Pretty cool video feature, from one of my top ten web sites:

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=174904&page=7&ESRC=soldiertech.nl

Ah, it should be "10 weapons that changed the MODERN world". There was no mention in there for the samurai katana, arquebus or catapult.

or the stick or rock!

100,000,000 AK47's! Wow.

That's the most retarded thing I've heard all day.

I always wondered about the katana being touted as the most deadly swords or whatever. Can a 5-foot tall samurai really fend off a hulking 6-foot tall knight?

television should be at the top of the list

While it wasn't in the title credit, the host of the video right at the start added verbally that these were his choice of the top ten weapons of the last 60 years. That effectively eliminated any weapon introduced before 1948. That did make the video title a bit misleading.

Cheers

Ten human fingers attached to the human brain.

That's the ten weapons that changed the world.

Google Knight vs Samurai and you'll get a lot of "precise" matches.

the most respected article, from what I've read (not what I think) is said to be

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

(TBH I didn't/don't have the patience to read the full article)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, if you ask me, IMO the fact that the outcome is even debated is a result of all the media/press the samurai got in the last ?? years.

wow, how profound.

Always the polite and courteous one, aren't you?

I think 10 fingers were 'invented' before 1948

What was number 4 dammit!!!

Thanks for the article, it was a good read but I should have known. Kind of like which is better, the Su-27 or the F-15 in a dogfight. I think, in the end, the author just didn't want to offend anyone.

Personally, I think if you have ten bouts of knight vs. samurai, the knights would win the majority of the fights. It'd be like putting Pretty Boy Floyd in a ring with Lenox Lewis - more often than not, a knight would stomp the fish out of a samurai.

Knight v Samurai

End of

Did those ten REALLY change the world ? Cool video regardless, but I would have picked ten weapons from the Middle Ages until now, includind the English Longbow (decimated French knights in the 100 yrs war), gunpowder, machineguns (changed warfare forever), the Colt, the V2, the X2, the A bomb and a few others.

Regarding the Samurai Katana, yes, a 5 foot Samurai would have litteraly chopped a 6 feet 10 Knight to pieces. European middle ages battle hand weapons were not designed to cut, they were very heavy weapons designed to crush an shatter bones. While the knight would be slowed down by his armor (by the late 1300s knights had to be lifted on their horses with a crane and were dead meat the minute they were thrown off their steeds ) and would need great efforts to weild his blunt Flamberge, a Samurai could run in circles around him striking in the armor joints. The knight would have had no chance.
Those scenes in movies where you see knights chopping each other's heads off are inacurate, but Katanas DO cut.

Cheers

Nico

The knight-samurai debate is literally running circles in my head right now

Many specific points can be made. I mean, I could say Hijikata, of the shinsengumi wore a heavy chain mail that negated the mobility most would likely assume the samurai had over the knight.

However, if we take into consideration Miyamoto Mushashi, then we're talking about a totally different class of mobility demonstrated by his 2 sword style ---- a mobility and flexibility that was beyond even the average samurai during and "after" his time.

There is no question though, mobility could literally take the upper hand as demonstrated by the Mongols. However, the mobility of the Mongols were challenged by the Mamluks (spell check), who themselves were IIRC relying on heavy armor.

I think I'll have to agree that the "special forces" during the medieval period were the Samurai and the Mamluks.

However, there is this statement I read and I really can't remember if I read it in a book or on the web. There were reports during a certain time of "Invulnerable" Knights in the battlefield. These warriors were reputed to kill dozens of enemies without going down. IIRC they were part of the knights templar.

According to the source, these Knights attained such near "god" like capabilities by combining their armor with a training that was at least equal to the samurai. So you can imagine a knight with all the trappings of advanced protection plus the devotion of the samurai/mamluks to warfare.

This is an account I currently can't back up since I'm running out of patience going over the net and my books looking for it...

Erm, no. Mideval knights armour was in fact remarkably well articulated, and while the knights certainly wouldn't win any marathons, they were quite mobile (and quite able to mount a horse without a crane). By the same token, the armour was also incredibly expensive, sort of the mideval equivalent of a jet fighter or other top-of-the-budget military hardware.

If facing each other wearing just ordinary clothing, the samurai would, I suppose, win a sword fight, but against a fully armoured knight the outcome might be quite different. Since the samurai can't rely on his katana to harm the armoured knight, he must always be ready to evade or parry, whereas the knight can afford to be more aggressive. The samurai does have the advantage of being able to break off the fight as he's faster than the armoured knight, but that doesn't really constitute winning.

Respectfully

krise madsen

You should read the link provided above where the author explains that your whole post is a bunch of myths.

My top ten list of all time would have to include two things:

1. Fire
2. The composite recurved Mongolian bow.

I see Philip's Fart is not on the list.