and stronger more natural arm motion to simply use the same edge to hit on your right as on your left because the other edge points towards you.
sharpening a dull blade on the field takes time and will get you killed so 2 edge.
No evidence to justify the belief that the katana is not superior? Sure there is; despite having katana-like swords, Europeans never found them to be superior, and the basic design of the katana wasn't emulated "universally" as one would expect an all around 'superior' design to be considered. So, yes, there is plenty of evidence to my position. As well, there are things European swords can do that katana cannot, and so on.
Long edge cuts are longer, more powerful, and so on, yes, but short edge cuts are faster in certain situations. They are usually used as a counter to certain moves, and often during a bind you can cut with the short edge faster; it depends upon the situation. As stated though, Europeans didn't have two edges just so they could switch to one or the other; primarily they favored two edges due to the technical versatility they offer.
@Caliburnis True I myself would prefer double over single tho the maneuver you mentioned has many of its equal in a single edge sword.
also it might be worth to note that the unsharpened edge is very nice to break a swords edge with, blade on blade hit will always ruin both blades and possibly break them, blade on hard steel of the back of sword would just ruin that swords edge or break it with much less damage to the blocking sword.
In certain situations, a false edge cut will strike faster than the long edge cut simply because of body mechanics. This is why Europeans used them so much.
And the situation you refer to is solved by proper sword usage; you don't go edge-to-edge, that only occurs when you fuck up. What you try and do is block at angles so that the kinetic force of the sword causes it to be deflected or slide; not go directly into the sword.
@Caliburnis of course you do! but if in the case i was the defender and i wanted to break your sword as last resort an old and tried technique is to hit the top part of your sword (right above the middle) with the back side of the lower middle of my sword.
of course some even slide the back side of a sword across an enemy's blade to "dull it" as well if the chance is given, and your good enough with ur sword ;)
Even then that's not necessarily going to break it. Swords aren't fragile; you're more likely to knock it aside unless the two swords impact edge to edge; even then, you're more likely to 'notch' the blade.
I've never seen any medieval manuals depict techniques to 'dull' the other sword; dragging a sword down the back edge will not do that reliably.
Actually full plate is purposely designed to promote movement. As well, it's weight-equal to Samurai armor, while being more evenly distributed in it. You can fight easily, do cartwheels, rolls, and so on. The armor does not hinder your natural movements in combat. So, yes, it is good for moving around in.
The katana is actually /not/ a superior weapon; you're assuming that. There is no evidence to the point.
Actually, swords don't 'cut through' plate armor. There is no evidence of katana 'cutting through' or 'into' full plate armor. The practice of Kabutaowari, performed even in extremely ideal conditions, proves that katana do not cut through armor. The world record is really only a centimeter or so deep 'gash' along the top of the helm.
The length of time the Samurai were around speaks more to the isolation and conservatism of Japan, not any superior martial prowess.
Also, keep in mind that the term "broadsword" doesn't describe any medieval weapons. "Broadsword" is a Victorian era generalization used to differentiate any wide bladed military sword from smaller, featherweight dueling swords. Medieval swords are "Arming swords", "Longswords", "knightly swords", "great swords", and so on.
I THINK THE KNIGHT SHOUD HAVE WON WAIT IS THIS CAPS?the knights armor would be better
Brandster1000 2 weeks ago
Anyone else woundering what happend to Lavie7777's Channel? The ones who made this clip
SiamandBarzani 5 months ago
samurai would have won sooner if he had his armor
desuki185 6 months ago
@desuki185 : Samurai wouldn't have won if the person inside the armor knew what the fuck he was doing.
Halofreakanoid 5 months ago
@Halofreakanoid
I think he did know what he was doing. If I was the person in the armor I would think something like this:
"So my friend does not have any protection. Hmm, I think it's best that I don't try to cut at him. It looks like he got a lot of adrenaline pumping so if I as much as point my sword towards him he might run into it and lose an eye or something. Best I just let him hit me and then I give up, this is just for fun anyway." =)
gurkfisk89 5 months ago
@gurkfisk89 : That's not how you fight with any kind sword, let along a european sword. Not to mention he obviously doesn't have the muscle to swing a sword with one hand.
Halofreakanoid 5 months ago
@Halofreakanoid
Of course it's not how you fight. It's how you fool around with your friend w/o hurting him. It I was the armor guy and the katana guy was someone that I really hated and I wanted to hurt him as much as possible then I would do something completely different. Like a zornhau-ort (or if it has an other name for one handed swords, the equivalent) or something.
gurkfisk89 5 months ago
Faggots.
VoltismProductions 7 months ago
@VoltismProductions : HURR DURR I'M SO KOOL I SAID FAGGOTS HURR DURR.
Halofreakanoid 5 months ago
@Halofreakanoid K.
VoltismProductions 4 months ago
Faggots.
VoltismProductions 7 months ago
your idiots! you cant kill somebody in iron clothes with a swordtouch!
