~ Knights vs Samurai ???

[TechnoGothic]

Who is Cooler in your Opinion ?

Knights or Samurai

and WHY ??

[Comrade Corsarius]

One assumes this is a Rifts discussion, and you mean one of the following:
1) Cyber-knights vs Cyber-Samurai
2) Knights from Camelot vs Traditional samurai.

(side note: My player group decided to never go to new camelot. It is a silly place.)

[drewkitty ~..~]

Who is Cooler in your Opinion ?

Knights or Samurai

and WHY ??

Samurai.
Is an anime fan.

[Comrade Corsarius]

I agree. I like cyber-knights as an anti-supernatural, rather than anti-tech force.

In fact, I sold my SoT books some time ago, and also have not upgraded to RUE. So if you play Rifts with me, Cyber-knights are still champions of the downtrodden who battle supernatural forces and have no quasi-mystical powers against coalition railguns.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Im not an Asiophile, so Knights. In fact, i got so burned out on asiophillia during my high school years that it turned into something of a dislike.

[flatline]

Could you give us a little more context for the question?

Are we talking Knights and Samurai as they were in real life or are we talking about something in-game?

--flatline

[Eclipse]

No preference, both are potentially pretty cool.

[Hotrod]

Aren't they essentially the same, with different window dressing? Both are elite, wealthier feudal warriors with an emphasis on mounted combat.

I suppose the question is, which variety of window dressing do you find more tasteful? Even that is open to wide interpretation.

I suppose, if you take the dominant stereotypes, forgetting about samurai like Admiral Yamamoto and knights like Sir Elton John, I find the western window dressing to be a bit more interesting, since there's a much wider variety of weapons, cultures, traditions, and internationally-significant historical events involving western knights than their Japanese equivalents.

Really, though, I should educate myself more on the Japanese traditions. Maybe it's time to try Shogun 2: Total War.

[Grell]

Who is Cooler in your Opinion ?

Knights or Samurai

and WHY ??

Samurai.

Why? They're from Japan!

Seriously, they're excellent for both large scale eradication of demons and confronting opponents with a significant melee advantage.

[Jay05]

From a purely Rifts standpoint, I'm a fan of both the Cyber-knight and the traditional type Samurai from Rifts Japan. I'd play either one given the chance. So, I don't really have a preference. As for why? Skills and abilities are of a similar level, and I'd call the "True Katana" and the Psi-sword about equal.

[Blue_Lion]

Well the anti samurai - IE the ninja is a lot cooler than the anti knight a bunch of people with long pointed sticks (hedhog of pikemen) but in the end they both where broght down by guns.

The pure samuri with no teck from rifts japan are kinda cool consept.
The cyber samuri struck me as a want to be...

Cyber-knights even with there anti tech powers to me still represent the hereos of the down troden. Who go toe to toe with the big badies be they demons, or bunch of thugs with high theck gear.

The knights of england have kinda cool window dressing idea.

Over all I whould have to say the idea of knights and samuri are about the same ot me.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Pikemen weren't the anti-knight, just to be clear. They were anti-cavalry. Not all (hell, not even most) Knights were heavy cavalry. The English Longbow did a lot more to deter knights and re-write their place on the battlefield.

In one afternoon, 2000 english bowmen destroyed the flower of French chivalry, while taking almost no casualties of their own. Knights were already a non-issue on the battlefield (and Knighthoods primarily ceremonial/noble rewards) by the time guns became a real issue.

[Subjugator]

Tetsuya: I thought it was the crossbow that got rid of knights, since a longbowman required years of training, whereas a crossbow required, "Stand over there, point the crossbow that way, and pull up on that lever when they get too close to you."

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Tetsuya: I thought it was the crossbow that got rid of knights, since a longbowman required years of training, whereas a crossbow required, "Stand over there, point the crossbow that way, and pull up on that lever when they get too close to you."

