Warrior poll!

Chat with like minded people. Post anything in 'general' from latest happenings in the media to whats your favourite food!

Moderators: Big Lazy, Moderators

Who would win in battle?

Medieval Siege Knight?
Mushroom Enchanced Viking raider?
Arabian Janisary?
Zulu Warrior?
Germanic Barbarian?
No votes
Roman Centurion?
Total votes: 41

User avatar
Posts: 1766
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 4:09 pm

Post by Shadow_Dragon » Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:14 pm

But the magic mushroom thing is a poorly concieved threory in my opinion!

User avatar
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2003 3:21 am
Location: Valinor

Post by Angelis » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:39 am

I'd say the knights of Ni all the way...NI! Ni! Ni!

User avatar
Posts: 3838
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:06 pm
Location: Forodwaith

Post by Atangaladhion » Sat Jan 24, 2004 11:51 am

Angelis wrote:I'd say the knights of Ni all the way...NI! Ni! Ni!
But they have a fatal flaw...


User avatar
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:43 pm
Location: West sussex, bognor regis

Post by SIN » Sat Jan 24, 2004 12:32 pm

by a long shot

User avatar
Siddhartha Gautama
Posts: 856
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 2:23 pm
Location: The Void and alittle to the left.


Post by Siddhartha Gautama » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:32 pm

Dude it has to be Gandhi......... gandhi wins why? Because all he has to do is nothing and he's won. That was his point not to fight. Peace man!

But na......... erm...... KNIGHT....... why? u ask simple....... the Samurai blade is not designed to withstand metal clashing, the viking's armour is just brute thick skin! and hair with ale......... Arabian and Zulu well mince meat......... Germanic was pretty much same as Viking, and the Roman has no leg armour...... KNIGHT WINS.


User avatar
el tigregrande
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 6:32 pm
Location: Essex- So what?

Post by el tigregrande » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:40 pm

The vikings had rather sophisticated chain mail I believe. But I agree with you on the Knight.

User avatar
el tigregrande
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 6:32 pm
Location: Essex- So what?

Post by el tigregrande » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:42 pm

And I f**ked up that quote!


Post by Cybermoose » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:44 pm

el tigregrande wrote:And I f**ked up that quote!

Yup! It had [/quote] after it... so i deleted just that bit. Its ok :kiss1:

User avatar
el tigregrande
Posts: 768
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 6:32 pm
Location: Essex- So what?

Post by el tigregrande » Sat Jan 24, 2004 1:47 pm



Post by nobody » Sat Jan 24, 2004 2:04 pm

you know,

if it was a roman army vs a samurai army. the romans would win hands down.

why? the japanese ran around screaming out their names killing ppl in the quest for honour.

the romans trumped around in formations with big shields and were using tactics.

this is why the mongols kicked the japaneses assesssss

sure maybe a samurai warrior would win vs a roman but army vs army? romans every time...

User avatar
Posts: 656
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:54 pm
Location: Carlisle.. The reasonable Cold Place

Post by Tregha » Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:08 pm

Roman in a group

single duesl Samurai

Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: greater london

Post by waz » Sat Jan 24, 2004 7:37 pm

Just asking a question are we talking about a duel or any combat situation

Out of the seven choice I would consider the samurai. siege knight and arabic janisary as choices the rest are not worth talking about. I counted out the roman centurian as their tactics are old compared to the ones I picked. We also all know what happened to the "mighty" romans when they met Atila the Huns mounted cavalry. Both the knights of western europe and the arabs/turks used masses of mounted men. As for the vikings "raider" is the key word here. They were not an organised army and their purpose in life was to raid and pillage settlements and take as much booty as they could before any organised forces came to stop them. Many a times they would simply run at the sight of an army approaching force. The barbarian and zulu warrior were individual fighters who fought with valour but were nearly always beaten by disciplined troops.