AuGeUNDoHr1 7 months ago
This is the stupidest gayest shit ive ever seen neither of these guys know what they are doing and no sword slashes through plate armor anyway. this was a waste of 40 seconds
40OldeEnglish 7 months ago
@40OldeEnglish Seriously... can't you just see what it really is?, just a couple kids having fun, take your war to somewhere else.
PanNoOnnaNoKo 7 months ago
@PanNoOnnaNoKo nope just looks like weaboo shit to me
40OldeEnglish 7 months ago
that knight is a really bad fighter
pailmaster 8 months ago
lol, he cant keep his own armour on x3
extondude 8 months ago
Victory is mine brave sir knight!! Tis a mere flesh wound ...
afireinside44203 9 months ago
@afireinside44203 monty python black knight right? XD that made me laugh so hard!
now stand aside
tis but a scratch
a scratch! your arms off!
ive had worse...
Shazzashazbot 8 months ago
Heavy armor guy doest know how to fight :) Me thinks he shuld join SCA heavy armor division.
Chaosslicer321 9 months ago
@Chaosslicer321
Maybe he doesn't know how to fight. Bit I think it has more to do with that he don't want to hurt or injure his friend that have no protective gear whatsoever.
gurkfisk89 9 months ago
Lol kendo
dltk56 10 months ago
as lame as you might think this is, that is how a real fight would happen because when faced with an uncertain threat you have no time for flashy moves.
idiot1jerk2face3 10 months ago
@idiot1jerk2face3 No.. no it wouldn't. The man's swing speed alone shows he has lifted more tacos then swords.
WhiteTiger225 7 months ago
lol! hope you had fun at last xD
666Notturno666 10 months ago
Luke, may the can-opener be with you.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
Idiot you have to push the shield against the body
Romanov117 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
apples and oranges.. this is a pointless flame.. katana is merely a sidearm..
wars in feudal japan is fought with spears(yari), long pikes(nagae yari), yumi (longbow) and muskets (teppo).. the japanese also had chain, plate and lamellar armors.. however it is pointless since ashigaru(footsoldiers) are the ones that consists an army..
you cant see 1000+ knights and 1000+ samurai clashing on each other with swords.. it's like pitching 1000 military officers into war with only 9mm..
rakista4hire 1 year ago
that was funny! :D
saurers123 1 year ago
Thats not a knight its the tin man out of the wizard of oz.
Domiedave99 1 year ago
Deadliest Warrior has really got some budget cuts
danegilbert 1 year ago 34
First of all, this is fucking lame.
Secondly, when the fuck would this ever happen?
pjohns92 1 year ago
@pjohns92 actuarially it happened allot more than you would think .. ive read a story about a eroupen posably Knight that was stationed in Japan as a Marshal or some such he was training some of there fighters altho i can not rember where i read it but i know the sorce was good u can see evadince of some fo the weapons found that date around the same period they ahve Katana blades with Eroupen hilts
Taztorien 1 year ago
PLEASE neither side was even trying
evilfinger66 1 year ago
proper samurais wore armor that was heavier than the knights.
Graywolf116 1 year ago
@Graywolf116 Really? From every single piece of evidence I've ever seen from the 16th ca. Warring States period which is when Japanese armour really reached its pinnacle it more closely resembled European transitional armour from the 14th ca. A 16th ca. suit of gothic or milanese plate represents the only time in human history that a soldier has been completely encased in steel plates.
imperialus 1 year ago
@imperialus no doubt, but I'll clarify: the samurai was as heavy as the medieval knight. gothic armor, though the most advanced melee armor developed, was obsolete when it was invented - the prevalence of gunpowder made it so until it was altogether dropped in warfare. the medieval period is accepted to have ended in 1453 with the capture of constantinople so what I meant was the period between 1066 and 1453.
Graywolf116 1 year ago
@Graywolf116
There actually isn't really a "hard" date when the medieval period is stated to end. Different people use different time periods to start and end the Medieval period. For example, the "War of the Roses" in England was a medieval war, but it lasted from 1455 all the way into the 1480s. There is not consensus that the Medieval period ends in 1453. Others suggest that it ends at the start of the Age of Discovery, in 1492-1498, for instance. It's better to use "general" time periods.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Graywolf116
Further, the actual differences between society in 1433 and 1453 are not that great. You still had many of the same conditions in politics and economics, but the differences, for instance, between European society in 1492 or 1500 and 1512 or 1520 are much greater with the discovery of the americas and geopolitical shifts in power from Mediterranean forces to more Atlantic ones, making the date of 1453 seem artificial or convenient at best.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Graywolf116 they tested weaponry from the 170o's against knight platemail and at close range, the blunderbuss could only penetrate it.
bud389 1 year ago
@Graywolf116 they tested weaponry from the 1700's against knight platemail and at close range, the blunderbuss could only penetrate it.
bud389 1 year ago
@Graywolf116 yes, but Steel weighs less, and they had very little steel in their armor.
bud389 1 year ago
katana against platemail = fail... The knight wasn't even fighting properly.
bud389 1 year ago
@bud389 agree katana cant even slash threw chain mail
GoHardMG 1 year ago
@GoHardMG Neither can any other sword, but surrey, wearing chain mail and being hit by blunt European broadsword would hurt a lot more then katana.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
I'm not sure about that, many later european swords (broadsword can mean almost any sword) like the one handed arming sword or the longsword are very hilt heavy compared to a normal katana and they tend to have about the same weight, with the arming sword a bit lighter on avarege. So I think it's possible that a katana may hurt more.
