Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dark Jezter" data-source="post: 1306644" data-attributes="member: 1015">You are right about the Samurai having ranged weapons.  Most knights believed bows to be "dishonorable" weapons and refused to use themAs for bows being the bane of knights, that depends mostly on which period of knight and what type of armor he had.  Earlier knights wore mail, and were vulnerable to archer fire.  Later knights had plate mail that was thick and designed to deflect arrows, spear tips, and swords.Armor-piercing tip?Early katanas had problems with their tips getting snapped off by the studded leather armor used by the mongols and chinese.  Later katanas were no longer used against armor, so they tended to be long, thin, and light for classroom demonstration.Even a suit of Samurai armor was capable of protecting its wearer against katana slices, and European knights had much better armor than the Japanese did.Where did you get your information that lighter fighters with thin blades beat armored knights in Europe?  Smallswords (rapiers, foil, epees, etc) became popular after the proliferation of firearms made armor obsolete.  Smallswords were very seldom used as battlefield weapons.  Rather, they were used as dueling or personal defense weapons by civilians.If an unarmored fencer with a smallsword went up against a knight in full-plate with a two-handed sword (which weren't nearly as heavy as they are commonly made out to be), I would definately put my money on the knight.  While it's always possible that the fencer could skewer the knight through an unarmored spot, it's far more likely that the fight would happen like this:  The knight closes the distance between himself and the fencer (full plate dosen't restrict speed and mobility nearly as much as you'd think), making the fencer's smallsword useless.  The knight then grapples with the fencer (knights included grappling and wrestling techniques among their training), and smacks him on the head a few times with his armored fist.  Then, while the fencer is still reeling from the blows, the knight steps back and finishes him off easily.Swords are not real great weapons against full plate (with the exception of a good two-handed sword), which is why swords declined in use after full plate became common.  Weapons like maces, hammers, axes, and military picks were much better for taking on opponents with plate.The Samurai's emphasis on ranged combat would be his greatest asset in the knight vs. samurai scenario.  But in hand-to-hand or mounted combat, I would definately go for the knight.</blockquote>

Verification