Now out of the three I would pick the western knights and turk/arab Janisary. Why you may say. Well firstly the samurai found it very hard to adapt to new styles of warfare. Yes they had armies but remember they had been used to fighting a certain style of war for many centuries. This was mainly in the form of civil war. They did fight the chinese and koreans a few times but very often were pushed back from land they had captured. Now one has to ask himself how would they cope with an onslaught from either of the two above armies. I could not see them stopping a powerful charge from 2000 knights templer. They had no heavy cavarly themselves and the concept of the mass pikes against horses was unknown to them. they did use pikes against infantry much like the greeks but against a charge of horses this was unknown as it had not been done before. There is many other problems that a western knight force would pose for them but I dont want to make the post so long and boring. Also with the turks how would they cope with a mass charge by the Janisary's for them to turn at the last moment and fire thousands of arrows at them dropping many of them dead at the spot then a powerful charge by heavy horse. This exact event was played out on the coastline of Japan when kubla khans mongols landed on the shores. As I said before they found it hard to adapt. They came out in usual fashion only to encounter mass cavarly charges and showers of arrows which took a massive toll on the samurai army.

This leaves the western knights and the arab/turk Janisary. We know these battles were played out in the middle east with the many crusades. The leval of warfare participated by both sets of people was huge. The europeans were always at war with each other and then you have the many wars they fought in the middle east. The arab/turk troops were always fighting to expand their realm and of course the wars they had with the warriors of the cross. They were always adapting and using better methods in their wars. For example many crusading armies suffered greatly at the hands of the light horse men who were archers. At range they were able to pick off the heavy knights and thenm charge in their own to finish off the army. Few western kings knew how to counter this. When richard arrived in the middle east he used his own light mounted arches to harras the mounted turks. He also forbade his army from ever engaging the turks unless he gave the order. Reason being very often they sent in faints and drew out the heavy knights to battle when they gave chase they were ambushed and wiped out. It was through richards hands did the crusaders gain any sucess with their missions. Of course the turks also adapted. One of their most famous wins being against the mongols at ain jalut where they used the light cavarly charges employed by the mongols to beat them at their own game. They used gunpowder to great effect in europe when the walls of constantinople broke down thanks to the gun made by ironically by a christian romanian.

If it is individual combat it still is the above three. The others did not have much technique and used just relied on brute force often leading to them losing. As for the roman troops they were not known for their great sword skills. It was them being able to fight in a organised and close knit way that gained their many wins. Supprisingly they knew the basic thrusts and slashes which they practiced day in and day out but combine them together you have a great force. Also their weapons was shorter and far inferior in quality compared to the majestic weapons used by the knights, samurai and turks. It was these three warrior orders that worshiped and made the sword as part of their own soul. Mnay dedicated years in order to master the weapon. Very often individual duels played a great part in the culture of these respective warriors. It was also comman place on the battle field to see the leaders of such people engage duel before their armies.

I would put it down to the individual warrior on who would win this duel between the three. But as you know the samurai arts are well perserved and I feel the edge may go to them. I feel their studies were far more intense with regards to single combat thats why much of their art survies today. As for the western knights and Janisary little is left of their arts.

User avatar
Lord David the Denied
Posts: 8049
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: The Sunken City of R'lyeh

Post by Lord David the Denied » Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:03 pm

If Richard I was responsible for all Christian successes in the Holy Land, how do you accunt for the total victory of the First Crusade?

It was the rise of Saladin that caused the downfall of the Christian kingdom of Outremer and the preaching of the Second Crusade.

Don't underestimate the effectiveness of the Roman Gladius, or the skills of those who weilded them. Gladius fencing was an art form in the Empire, and I suspect a seasoned Legionary, armed with Gladius and Scutum, and wearing Lorica Segmenta would be well able to stand up to a Samurai.

User avatar
Posts: 2034
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:07 pm
Location: sunny manchester

Post by darksun_uk » Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:24 pm

waz said:-
As for the western knights and Janisary little is left of their arts.
not sure about the janisary as such (outside my knowlegde base) however the knightly combat arts are alive and well thanks to such people as john clements and co take a look at his book medieval swordsmanship isbn :-1-58160-004-6 published by paladin press, an excellent book detailing the study of the european combat systems and drawing on many of the surviving texts on the subject as well as practical sparing and so on as far as to who would win i think the edge goes to the knight as the others would just have a hell of time dealing with his armour not to mention the fact that he would be trying to hit them back :-D

User avatar
Lord David the Denied
Posts: 8049
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 7:11 pm
Location: The Sunken City of R'lyeh

Post by Lord David the Denied » Sat Jan 24, 2004 8:32 pm

Don't forget, though, that the Samurai is also armoured.

Of course, what style and period of armour has not been specified for any of the choices...

Post Reply