Btw, why would anyone go into battle with a blunted sword?
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
@gurkfisk89 You can't expect that the sword perfectly made for slashing can do more damage than swords which evolved along with the intense metal armoring. Why would something so isolated turned better, concerning all of the aspects?
Hilt heavy long sword? Now why would any European sword be hilt heavy? You need all the force concentrated at the tip of your sword.
SloveintzWend 1 year ago
@SloveintzWend
Because of armor, some european swords, like the longsword, evolved to not be a slaching weapon. Instead they become more thrust orientated. (They can of course still cut really well.)
If you want to thrust you want low moment of inertia so that you can control the tip better. This will give you a more hilt heavy sword. If you want to cut well, you want high moment of inertia to get more /wollop/ in your blow. To cut thru mail or plate armor is not a easy task, so you don't.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
@gurkfisk89
To correct myself, of course you don't want too much or too little moment of inertia. Too much will make your blows slow and to little will make them weak.
Still a more cut oriented blade will often have more than a thrust oriented one.
gurkfisk89 1 year ago
well oviously if the knight could actualy use his sword and actualy go for kill shots the crazy rapid retard monkey fuck thng with a sword woulda got fuckd lol
rbscatter98 1 year ago
@rbscatter98 i know what you mean, i mean i fight in kendo and and I'm insulted by the idiot in this video who thinks he knows samurai sword.
Chrisorr 1 year ago
what happend to lavie7777's account?
Born2Fight4Life 1 year ago
This is lame shit. Heavy armour or not a knight would have known how to use his shield in an offensive way.
imsencat 1 year ago
thing about a knight is that with armour like that, they will not be able to get up. This was the problem with war back in the dark ages in Europe or Britain. If you ask me, the Roman-style armour (I don't know if the origin was Rome) was the best as it was usually hard-leather or a single metal torso piece and helmet with the rest leather. It was surely less protective, but with they way the Romans, Spartans, whatevers fought with their sword and shield was pretty good. Even spears.
MasterMaxD 1 year ago
@MasterMaxD Can't get up you say?
watch?v=xm11yAXeegg
watch?v=0kKLgSTkCEo
What idiot would wear such armor that prevents him from standing up, think about it.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 alot of knights wouldve fought from horseback so it was to defelct bows as you rushed thru lines. And you can get up if you fall its just not easy to do
kreeperrock 1 year ago
@MasterMaxD
The "Dark ages" end around 1,000 CE. Plate armor emerges in the latter half of the 1300s; this is smack dab in the middle of the Italian Renaissance.
No, plate armor won't prevent you from getting up if you're knocked down. Plate armor only weighs roughly 40-65 pounds; this is equal to and often lighter than what modern soldiers carry into battle.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis its not the weight its the mobility issue man. you can get up you just wont do it in a rush. And a full set of plate weighs more than 40 pounds a chainmail shirt can weigh that easy
kreeperrock 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
There really isn't a mobility issue though. People can get up rather easily from a prone position. There are numerous videos demonstrating this. For instance;
watch?v=xm11yAXeegg
watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg
watch?v=0kKLgSTkCEo
watch?v=RTo9780s89A&feature=related
Yea, it doesn't seem like there's that big of a problem getting up.
And there are numerous full suits of plate armor which weigh no more than 40 pounds. Many are in the Wallace Collection, I'll show you them.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis prone yes but most of the time you fall on your back not your front getting up from front is quicker than getting up from your back
kreeperrock 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
Getting up when you're on your back is not a big deal either.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis well youclearly use very different armour from us then. Like 1700's pikemans armour n stuff is bulky but pretty good mobility in that 1300's german armour we use is heavy as fuck and you cant friggin get up without help or time and alot of effort
kreeperrock 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
By the 1700s armor is pretty much gone from European infantry. That's the true height of the musket.
Then the armor you're using is incredibly historically inaccurate. Why would anyone wear armor that prevented them from getting up on their own if they fell down; a common feature of ground combat?
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis no it isnt in the 1300s the technics werent fully developed so they used thicker steel n iron rather than using more advanced hardening methods. And yes it was more or less gone 1700's wasnt just muskets though. Pikemen still existed and wore armour albeit a stripped down version for instance little to no leg protection
kreeperrock 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
Actually the weight came from the addition of full suits of maille and such. Remember, transitional suits are only 10-15 pounds heavier than full plate. While armor techniques improved, there is no evidence that knights in the 1300s couldn't get up when they fell.
Whatever little armor pikemen would have would not be "heavy and bulky".