Crossbows (partially) got rid of heavy armor, but the time Crossbows were prevalent, most heavy infantry and heavy cavalry were no longer Knights, just soldiers.

[flatline]

Tetsuya: I thought it was the crossbow that got rid of knights, since a longbowman required years of training, whereas a crossbow required, "Stand over there, point the crossbow that way, and pull up on that lever when they get too close to you."

Crossbows (partially) got rid of heavy armor, but the time Crossbows were prevalent, most heavy infantry and heavy cavalry were no longer Knights, just soldiers.

This is how I understand it. The crossbow didn't really become prevalent until the 1500's or so. Knights, as a warrior class as opposed to an honorific, were pretty much gone by that time.

Edit: Nope, I was wrong. According to wikipedia (for whatever that's worth), crossbows were in use starting around 1055 and for the next 400 years or so. They definitely overlapped with knights and could have, in fact, been part of the knights' downfall.

--flatline

[Hotrod]

Pikemen weren't the anti-knight, just to be clear. They were anti-cavalry. Not all (hell, not even most) Knights were heavy cavalry. The English Longbow did a lot more to deter knights and re-write their place on the battlefield.

In one afternoon, 2000 english bowmen destroyed the flower of French chivalry, while taking almost no casualties of their own. Knights were already a non-issue on the battlefield (and Knighthoods primarily ceremonial/noble rewards) by the time guns became a real issue.

If you're referring to Agincort (may have a spelling issue there), the weather, soggy ground, and funneling/crowding effect did a lot against the French, according to what I saw on the History Channel, than the longbow. A lot, and possibly most, of the fighting, was hand to hand.

Of course, Battlefield Detectives might be wrong.

[Zamion138]

Knights if were talking real world.
traditional samuarai's if were talking rifts.

[Comrade Corsarius]

Who is Cooler in your Opinion ?

Knights or Samurai

and WHY ??

Samurai.

Why? They're from Japan!

And their swords can cut through a tank!

[drewkitty ~..~]

Pikemen weren't the anti-knight, just to be clear. They were anti-cavalry. Not all (hell, not even most) Knights were heavy cavalry. The English Longbow did a lot more to deter knights and re-write their place on the battlefield.

In one afternoon, 2000 english bowmen destroyed the flower of French chivalry, while taking almost no casualties of their own. Knights were already a non-issue on the battlefield (and Knighthoods primarily ceremonial/noble rewards) by the time guns became a real issue.

If you're referring to Agincourt (may have a spelling issue there), the weather, soggy ground, and funneling/crowding effect did a lot against the French, according to what I saw on the History Channel, than the longbow. A lot, and possibly most, of the fighting, was hand to hand.

Of course, Battlefield Detectives might be wrong.

Another bit of trivia, On the continent cross bows were banned from use for a long time cause of two things, cause of the ease of it's use it turned a untrained commoner into somebody who could kill a knight (read 'noble') in his armor with one shot, and that it was seen in the eyes of the catholic church as to be a form of blasphemy because of it's shape, that of a cross.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Primarily that second part, but yes.

[Colonel_Tetsuya]

Pikemen weren't the anti-knight, just to be clear. They were anti-cavalry. Not all (hell, not even most) Knights were heavy cavalry. The English Longbow did a lot more to deter knights and re-write their place on the battlefield.

In one afternoon, 2000 english bowmen destroyed the flower of French chivalry, while taking almost no casualties of their own. Knights were already a non-issue on the battlefield (and Knighthoods primarily ceremonial/noble rewards) by the time guns became a real issue.

If you're referring to Agincort (may have a spelling issue there), the weather, soggy ground, and funneling/crowding effect did a lot against the French, according to what I saw on the History Channel, than the longbow. A lot, and possibly most, of the fighting, was hand to hand.

Of course, Battlefield Detectives might be wrong.

