Conquer Club

freezie wrote:A samurai with a original katana?

The samurai...No questions. The chain mail wouldn't stand a second..

What about plate armor? Slice through that

Blastshot wrote:

freezie wrote:A samurai with a original katana?

The samurai...No questions. The chain mail wouldn't stand a second..

What about plate armor? Slice through that

Whoe ever said a plate armor? What people are showing are plates, but the question states the knight has a CHAIN ARMOR.


And yea, a real katana would slice throught a plate. Less easily, but it would definitly be able to.

Pikachu could pwn them all.

But probably a knight. But they're better then they get promoted into Generals, or PAladans.

Worth nothing:

PLate armor is so heavy, swinging a heavy blow with a warhammer or such..Would hurt the knight badly. His arms would go off, even if is armor would be slighly damaged.

freezie wrote:Worth nothing:

PLate armor is so heavy, swinging a heavy blow with a warhammer or such..Would hurt the knight badly. His arms would go off, even if is armor would be slighly damaged.

Since when do samurias use warhammers? And the knights we have been talking about have always had plate armour, and mail UNDERNEATH. Dude, you try swingin a katana through a metal plate, and then mail underneath.

Honibaz wrote:No trying to offend anybody, but what did Hecter do to make cena-rules and muy_thaiguy hate him(or her, not really sure) so much?

Honibaz

Don't hate him, just thought I'd modify the "hecter is a cunt" option a bit. As for the whole armor and katana thing, katanas maybe incredibly sharp, but were never meant for plated armor. Chain mail probably would have stopped the katana, being as how chain mail was designed for such a purpose. As for crossbow bolts and lonbows, they pierced armor, in the 12th century. But by the late 15th early 16th century, only gunpowder weapons would actually pierce the heavy plate armor. By the way, enough about the myth that the knight would be imobile, the knight's armor was designed to be quite flexible (enough to do tumbling tricks) even though it was heavy (but lighter then what modern soldiers carry around).

Pffft, your asking the Gold "Knight" who he thinks should win... Martin Lawerence(Black Knight) would whoop Tom Cruise's ass (Last Samurai), no question asked.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Blastshot wrote:Whenever some1 says knights i always think of the knights decked out in chain mail, with plates on over that, with a one handed sword and a metal sheild.

On 300:
the persains sheilds were whicker if i remember right, they wore a light fabric over there face with a hood over that. I believe other than that they just had a robe with maybe a little whicker armour, nothing metal. Except their swords

Only immortals actually had armor, and not very good, as I said before.

Not even - they had leather. Doesn't stand up to the greek blades. The persians were powerful because of their cavalry, which is why they sucked in thermopalea.

unriggable wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:

Blastshot wrote:Whenever some1 says knights i always think of the knights decked out in chain mail, with plates on over that, with a one handed sword and a metal sheild.

On 300:
the persains sheilds were whicker if i remember right, they wore a light fabric over there face with a hood over that. I believe other than that they just had a robe with maybe a little whicker armour, nothing metal. Except their swords

Only immortals actually had armor, and not very good, as I said before.

Not even - they had leather. Doesn't stand up to the greek blades. The persians were powerful because of their cavalry, which is why they sucked in thermopalea.

Some may have had leather, but they had scale armor that was so bad in protecting them, wasn't much point to it. As for the cavalry, it was at least decent, but the Persians relied instead on numbers. For them, it was "quantity over quality". The reason why at Thermoplye is because they could not use their numbers to over power the Greek phalanx.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/index.php/Talk:Wish_List/Character_Stats

This thread reminded me about this page. About halfway down the page they get into the exact same argument, though focusing more on the weapon.

This guy kicks all their asses.

The better question would be:

"Who would win? A man, or an armored battalion?"

muy_thaiguy wrote:Some may have had leather, but they had scale armor that was so bad in protecting them, wasn't much point to it. As for the cavalry, it was at least decent, but the Persians relied instead on numbers. For them, it was "quantity over quality". The reason why at Thermoplye is because they could not use their numbers to over power the Greek phalanx.