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis never said pikeman armour was heavy tis bulky though much bulkier than the armour you use for the press ups guy. Consisted of gauntlets helmet breastplate. bracers and pauldrons would occasionally be seen as well but werent commonplace. As for the getting up i never said they could'nt do it just that it wasnt such an easy task
kreeperrock 1 year ago
And just found those items A22 is from the 1500's armour was getting lighter by then thanks to new technics in the forging process. The armour i was referring to is more 1300's european and this is why periods should always be clarified lol
kreeperrock 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
You still have pieces that light from the 1400s and late 1300s.
For much of the 1300s you don't have full plate armor, so much as transitional plate armor; even then you can still get up easily while wearing it. It's stupid to wear armor that makes it hard to get up if you fall; that's why no one did it.
The video I showed of the man in 80 pounds of transitional plate armor doing rolls is what you would see in the 1300s.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
For example, go to the Wallace Collection, and look up item # A21. It's a suit of equestrian armor. The man's armor weighs, according to that site;
"Weight: 27.161 kg, Total for man's armour"
Item # A44; Weight: 24.721 kg, total weight
Item # A45; Weight: 25.58 kg, total weight
Item # A46; Weight: 24.72 kg, total weight
Item # A34; Weight: 21.596 kg, total weight
Item # A39; Weight: 21.596 kg, total weight
Item # A20; 20.66kg
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
Item #A22; Weight: 19.56 kg, total weight
Item #A24; Weight: 18.99 kg, total weight
Item #A34; Weight: 28.72kg
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@kreeperrock
So...yes, we do have suits of full plate which weigh 40 pounds or less. I just showed them to you.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@MasterMaxD
Actually hard leather was rarely used in Roman armor. Usually it was maille (lorica hamata), or potentially the lorica segmentata. Both used iron or steel.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@MasterMaxD Spartans used metal armour for their torso and bracers too they didnt run around naked like in 300. And a knights armour made it difficult to get up not impossible
kreeperrock 1 year ago
im srry, this is gay
iplaywowQQ 1 year ago
Looked like an Epileptic vs Parkinson Extreme to me.
dotmadhack 1 year ago
Knight looked like he won. the hit to the head wouldn't pierce through since Plate Mail is damned tough and that sword being held under the arm...he's fucked. A little turn and unless the Samurai is hopped up on heroin he's fucked when that thing twists a little and slices his arm up a bit. Suddenly he'd drop that sword and its over and out.
Makron5 1 year ago
You're doin' it wrong.
Unbeloved1 1 year ago
That comparison makes no sense at all. An arrow and a mace have completely different impacts and therefore completely different affects. Arrows can also glance off wood, leather, and even padded cloth at random chance. And as for flexing back, sure if the metal isnt broken, it could possibly flex back. BUT if you are strong enough, you're going to crush it against the person, not just give it a little dent that can flex back. If the metal is against your body, it restricts movement, period.
UltimaWeaponDeux 1 year ago
@UltimaWeaponDeux
Even if the european knights were naked under their armor that would not be right.
1. under the metal there was leather, mail and linen-armor giving it some space to flex and to absorb or redirect the force.
2. A person wearing a amor is not nailed to the ground! Before a hardened armor would krack open, the knight would have been pushed back.
Glaswalker1001 1 year ago
@UltimaWeaponDeux The arrmor glancing off wood? Well, if it strikes the surface at an angle, maybe, that's not what I was talking about though. An arrow produces a much greater impact per inch than a mace hit ever would and it's still not enough to buckle it significantly. Maces were used to great effect against mail or unarmored people in tight formations, where you can't swing a long blade. It can also cause concussion, but not crush armor.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 Ok, honestly, where is your information coming from. I have seen 14 and even 12 gauge steel dented to cause a concussion. I've seen 14 gauge plate of armor bend in so painfully the guy had to quit. This was done with solid bamboo rattans. The equivalent of a wooden sword. With sufficient force a wooden sword can do this. A metal mace definitely can. I dont want to argue anymore, if you still think im wrong thats fine, but I really dont care after this.
UltimaWeaponDeux 1 year ago
@UltimaWeaponDeux Whatever. What were their armors made of? High quality high carbon steel or iron, self-made or bought in the local fantasy fare store steel with no proper heat treatment?
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 you treat your armour with whatever you want kid. Leave your guard open to my dane axe and we'll see wether it leaves a dent or not
kreeperrock 1 year ago
@kreeperrock And where did I say to leave your guard open, "kid"?
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 guard open has nothing to with it other than getting a clear hit point is make it out of carbon titanium 3 inches thick it would still fuckin dent. Can you dent a car with a baseball bat yes. and a car packs more steel than a suit of armour.
kreeperrock 1 year ago
wat
gekigasky 1 year ago
lahm
Pepe87ms 1 year ago
this is just a pair of idiots using a martial art they know nothing about.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago 32
@Sugardaddy501 yeah, what a disappointment.
holyknight234 1 year ago
@Sugardaddy501 lol fag
EpicEffinTom 8 months ago
samurai swords r the penical of sword making, hearden steel with a soft steel core it is truelly and amazing sword and will cut through flesh like paper. the broadsword is a sound weapon as well. b4 i forget samurai did have shields but the were for their bowmen. the out come to a fight between samurai and night would be the samurai for one reason he is faster and woud be able to get in close knock the knight to the ground an stab the knight in his armors weak points(the joints and throat) end
spikeblk 1 year ago
@spikeblk
Katana are actually not the "pinnacle of sword making". They're just a sword. A sword that's made in a way that would be familiar to Europeans before the founding of Rome, as similar forms of blades were made around the 7th-8th centuries BCE (Look up "Pattern welding"). This continued until the end of the early medieval period when newer and better furnaces rendered the older processes obsolete.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@spikeblk
It's actually foolish to try and decide a decisive 'victor'.