Not completely incorrect, but we're talking about what killed all the French Knights, which was cloth-yard shafts fired into them as they charged, and what lost the French the Battle. Keep in mind that the Knights didn't make up that sizable a portion of the army - probably less than 20%.

There are some examples of breastplates from Agincourt that are pierced-through with cloth-yard pile-headed arrows, front and back. For about another 100 years, armorers kept trying to make better armor to defeat the Longbow, and later, the Crossbow, to the point that you got to the armor that was so heavy it was only used for jousting... and even that couldn't stop an arbalest (heavy crossbow with a gear-cranked windlass) bolt.

By that time, however, Knighthoods had become less about being elite soldiers (though many Knights were still also soldiers) and more about a class of minor nobility and it was used as a reward (and was frequently outright purchased when the Crown was light on cash). By that time, heavy armor had spread from being the sole purview of Knights, primarily (as wealthy landowning elite soldiers) to the purview of professional common soldiers as well - heavy cavalry regularly wore heavy breastplates with faulds & tassets and splinted arms and upper legs with steel greaves, even if they were commoners. Mail had worked it's way into the infantrymans kit, often covered with thick hardened or boiled leather reinforce with plates (a plate-jack, a cheaper cousin of the coat-of-plates) of thin metal or stone or even bone.

By the time guns became prevalent, only infantry still regulary wore heavy armor (usually just breastplates) - because even if it wasnt totally effective, "some" protection was deemed better than none, and a thick steel breastplate (think the style you see the spanish conquistador portrayed in, with a very sharp sloped/peaked breastplate to divert the energy of a shot to the side) was more likely to save your life than not. You'd still be laid up for months with a serious injury, but it was better than nothing.

It wasn't until fire-arms because more reliable (with the introduction of rifling and more reliable firing systems like the flintlock) that armor was completely discarded, largely because the higher muzzle speeds made it more likely for the armor to actively KILL you, as a round ball shot would spall the inside of the breastplate into you, much like a modern tank-killer does to the men inside of a tank.

[Comrade Corsarius]

heavy cavalry regularly wore heavy breastplates with faulds & tassets and splinted arms and upper legs with steel greaves, even if they were commoners.

Yep.

By the time guns became prevalent, only infantry still regulary wore heavy armor (usually just breastplates) - because even if it wasnt totally effective, "some" protection was deemed better than none, and a thick steel breastplate (think the style you see the spanish conquistador portrayed in, with a very sharp sloped/peaked breastplate to divert the energy of a shot to the side) was more likely to save your life than not. You'd still be laid up for months with a serious injury, but it was better than nothing.

And walking anywhere wearing it was a pain. Which is why the mounted armoured person continued for some time.

It wasn't until fire-arms because more reliable (with the introduction of rifling and more reliable firing systems like the flintlock) that armor was completely discarded, largely because the higher muzzle speeds made it more likely for the armor to actively KILL you, as a round ball shot would spall the inside of the breastplate into you, much like a modern tank-killer does to the men inside of a tank.

Absolutely, but armour for mounted warriors stayed around a lot longer than it probably should have. Cuirassiers were present at Waterloo and were still active in WW1, with units fielded by Germany, Russia, Austria, France. (Formally, if not informally, the armour ceased to be worn in October 1915 by French units). A variety of cuirassier units still exist throughout the world in ceremonial (if not active) purposes.

For continued active (sort of) use, armour by foot soldiers is still used by the Swiss Guard. Mind you, while the bright uniforms can be amusing to some, the regular 'blue' uniform is pretty interesting, and every single one of these guys is an elite soldier. I am not certain if the British Yeoman of the Guard continue to wear armour actively, but alongside regular military training, the Swiss Guard regularly train with polearms and swords as part of their regular training in both melee and crowd control.

[TechnoGothic]

Cyber-Knights
Mystic Knights
War Knights
Hero Knights

Trad.Samurai/Ronins
Cyber-Samurai
Cyberai (pw)

but my question was just concept wise real world Knights vs Samurai.

