Samurai VS European Knights

[None of the above]

While I commend you on finally bringing something worthwhile into the topic, I don't see how it's in any way a response to what I pointed out about your idea of difference and "detail" in the term "knight" of various European countries. Different types of armor in general had nothing to do with your nonsensical ramblings of truth and details. And while you bring details about equipment compared from the East to the West, I still don't see how this is anything but a digression.

Bring me the supposed truth you so wanted to add to the topic about how we should be ever so careful not to misuse the term "knight", in fear of how we might mistake a Teutonic knight from a Spanish one! -gasps-

I won't point out the difference between a Teutonic knight and a Spanish one, but I will try to clear things up with the help of another example.
We shall take the example of an English Knight and a Wallach or Moldavian so-called 'boyar' or 'boier'.

Quote:'In the early Middle Ages the term knight designated a professional fighting man in the emerging feudal system. Some were as poor as the peasant class. However, over time, as this class of fighter became more prominent in post-Carolingian France, they became wealthier and began to hold and inherit land. Eventually, on the Continent of Europe, only those men could be knighted whose fathers or grandfathers had been knights; and the knightly families became known as the nobility.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight

Wikipedia about Wallachian and Moldovian Boyars:
'In the Balkan regions inhabited by Romanians, the boyar (boier) class emerged from the chiefs (named cneaz or jude in the areas north of the Danube and celnic south of the river) of rural communities in the early Middle Ages, initially elected, who later made their judicial and administrative attributions hereditary and gradually expanded them upon other communities. After the apparition of more advanced political structures in the area their privileged status had to be confirmed by the central power, which used this prerogative to include in the boyar class individuals that distinguished themselves in the military or civilian functions they performed (by allocating them lands from the princely domains).

The boyars progressively differentiated themselves into ‘great’ boyars (who owned numerous, large domains and held important functions in the central administration) and ‘small’ boyars (who owned small estates and held less important functions).Starting with the first half of the fifteenth century they became the most important political force in Wallachia and Moldavia.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar

Although they had a political and administrative role in the Wallach and Moldavian feudal system, they were loyal to their rulers and could take over also the role of a noble fighter (a knight).
They fought along with the pedestrian army (builded mostly of peasants who were forced to join this so called 'Great Army', and along to the ruler (domn).

We can easily conclude that an English knight is not equal to a Wallach/Moldavian boyar/ 'knight'.

[Zedekiah]

I won't point out the difference between a Teutonic knight and a Spanish one, but I will try to clear things up with the help of another example.
We shall take the example of an English Knight and a Wallach or Moldavian so-called 'boyar' or 'boier'.

Quote:'In the early Middle Ages the term knight designated a professional fighting man in the emerging feudal system. Some were as poor as the peasant class. However, over time, as this class of fighter became more prominent in post-Carolingian France, they became wealthier and began to hold and inherit land. Eventually, on the Continent of Europe, only those men could be knighted whose fathers or grandfathers had been knights; and the knightly families became known as the nobility.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight

Wikipedia about Wallachian and Moldovian Boyars:
'In the Balkan regions inhabited by Romanians, the boyar (boier) class emerged from the chiefs (named cneaz or jude in the areas north of the Danube and celnic south of the river) of rural communities in the early Middle Ages, initially elected, who later made their judicial and administrative attributions hereditary and gradually expanded them upon other communities. After the apparition of more advanced political structures in the area their privileged status had to be confirmed by the central power, which used this prerogative to include in the boyar class individuals that distinguished themselves in the military or civilian functions they performed (by allocating them lands from the princely domains).

The boyars progressively differentiated themselves into ‘great’ boyars (who owned numerous, large domains and held important functions in the central administration) and ‘small’ boyars (who owned small estates and held less important functions).Starting with the first half of the fifteenth century they became the most important political force in Wallachia and Moldavia.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyar

Although they had a political and administrative role in the Wallach and Moldavian feudal system, they were loyal to their rulers and could take over also the role of a noble fighter (a knight).
They fought along with the pedestrian army (builded mostly of peasants who were forced to join this so called 'Great Army', and along to the ruler (domn).

We can easily conclude that an English knight is not equal to a Wallach/Moldavian boyar/ 'knight'.