A samurai is certainly not any faster, nor would he just be able to "knock him down" and stab him so easily. Fighting in that manner may actually work to the Knight's advantage, as he trained extensively to resist people trying to fight him like that. It's a primary component of "Harnischfechten".
Caliburnis 1 year ago
the night armor was harden steel very good a stoping arrows and swords but its fatal weakness is it makes the wearer very slow and cumbersome. at the battle of agincourt french knights in armor were killed by the hundreds because they could not move well in the mud. samurai armor allows u this movement and speed. as for if breaking a knight shield can break his arm that is a yes. if hit right the sheild and the arm will break. as to the swords both r great weapons.
spikeblk 1 year ago
@spikeblk
A few inaccuracies.
Plate armor actually doesn't hinder your movements significantly. You can swim in it, perform cartwheels, push ups, and so on. Samurai armor also isn't composed in "layers", but more "segments" sewn together in more or less the same 'layer'. The weight of the armor is also relatively similar, in both cases, the weights range from about 45-65 pounds, depending on the individual suit.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@spikeblk
Agincourt is actually less about the armor and more about the fact that it's hard to fight in the mud /anyway/, while you have a disorganized crush of bodies bearing down on you and preventing you from moving properly. You'd have this same problem today with riots and panicked people all trying to move through a confined space, and they're not wearing /any armor at all/.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
i would like to ask everyone here one thing have any of u used the weapons and armor in question? i have on all three(ninjas dont where ne) spartan shields were bronze but bronze is a softer metal and can loose its shape. speaking as im a knights desendant and have armor in my house the difference in samurai and knight armor is little. both provide great protection from weapons of their area. samurai armor was made to have layers to absorbe the damage but still be light enough to where in combat
spikeblk 1 year ago
Samuri's fought for Money, Knights fought for God.
TheTheTheDanny 1 year ago
god that stupid japanese kid thinking his in a manga. if that was a real fight between a knight and a stupid fag ass samurai the knight would destroy the samurai. the samurai's armor is shit. the samurai has no shield. and the knight has so many fierce weapons. the mace, the flail, the great halberd. all of wich were better then the overrated katana. samurais werent even that good of warriors. they lost to ninjas all the time.
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 The Kanabo eats the Knight's armor for breakfast.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm are you kidding me? that thing is fucking made out of wood. it hardly could break a bronze spartan shield in deadliest warrior. besides, the great halberd could tear through samurai armor like paper and the samurai doesnt have a shield to block it with
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 The samurai is much more flexible and quick, the halberd is slow and unorthradox. The Kanabo wouldn't nessacarily shred armor, but cause excruciating pain. The ammount of PSI inflicted on the shield would break the Spartan's arm.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm the whole thing about the knight being slow is a complete hollywood myth. a knight is verry flexible.
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 Bullshit, that armor exceeds 75 lbs. I know because I've seen complete sets, and men wearing them.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm if an average guy just put on what the U.S. military soldiers today wear, he'd be slow to move as well. knights trained to wear their armor all their life.a real knight moved in armor verry easy.
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 Stop joking with yourself. Even if he was strong enough to be quick, he'd overheat in his armor, and begin to dehydrate.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm the same would go for the samurai in that case. get over yourself, samurais arent superior to knights. for god sakes they didnt even have shields. and even if the knights armor was so flawed as you say, at least it would protect the knight against a katana "slashing weapon".
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 Alright, now your fucking pissing me off because it's evident you have the memory span of a fucking lobotomized goldfish. I said before, Samurai wore seperated plates of steel laced together with leather. Not just all fucking steel. And I say again, the kanobo demolishes armor. I say AGAIN. The samurai would use his intelligence and speed to counter-act the need for a shield. The knights shield would also be taken out by the kanabo.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm yea like leather is actualy gonna protect someone. the samurai got their asses kicked by the ninjas so they obviously werent that good. a knight's morning star wouldnt even allow the samurai anywhere near him. besides, the knight also has a mace wich is like your kanabo thing but its made out of steel or iron rather then wood. the mace would destroy the samurais armor. the kanabo thing would be blocked by the shield anyways.
