14th February 2003, 12:15 PM
i don't remember the Knights vs Samurai argument very well as i didn't pay much attention to it. but i think that one thing was overlooked...the fact that a knight, by definition is mounted. this gives them an advantage over the samurai...at least in one area. i'm not saying that knights are better, or that they'd win in a fight, or anything like that. just that having a horse underneath them, an armored horse usually, puts them in a better position than say, a swordsman, would be against a samurai.
and i may be wrong, but i always thought that samurai were very heavily armored by asian standards...which still didn't compare to the plating of the europeans that hardly allowed the person inside to move. once again, when i say "doesn't compare," i mean in weight, not effectiveness.
and i may be wrong, but i always thought that samurai were very heavily armored by asian standards...which still didn't compare to the plating of the europeans that hardly allowed the person inside to move. once again, when i say "doesn't compare," i mean in weight, not effectiveness.
All the kids black and white, together we are dynamite.