Basically, I've been playing For Honour again, and it's brought me back around the the age old question of who would win between X warrior culture and X warrior culture. So, why not bring it to the spam forum where history nerds from all walks of life can endlessly bitch about it! The only caveat to this will be that the two warriors have to have at least a somewhat fair starting group. Aztec warrior vs Viking is fair, although they come from different time periods. Viking vs US Marine is not fair, because all that's going to happen is that the viking is going to get shot.
So, with that I'll kick us off with one of the potential battles in For Honour: Knights vs Samurai.
For a fair comparison, I can actually take the same warriors from the same timeframe. We'll use a mid-15th century knight and samurai for this, which was a pretty good time for both types of warriors as far as battlefield dominance goes. On the one side we have a European knight, in full plate armour and with a longsword, (that is, a sword that is carried in two hands, not an arming sword.) Against him, we can put up a 15th century samurai. Pre Nanban trade, westernised armour styles had not yet been introduced to Japan, so we can safely say that the samurai would be wearing a dou, and although the daisho as a symbol of authority had been established at this time, we'll give the samurai a naginata rather than the nodachi, since the latter was more used on horseback.
Both of the warriors are highly mobile and well-protected for their respective styles of warfare. Unfortunately for the samurai though, he has a bit of a problem in that the highly valued art of kyujutsu isn't going to serve him well here- his opponent's armour makes him very resistant to arrows fired from a composite yumi. Luckily for him however, full plate isn't conducive to firing a bow either, which means melee it is.
In a melee, the knight has a core advantage in that his armour makes him near-invulnerable to slashing blows, and moderately well against piercing attacks such as from a spear. On the other hand, the samurai's armour will struggle against western swords- although the dou is also excellent against slashing blows, the longsword can be used as a piercing and even crushing weapon if the knight is familiar with half-swording or mordhau.
That being said, the samurai does have one advantage- the weapon he is using is very similar to the western glaives, weapons that were excellent at capitalising on the chinks in an opponents armour. We can reason that the samurai is probably sensible enough to realise this, and thus the battle comes down to who can land the first meaningful blow. Although by exploiting the additional range of his weapon the samurai can put up an excellent fight, and may even begin to draw blood from the knight, his armour is far less forgiving of mistakes than the knight's is, and ultimately the heavier-armoured warrior can claim victory. Score one for the knights.
Agree with me? Disagree? Want to argue an entirely different battle? Feel free to! That's what this is here for.
So, with that I'll kick us off with one of the potential battles in For Honour: Knights vs Samurai.
For a fair comparison, I can actually take the same warriors from the same timeframe. We'll use a mid-15th century knight and samurai for this, which was a pretty good time for both types of warriors as far as battlefield dominance goes. On the one side we have a European knight, in full plate armour and with a longsword, (that is, a sword that is carried in two hands, not an arming sword.) Against him, we can put up a 15th century samurai. Pre Nanban trade, westernised armour styles had not yet been introduced to Japan, so we can safely say that the samurai would be wearing a dou, and although the daisho as a symbol of authority had been established at this time, we'll give the samurai a naginata rather than the nodachi, since the latter was more used on horseback.
Both of the warriors are highly mobile and well-protected for their respective styles of warfare. Unfortunately for the samurai though, he has a bit of a problem in that the highly valued art of kyujutsu isn't going to serve him well here- his opponent's armour makes him very resistant to arrows fired from a composite yumi. Luckily for him however, full plate isn't conducive to firing a bow either, which means melee it is.
In a melee, the knight has a core advantage in that his armour makes him near-invulnerable to slashing blows, and moderately well against piercing attacks such as from a spear. On the other hand, the samurai's armour will struggle against western swords- although the dou is also excellent against slashing blows, the longsword can be used as a piercing and even crushing weapon if the knight is familiar with half-swording or mordhau.
That being said, the samurai does have one advantage- the weapon he is using is very similar to the western glaives, weapons that were excellent at capitalising on the chinks in an opponents armour. We can reason that the samurai is probably sensible enough to realise this, and thus the battle comes down to who can land the first meaningful blow. Although by exploiting the additional range of his weapon the samurai can put up an excellent fight, and may even begin to draw blood from the knight, his armour is far less forgiving of mistakes than the knight's is, and ultimately the heavier-armoured warrior can claim victory. Score one for the knights.
Agree with me? Disagree? Want to argue an entirely different battle? Feel free to! That's what this is here for.