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 Your fucking retarded, I said in my last comment that KANABOS SHRED THROUGH SHIELDS. And it's laced together with leather, and under the steel plates is a leather cushioning. And the reason ninjas beat the samurai is due to dirty fighting and stealth. The morning star isn't better then the kanabo because of the fact it's a crushing/peircing weapon.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm so you hate ninjas and knights? my god your a horrible person. yea it could crush the shield but it would be unlikely it would break the knights hand with it especialy since the knights have hand armor as well. the knight would onely need to block it one time while the samurai is in close and open and then the knight could kill the samurai with a broadsword, a morningstar, or a mace. that or the knight could just wield a great halberd and slice him from a distance. samurai armor suck
nior000 1 year ago
@nior000 I fucking love ninjas, thank you. And knights are cool. Samurai armor was made of steel plates and was laced together with leather. Giving more movement without the cost of less protection. It doesn't matter if the knight had hand armor anyways, the shock wave from the connection would break his arm. And your a hypocrite, stating I'm an imbecile for watching deadliest warrior when as in the beginning of this you stated how the kanabo didn't break the Spartan shield. Fail.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm the spartan shield was made out of bronze. the knight shield i think was usualy wooden. so thats why the knight shield could understandly break. however a swing at the shield would not break the knights arm. thats ridiculas. besides, if a spartan could take on a samurai then a knight should have no problem. the knights had the best armor and weapons.
nior000 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm
The armor you refer to is called "lamellar", and is not particularly special. It also doesn't do much to make the armor more maneuverable. This is why the Japanese themselves would go to great lengths to buy Plate armor from europeans over the course of the 1500s. Europeans also used Lamellar forms of armor, and it was never recognised to be particularly special.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm Samurai never used kanabo. I wonder who used those horrible weapons. At any rate, no a club doesn't shatter a properly made shield. Watch less deadliest warrior, that show is for american imbeciles who don't give a damn about history.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 And also, yes they did. And it wasn't a horrible weapon at any rate. It was made to crush shields and bone. And read my other comment.
TheRedHelm 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 A mace would completely devastate plate armor, but your correct it wouldn't as much against a good shield. An axe was the preferred tool for shield breaking and cleaving.
UltimaWeaponDeux 1 year ago
@UltimaWeaponDeux I doubt it would "completely devastate" a properly made plate armor.
/watch?v=omJSE9VLv60
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 you try swinging your arms around when a wedge point of metal (that used to be part of your armor) is sticking into your ribs. If you can;t move your dead. If it just causes pain and distraction, your probably still dead. that's what it was designed to do, to beat the hell out of armor.
UltimaWeaponDeux 1 year ago
@UltimaWeaponDeux Well, the point is that a late-era plate armor can even flex back from an arrow impact, let alone a mace hit, it's just too resilient. Besides, it doesn't cover you like a swimsuit, there is gambeson underneath too, so a little buckle won't trouble you.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm
The kanabo is a more mythological weapon than historical, and rarely ever used by Samurai.
Intelligence and speed is actually used by Knights as well. No successful warrior would ignore attributes that would give them an advantage over their opponents. By no means would the Samurai just "counter-act" a shield, considering that shields are one of the most widely used tools from China, to India, to the Middle East, to Africa, to Europe, to the Americas, all independently developed.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm
Field plate armor is actually about 45-65 pounds. Armor that was in excess of 75 lbs would be Jousting armor, never designed for actual combat. Potentially it might be post-medieval armor designed to be musketproof.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm
Actually samurai armor isn't really more flexible or quicker. It tends to weigh about the same, while hanging off of the shoulders like dead weight whereas Plate armor and such hangs off of the body in accordance to the location on the body, making it more comfortable than more 'flexible' armor'.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@TheRedHelm
Kanabo are more mythological than anything else. Historical examples are also not the weights which pop culture states. No more than 4-6 pounds usually; about the same as European pole arms. Regardless, they were never a very popular weapon amongst Samurai, who almost universally preferred the sword, the spear, the bow and historically the naginata.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
the knight's armor can stop musket balls by adding a extra layer of armor
ComradeCody 1 year ago
Sense none of us (presumably) alive today ever met,fought against or trained as a knight or samurai i dont believe its possible to "know" who was better, anything we claim to "know" is usually based off a of third to 5th hand knowledge. They say its impossible to know what its like to be a soldier unless you are one and im sure that gos double for warriors so please for the sake of making yourself look like an ignorant fool dont presume to know who would win especially when your facts are wrong.
XXGDUBSXX 1 year ago
WAH WAAAAAAAAAHHHH!
0:30
Foilsdown 1 year ago
i dont get why everyone always goes around obsessing over samurais yet no one likes the knights. samurais were ok i gues but in reality the knight would win. knights have better weapons and a shield.
nior000 1 year ago
Katana's blade angle is designed to cut unarmored flesh. It will do this better than any blade on earth, I believe, and a well-made katana wielded by an average swordsman will happily cut you in two at the torso without too much trouble.
But...it can't handle armor. It's a slicer like a fine kitchen knife, not a chopper like a heavy, dull machete blade. You can fillet an onion in .5mm strips with a $400 Wusthof kitchen knife, but you can't punch it through a piece of leather, much less steel!