[Tor]

Samurai. Is an anime fan.

The treatment of Samurai in anime is odd. I always see references to Samurai riding horses and wearing huge shredder-looking plate armor and helmets, but all the popular series (Rurouni Kenshin aka Samurai X, Samurai Deeper Kyo...) all seem to involve unarmored guys on foot with nothing but a sword and a kimono.

[GenThunderfist]

I have to say the Samurai out of Japan are really awesome, however I actually enjoy playing the Ronin much more than just the traditional Samurai. I really hate the Cyber-Sams/Street Sam.

Knights are...meh for me really. Cyber-Knights are really cool and a good fighting force, but in general I wouldn't want to play one since I just don't feel like they fit my preferred roleplaying style.

[Hotrod]

Pikemen weren't the anti-knight, just to be clear. They were anti-cavalry. Not all (hell, not even most) Knights were heavy cavalry. The English Longbow did a lot more to deter knights and re-write their place on the battlefield.

In one afternoon, 2000 english bowmen destroyed the flower of French chivalry, while taking almost no casualties of their own. Knights were already a non-issue on the battlefield (and Knighthoods primarily ceremonial/noble rewards) by the time guns became a real issue.

If you're referring to Agincort (may have a spelling issue there), the weather, soggy ground, and funneling/crowding effect did a lot against the French, according to what I saw on the History Channel, than the longbow. A lot, and possibly most, of the fighting, was hand to hand.

Of course, Battlefield Detectives might be wrong.

Not completely incorrect, but we're talking about what killed all the French Knights, which was cloth-yard shafts fired into them as they charged, and what lost the French the Battle. Keep in mind that the Knights didn't make up that sizable a portion of the army - probably less than 20%.

There are some examples of breastplates from Agincourt that are pierced-through with cloth-yard pile-headed arrows, front and back. For about another 100 years, armorers kept trying to make better armor to defeat the Longbow, and later, the Crossbow, to the point that you got to the armor that was so heavy it was only used for jousting... and even that couldn't stop an arbalest (heavy crossbow with a gear-cranked windlass) bolt.

By that time, however, Knighthoods had become less about being elite soldiers (though many Knights were still also soldiers) and more about a class of minor nobility and it was used as a reward (and was frequently outright purchased when the Crown was light on cash). By that time, heavy armor had spread from being the sole purview of Knights, primarily (as wealthy landowning elite soldiers) to the purview of professional common soldiers as well - heavy cavalry regularly wore heavy breastplates with faulds & tassets and splinted arms and upper legs with steel greaves, even if they were commoners. Mail had worked it's way into the infantrymans kit, often covered with thick hardened or boiled leather reinforce with plates (a plate-jack, a cheaper cousin of the coat-of-plates) of thin metal or stone or even bone.

By the time guns became prevalent, only infantry still regulary wore heavy armor (usually just breastplates) - because even if it wasnt totally effective, "some" protection was deemed better than none, and a thick steel breastplate (think the style you see the spanish conquistador portrayed in, with a very sharp sloped/peaked breastplate to divert the energy of a shot to the side) was more likely to save your life than not. You'd still be laid up for months with a serious injury, but it was better than nothing.

It wasn't until fire-arms because more reliable (with the introduction of rifling and more reliable firing systems like the flintlock) that armor was completely discarded, largely because the higher muzzle speeds made it more likely for the armor to actively KILL you, as a round ball shot would spall the inside of the breastplate into you, much like a modern tank-killer does to the men inside of a tank.

Of course, armor is very much back in vogue now in the US military. The materials have changed, but every soldier now deploys with helmet, several heavy plates, and a lot of kevlar coverings.