The reason the persians were so quick to conquer all of Babylonia and Asia Minor was because of their cavalry - in that area there are many hills which made ambushes ideal, and the speed of horses only helped. However in greece it is more mountaneous, so only infantry could be used. That's why the Persians got what came coming in Plataea.

Sometimes I wonder how high frank miller was when he decided to include elephants.

either way

HECTER WILL DIE

cena-rules wrote:either way

HECTER WILL DIE

ahahaha... ha... ahem

unriggable wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Some may have had leather, but they had scale armor that was so bad in protecting them, wasn't much point to it. As for the cavalry, it was at least decent, but the Persians relied instead on numbers. For them, it was "quantity over quality". The reason why at Thermoplye is because they could not use their numbers to over power the Greek phalanx.

The reason the persians were so quick to conquer all of Babylonia and Asia Minor was because of their cavalry - in that area there are many hills which made ambushes ideal, and the speed of horses only helped. However in greece it is more mountaneous, so only infantry could be used. That's why the Persians got what came coming in Plataea.

Sometimes I wonder how high frank miller was when he decided to include elephants.

The Persians, as I have already said, did have good cavalry, yet they also relied heavily on numbers. Let's skip ahead a bit to Alexander the Great at the battle Gaugemela. He had around 47,000 troops, compared to the Persian 200,000-250,000 troops. Alexander had 7000 cavalry, the Persians, 20,000. None of which were pushovers either. Darius (emperor of Persia) relied on, like previous emperors, heavily on numbers. Because on wide open areas, sheer numbers could outflank, surround, and wipe out the enemy in a short amount of time. At Thermoplye, it was a narrow pass in which the Persians could not use their numbers to their advantages. The phalanx, as the picture shows, was ideal for such an area because their flanks were protected, and the Persian troops ran right into a wall of spears.

I'd have to say a knight, in a straight up fight. cavalry > infantry.

The1exile wrote:I'd have to say a knight, in a straight up fight. cavalry > infantry.

Uh, Samurai were cavalry too.

knight wins, cause knights are heavy I know the heviest don't allways win but knights, they could slash samurais in seconds cause they have heavy swords and chain armor too. lightest doesn,t always win as well. shame that no one never always win.

nicky98 wrote:knight wins, cause knights are heavy I know the heviest don't allways win but knights, they could slash samurais in seconds cause they have heavy swords and chain armor too. lightest doesn,t always win as well. shame that no one never always win.

El Cid and Alexander the Great always won...

nicky98 wrote:knight wins, cause knights are heavy I know the heviest don't allways win but knights, they could slash samurais in seconds cause they have heavy swords and chain armor too. lightest doesn,t always win as well. shame that no one never always win.

They're heavy, which means they are slow. When a knight fights a knight, everything looks like its just slow motion, but when he fights a SAMURAI, it looks like an agent from the matrix dodging bullets.

unriggable wrote:

nicky98 wrote:knight wins, cause knights are heavy I know the heviest don't allways win but knights, they could slash samurais in seconds cause they have heavy swords and chain armor too. lightest doesn,t always win as well. shame that no one never always win.

They're heavy, which means they are slow. When a knight fights a knight, everything looks like its just slow motion, but when he fights a SAMURAI, it looks like an agent from the matrix dodging bullets.

But why would a knight fear a samurai?

a knight would win just off his armor. the plate metal basically will deflect almost any attack by a sword, and there was hardly any weak points to it. plus from my understanding samurai swords are built for slicing and not stabing (please correct me if im wrong here). chain mail was built to stop any slicing attacks, too bad an arrow goes right through it though

A knight of the round table would win, Like lancelot the brave.

Why is everyone saying mail? I thought the knights we were talking about had PLATE armor.