Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The author of this topic has marked a post as the answer to their question.
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Longsword has longer range, has no problem doing damage through armor and is also extremely accurate as thrusting weapon because of the way they were balanced.
Yes katana is faster and more brutal all-out death or nothing weapon but you need to close the distance and if your blow is deflected you are immediately in the lethal range of longsword counterattack that can come from multiple angles because of the double-edge.
Complete bs, curved blade gets stuck much easier when thrusting, provided that you actually hit the mark at all.
Rapiers were not used against armor, they became later after the age of plate armor was already over and most you had were curved breastplates if even that.
They’re a lot better at cleaving through helmets without breaking. The curvature of the blade allows it to withstand perpendicular forces better, like a spring.
The same reasoning was behind the adoption of the cavalry sabre in the late gothic and early renaissance eras, as straight blades tended to shatter due to the force of impacting heavy armor from horseback.
There are very few accounts of european helmet cleaving after the axe and other heavy blades fell out of favor, and while samurai did tend to favor lighter armor designs their helmet were typically much sturdier than european designs.
Yes, but the blade curvature is an advantage even when attempting to get around natural armor such as ribcages.
Your point about thrusting is simply incorrect, and many longswords were simply not used for thrusting as it could easily bend the blade. Especially if caught between plates.
Curved swords had smaller contact angles, and were thus much more difficult to pin and easier to retract. This is what made rapiers more popular than, say, sabres. Which were still the standard on the battlefield well into ww1.
The samurai's sword is certainly sharp but fragile and light, against a knight's armor it can do nothing.
The knights also undergo extreme training and handle their weapon with perfection where anyone can claim to be a samurai.
Generally speaking the double edged cruciform longsword is much more fragile than the single edged curved blade.
-much better armored
-much better trained
(knights were soldiers, period, most of history it was not herritary (but if a strong knight had a healthy son, he sure would be considered as the next trainy) this training started at a very young age, like 5 year old, and last till they were like 35)
(samurai were seen much more as nobility and thus had much other things to be trained in, knights did not need)
-much less restricted
(knights were NOT chivilrous, that was a later romantic invention, like any soldier, they were pragmatic and would get the job done, they would also opt to flee and fight another day, if need be)
(samurai had a whole code to apply to, and were thus far more restricted in their fighting style, than the whole self-suicide code, ment they could often not retreat or fight again after a loss)
-much more mobile!
(knight armor was tailored to fit perfectly, you can move in it easely.. poor mans armor weighted you down, not the custom fitted stuff of knights, compared to that the samurai armor was rather bulky, and as stated before the weight of both armors is comparable)
-much more reach, and more staying power!
(knight swords are same weight, but much longer, and they also have TWO edges, not one, this gave them far more moves and swings.. than a katana that only has 1 edge, and can only cut..
a katana is quite useless versus an armed oponent.)
-Knight horses were much better...
(knights had horses, samurai had ponies, the height difference matters a lot in war, samurai were also much less trained in fighting on horseback (usually only limited to firing arrows from horseback) and would dismount before a close combat fight, where all knight were trained as a shocktroop, first and foremost)
-knights have stronger bows,
knights WERE trained in archery before they ever picked up a sword, and english longbows were 200pound or more.. that hits like a bullet.. it can easely penetrate the thinner armor of samurai.
-shields!
Knights can carry and fight with a shield, a samurai does not.. having a shield matters a lot!
the samurai would be totally outclassed by the knights!
the only things that historicly could work against knights was what the mongols did.. very fast houses, with very good bows, on horseback... shoot at the knights get a few lucky shots, run of faster than they can catch up.
-> but the little ponies as well as the rough terrain of japan plus the samurais honor code would not allow this tactic.
Samurai resisted conscription and mercenary practices until the 16th century.
It depends on the forging technique, and in medieval times, knights' swords were known to be heavy and wide, because there were fights between knights.
The Japanese had light clothes and forged very thin blades, focusing on speed and sharpness.
The only advantage of samurai is dexterity, but in the end the advantages of knights are too important with strength, professionalism, competence,...
In my eyes knight against samurai it will end like this:
https://youtu.be/WRYM6B7CTs8?t=43
I precise that I study the medieval times and the weapons that they used