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
@Bullzeye95
The katana have a variety of edge geometries, but nothing that's really unique to Japan. For instance, a lot of katana have a "lenticular" edge to them; this was standard fare for European swords from at least the 8th century CE. There are even curved, two handed swords with similar edge geometries. For instance, in Germany we have the curved hand and a half "Kriegsmesser".
Caliburnis 1 year ago
Additionally: a katana is also useless against ring mail. Any kind of real armor will not only deflect a katana blow but likely ruin the edge. Samurai did not wear or plan to fight against heavy steel armor like the Europeans did.
Bullzeye95 1 year ago
@Bullzeye95 I believe it is possible to defeat chain mail if you use a stab instead of a slash. I also believe you are correct that slashing a katana against heavy armor could damage its edge but swords are not made to cut through heavy armor but through flesh so yes a katana would probably not be effective but neither would any sword ive ever heard of, that was the purpose of the mace to bash an enemy in his armor. Also I believe the samurai were traind to cut the exposed parts of their enemy.
XXGDUBSXX 1 year ago
@XXGDUBSXX Everybody is trained to cut and stab at armor joints, but it's quite difficult, obviously, and the such training is far from making armor obsolete. As for a stab, well, a stab has more penetrating power, naturally, but a properly made chainmail (riveted, not butted, like people make it today, it was never used historically) is extremely hard to pierce with a sword, especially the one like katana, which is curved and lacks a piercing point.
Ranziel1 1 year ago
@Ranziel1 I dont believe i claimed armor was obsolete if i implied that in what i said that is not what i meant i was just trying to explain how men armed with swords defeat heavily armored opponents and yes chainmail is not easy too pierce but again the samurai warrior and knight are trained to overcome such challenges and though the katana is mainly a slashing weapon and it doesnt have such a clear point as a longsword does it is still very effective at piercing through flesh.
XXGDUBSXX 1 year ago
Why is the knight in armour when the samurai isn’t? Do you really think they went around wearing that all the time?
Otherwise, don’t take it seriously, it’s obvious that this is made by Japs, and so of course they are more likely to show themselves winning. it’s just this national pride shit again. In real life it would probably be a pretty even fight, armour or no.
hellzoneUK1991 1 year ago
you can't kill a knight to that normaly he has a camail so the samurai can't cut his throat.
whitebraine 1 year ago
LOL that was hilarious
L0rdBalmung1 1 year ago
Notice How is the first 15 seconds of the video the armor and his right let is already completely off ;)
crapinapot 1 year ago
he throws away that sheathe with such grace.. so beautiful.. im practically in tears right now
waterswind 1 year ago
Again twit vs twit.
Sugardaddy501 1 year ago
what a bullshi*! armoured guy dosent even know how to move in armour, dosen't use shield as weapon, in short range no kinck, no hands use, total n00b! Sorry if you'd try go aginst european trained in european martial arts you'd get steamrolled over in few seconds.
perdurabo1 1 year ago
more ignorant crap. learn something about weapons, armor, and how theyre supposed to be used before making these vids
outlawtorndoa 1 year ago
the tabashi of the samurai is fearless
YocchanFreak 1 year ago
LOOOL !
CorrectionDuBac 1 year ago
how about shut the hell up because you dont know your history in knights. In a real fight (not this stupid but funny jap vid) a knight would win.
Gim6759 1 year ago
@Gim6759 Considering that a true katana could either cut into or through full-plate, could defiantly take on a broadsword, and samurai technique was arguably superior, I think not. The 'ideal' knight, in terms of technical aspects such as armor and weaponry, lasted about 100 years. Samurai lasted well into the 1800s, despite the Western influence.
Lunar0907 1 year ago
@Lunar0907 You've been watching too many animes dude. A katana definitely isn't enough to cut through plate. It's not a fucking laser. The samurai imported Western breastplates for a reason.
SirAlavian 1 year ago
@SirAlavian I haven't watched an anime in over three years, bud. And I'd never go to one for historical accuracy. Depending on the quality of the plate and area of the plate no, a katana could or could not cut through it. But that's the thing. More than that, full-plate had nice nitches needed to allow some amount of movement for the knight. But the armor WASN'T very good for movement, and the katana remains a superior weapon. Come to your own conclusion.
Lunar0907 1 year ago
@Lunar0907 Unless your plate mail is diluted to the point where you're dumping random shit in it, no a katana could not cut completely through it when wielded by a human. Plate mail did have gaps, nice job. Except they were covered by chain. Knights could swim in their badass plate. But THAT'S OK. BECAUSE JAPANESE HONOR AND PRIDE OVERCOMES WESTERN ARROGANCE.
SirAlavian 1 year ago
@SirAlavian Which still leaves the point of how horrendous full-plate was to move in, and that the design still only lasted about 100 years. Also, I'd seriously like to see a knight swim decently in actual full-plate, chain-mail included. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's not something I'd recommend. Finally, if you go back to before full-plate, then I will give the knight credit where all credit is due. The Katana, as well as Japanese chain-mail, however, is superior, imo.