[Eashamahel]

For RIFTS,

I always just really loved the Cyberknight, as originally presented, in RIFTS. They are pretty much perfect to me, not a joke, not a ridiculous concept of a guy on a horse fighting against a tank, but a 'knight', a highly trained, professional soldier. Cyber Knights are extreme special forces, and although you can make one who tries to swordfight everything to death, you are more likely going to end up with a modern combatant who happens to also have the skills of a scholar. A trooper who, even when totally unprepared and unequipped, can still still fight, with his cyber armour and psi-sword, and who is often the match for several enemy combatants, not by virtue of crazy bonuses or special abilities, but just through significantly better training.

That being said, the Samurai is, to me, about the exact opposite in RIFTS. A crazy, sword-fight everything, use kung-fu against giant robots/demons kind of wacko who can parry bullets. Also definately very neat, but such a totally different concept it's hard to compare them.

[Alrik Vas]

Samurai. Is an anime fan.

The treatment of Samurai in anime is odd. I always see references to Samurai riding horses and wearing huge shredder-looking plate armor and helmets, but all the popular series (Rurouni Kenshin aka Samurai X, Samurai Deeper Kyo...) all seem to involve unarmored guys on foot with nothing but a sword and a kimono.

There were different periods in Japan. Mostly during the warring states period before the tokugawa dynasty, samurai were often armored because it was a time of war for most clans and families. Afterward during periods of stability, samurai were in some cases forbidden to wear armor, as doing so was to suggest they were going to war.

Anime protrays a lot of different periods in Japanese er..."history"...yes, so they (at times) attemtp to be accurate.

[Alrik Vas]

Though to answer the question...

I like the Samurai better, conceptually and mechanically in game. I do like me some cyberknight as well though...but Iaido wins for me.

[Vrykolas2k]

Pikemen weren't the anti-knight, just to be clear. They were anti-cavalry. Not all (hell, not even most) Knights were heavy cavalry. The English Longbow did a lot more to deter knights and re-write their place on the battlefield.

In one afternoon, 2000 english bowmen destroyed the flower of French chivalry, while taking almost no casualties of their own. Knights were already a non-issue on the battlefield (and Knighthoods primarily ceremonial/noble rewards) by the time guns became a real issue.

Welsh longbowmen.

[Hotrod]

Pikemen weren't the anti-knight, just to be clear. They were anti-cavalry. Not all (hell, not even most) Knights were heavy cavalry. The English Longbow did a lot more to deter knights and re-write their place on the battlefield.

In one afternoon, 2000 english bowmen destroyed the flower of French chivalry, while taking almost no casualties of their own. Knights were already a non-issue on the battlefield (and Knighthoods primarily ceremonial/noble rewards) by the time guns became a real issue.

Welsh longbowmen.

What's your source on that? Though the English longbow owed its inception to the Welsh, and Welsh bowmen were certainly an important part of the English army, the longbow became a dominant English weapon prior to Agincourt, and was fully adapted into English culture. There were certainly Welsh present, but it would surprise me if all, or even most of the archers were Welsh.

[say652]

I like the Smurai more in this contest but overall with so many knight variants I feel the Cosmo-Knight is the best Knight variant.

[say652]

I like the Smurai more in this contest but overall with so many knight variants I feel the Cosmo-Knight is the best Knight variant.

*Samurai

[Hotrod]

If we're talking about the most interesting knight OCC from a storytelling/role-playing perspective, the Fallen Knight is my favorite in the megaverse.

[keir451]

As much as I love the Samurai, I'd favor the Knights. Full battle plate armor, true warhorses and weapons that can crush a man's skull in a single blow!

[Ravenwing]

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MAKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE LIKE A SAMURIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!

Thank you backyardigans for that.

But in the eternal Knight Vs. Samurai, I prefer the Knight, especially if I'm playing one. Having to kill myself because I failed isn't my idea of fun.

[rat_bastard]

Who is Cooler in your Opinion ?

Knights or Samurai

and WHY ??

Mongols.

A proven ass kicking record, actual tactics and grenades, rockets and excellent ranged weapons.