Wonderful, it took you only 5 posts to get to the point this time around.
And while you finally bring your point into play, it has absolutely no effect on this topic after what's been said about keeping to the generic use of these two wonderful terms. If not, I'm sure the topic's name would be "Who'd you think would win of a Wallach Knight and a 16th Century Samurai"? ^^

And like me whose interest is hardly that big on the topic of the differentials of Knights, I'll have to admit that the word knight in general relates to me as "Armored fighter". Not "Poor-peasant-moving-up-through-the-early-phases-of-French-social-structure".

But seeing as you finally brought your truth and detail into the absurd topic on who'd win, I'm most certain that knowing this difference between the different knights of Europe will have such an impact on the topic that everybody's brains will implode.

('cause what's more important than the social standing of a certain group of people when we're discussing it on an animeforum who'd win a fictional fight? ^^)

And I'll quote myself as to why I am saying all this:

Stick to general terms. Your "details" aren't needed.

[Kazuma-chan]

samurai would win overall they are more disaplined and able to pull of complex manuvers whree as europeean soliders are jsut trained to hack and slash at their foes.

[Mugetsu]

samurai would win overall they are more disaplined and able to pull of complex manuvers whree as europeean soliders are jsut trained to hack and slash at their foes.

?????????HUH?????????

Complex manuevers?????? All they can pull of is slashes and an occasional thrust. Or they can use arrows & other weapons. What can they do tha a knight cant?

You do know that they can't really run up wall and accross the ceiling to rain down 30 imaginary sword thrusts at their opponent...right?

[None of the above]

Wonderful, it took you only 5 posts to get to the point this time around.
And while you finally bring your point into play, it has absolutely no effect on this topic after what's been said about keeping to the generic use of these two wonderful terms. If not, I'm sure the topic's name would be "Who'd you think would win of a Wallach Knight and a 16th Century Samurai"? ^^

And like me whose interest is hardly that big on the topic of the differentials of Knights, I'll have to admit that the word knight in general relates to me as "Armored fighter". Not "Poor-peasant-moving-up-through-the-early-phases-of-French-social-structure".

But seeing as you finally brought your truth and detail into the absurd topic on who'd win, I'm most certain that knowing this difference between the different knights of Europe will have such an impact on the topic that everybody's brains will implode.

('cause what's more important than the social standing of a certain group of people when we're discussing it on an animeforum who'd win a fictional fight? ^^)

And I'll quote myself as to why I am saying all this:

Their brain may explode or not, this doesn't concern me.
I'll post some quotes.

about the riduculosity of this subject:

A 6th century samurai is hardly comparable to a 15th century samurai.

It's a ridiculous subject. It's like asking yourself whether a caveman or a professional boxer would win in a 1-on-1 fistfight.

And about the conclusion, which is also my opinion:

Hmm well Knight obviously. A knight had better technolgical warfare on his side when samurai had sword light armour, antlers, and a sword. Knight can wip out a cannon. Knights can be decked out with heavy armour. They had the catapult. Was it them that created the flamming arrow? Prob not. Now if you went furthre into knight hood like spainard conquistadors, well they had da big guns.

Hey if you want to kill a samurai, pin them in a corner and they would have to kill themselves. Yeah smaruais were really high in respect and would take the oath of sepuku (ritual suicide.) I think this might have started in the sengoku period. Maybe earlyier. I forget. But in battle if a samurai was pinned and could not do anything well they would kill themselves.

[Zedekiah]

And about the conclusion, which is also my opinion:

Which I agree to. BUT, it is completely deviod of the nifty detailed truth I have been trying to pound into your head is so amazingly irrelevant that I want you to realize adding pointless facts about difference of social standings and the very term of Knight in different European countries, is in the first place -not- needed nor relevant to this bloody topic on who'd win this fantasy battle.

For all I care you could call the samurai the "Japanese knights".

[Undrave Limito]

About the crossbow... I did say 'bow and arrow' wich implied european bows, not crossbow. If we want to talk crossbows then it's Sun Tse/Zi FTW! I mean he invented one.

Ya know I forgot there's a simple way to solve this dispute! Bust out the Anachronism cards! Saito Musashibo Benkei VS Richard the Lionheart and stuff like that, there's a good deal of Japanese warriors and European ones..and others from other cultures: Chinese, Mongol, Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Briton, Norse, Germanic, French, Romanian, Russian, Persian, Irish, Scotish, Native American, Aztec, Maui, Pirates and more to come. When I was still playing (had to stop because of budget reason) I rather enjoyed the Egyptians and Mongols... Horemheb the Restorer kicks butt altough he needs a Roman weapon to really unlock his potential. It was created by a History teacher too.