Lunar0907 1 year ago
@Lunar0907
As stated, and there are videos proving this, plate armor is not 'horrendous' to move in; no more than contemporary samurai armor, certainly. I would even venture to guess that plate armor is more comfortable to move around in, because the weight is distributed evenly across the body, avoiding the tendency of Japanese armor to 'hang' from the shoulders.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Lunar0907
As stated as well, the katana is not a 'superior' weapon. There is no evidence to this point, and it is really just a short, dedicated cutter. There are many aspects of the European Longsword, for instance, that drastically outperform katana. For instance, the addition of two edges makes combat much more fluid and dynamic than a single edge; you can strike from the bind in a number of effective ways, and the extra length makes it a better weapon for using range.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis you are correct and wrong..it is true there is no proof that katana is Superior but there is no proof other wise, it is the sword man not the sword. the extra edge was used because the other edge got worn out and chipped while in a battle against heavy armor and shield and so the warrior would just switch to the other side +striking in the blind on a crowded battle field prolly not good idea :P
extra length might be more of range but less handling and mostly used on horse,
Okarkar 1 year ago
@Okarkar
No proof to something doesn't really establish its legitimacy. You have to have affirmative evidence to justify a belief in something.
The second edge was used for a number of reasons; one of which being that in a fight you can actually use the second edge in a fight. This is why we have "long edge" and "Short edge" cuts; you actually cut with the back edge.
Using the second edge because the first gets worn out would only be an auxiliary function; it's not a part of the intention.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis exactly :) same thing back at u there is no evidence to justify ur belief either :)
If you have ever tried to handle one of these double edged swords after a while you will notice how hard it is to use the back edge in a reverse cut it is far simpler swifter and stronger more natural arm motion to simply use the same edge to hit on your right as on your left because the other edge points towards you.
sharpening a dull blade on the field takes time and will get you killed so 2 edge.
Okarkar 1 year ago
@Okarkar
No evidence to justify the belief that the katana is not superior? Sure there is; despite having katana-like swords, Europeans never found them to be superior, and the basic design of the katana wasn't emulated "universally" as one would expect an all around 'superior' design to be considered. So, yes, there is plenty of evidence to my position. As well, there are things European swords can do that katana cannot, and so on.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Okarkar
Long edge cuts are longer, more powerful, and so on, yes, but short edge cuts are faster in certain situations. They are usually used as a counter to certain moves, and often during a bind you can cut with the short edge faster; it depends upon the situation. As stated though, Europeans didn't have two edges just so they could switch to one or the other; primarily they favored two edges due to the technical versatility they offer.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis True I myself would prefer double over single tho the maneuver you mentioned has many of its equal in a single edge sword.
also it might be worth to note that the unsharpened edge is very nice to break a swords edge with, blade on blade hit will always ruin both blades and possibly break them, blade on hard steel of the back of sword would just ruin that swords edge or break it with much less damage to the blocking sword.
Okarkar 1 year ago
@Okarkar
In certain situations, a false edge cut will strike faster than the long edge cut simply because of body mechanics. This is why Europeans used them so much.
And the situation you refer to is solved by proper sword usage; you don't go edge-to-edge, that only occurs when you fuck up. What you try and do is block at angles so that the kinetic force of the sword causes it to be deflected or slide; not go directly into the sword.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Caliburnis of course you do! but if in the case i was the defender and i wanted to break your sword as last resort an old and tried technique is to hit the top part of your sword (right above the middle) with the back side of the lower middle of my sword.
of course some even slide the back side of a sword across an enemy's blade to "dull it" as well if the chance is given, and your good enough with ur sword ;)
Okarkar 1 year ago
@Okarkar
Even then that's not necessarily going to break it. Swords aren't fragile; you're more likely to knock it aside unless the two swords impact edge to edge; even then, you're more likely to 'notch' the blade.
I've never seen any medieval manuals depict techniques to 'dull' the other sword; dragging a sword down the back edge will not do that reliably.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Lunar0907
Actually full plate is purposely designed to promote movement. As well, it's weight-equal to Samurai armor, while being more evenly distributed in it. You can fight easily, do cartwheels, rolls, and so on. The armor does not hinder your natural movements in combat. So, yes, it is good for moving around in.
The katana is actually /not/ a superior weapon; you're assuming that. There is no evidence to the point.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Lunar0907
Actually, swords don't 'cut through' plate armor. There is no evidence of katana 'cutting through' or 'into' full plate armor. The practice of Kabutaowari, performed even in extremely ideal conditions, proves that katana do not cut through armor. The world record is really only a centimeter or so deep 'gash' along the top of the helm.
The length of time the Samurai were around speaks more to the isolation and conservatism of Japan, not any superior martial prowess.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
@Lunar0907
Also, keep in mind that the term "broadsword" doesn't describe any medieval weapons. "Broadsword" is a Victorian era generalization used to differentiate any wide bladed military sword from smaller, featherweight dueling swords. Medieval swords are "Arming swords", "Longswords", "knightly swords", "great swords", and so on.
Caliburnis 1 year ago
Comment removed
Lunar0907 1 year ago