a person in heavy armor has a rather vulnerable center of balance
tilting him or ramming ought to be enough to put em in the ground considering knights were not taught hand to hand combat but weapons combat mostly
this is why the soldier is my bet
the shield would be the biggest concern but lack of mobility is fairly essential in one on one
soldiers being trained in cqc would avoid going near the sharp pointy sword and stay in the blind spot the shield would provide
then its all a matter of stamina from there
samurai fight based on skill speed and the lack of shield and heavy armor increase versatility samurai blades are made specifically for slicing and stabbing so yeah they might win if its against a knife
cause cqc ain't got shit on a fast guy with a long ass sword
a katana is light you would be an idiot if you think it could beat a knight (cause of armor and shit) but against a guy with a knife and kevlar i would say the odds are 50-50( money on samurai due to bias)
basically from my perspective
knight>samurai
samurai>soldier with a knife
sk>knight
Armour wouldn't even play a role. A modern soldier armed with a combat knife with at least a month of training that isn't even centered in hand-to-hand combat vs. a knight with a sword's reach and a shield's protection that started training as early as 8 years old. Who do you think wins?
" a person in heavy armor has a rather vulnerable center of balance
tilting him or ramming ought to be enough to put em in the ground considering knights were not taught hand to hand combat but weapons combat mostly " No. Ringen is German medieval wrestling and is taught by all German masters, with someone only known as Ott Judd focusing on it. Italians call it Abrazare.
what about the cracks in the armor such as the eye slit and where the helmet meets the chest (unless they have chainmail there)? With the short length of the knife, it would be accurate enough to stab there. Also, as FrozenInk said, can't blunt force be a factor?
so the combatant at prime would be range from either 20 - 30
so thats roughly 20 years of training and practical wars as the knights that gain prestige often get fiefs or some shit and laze around like wankers
modern era vets can even go as far as 40 or so
training is scrubbed down to several months or a year at most
with the next decade or so of life in actual combat
Other than the eye-slits, maille protects those parts and under that maille is padded aketon. And don't think for a second that just because a vulnerability is there means it's easily exploitable, someone trained in fighting fully armoured knows where they are vulnerable and will be ready to act accordingly.
another is steel back then was tempered forged and made with lots of its impurities intact so in comparison to the steel now it is possible to pierce through it
@warlokid armor back then say crusades era arrow were shit less it pierced areas where the armor was thin
saracen arrows would never penetrate a crusaders thats fully armored
although saracen armor was thinner in comparison so christian arrows did its job sometimes~
3mm at the thickest but it's tempered and hardened steel, not rolled sheet steel. If lances on horseback can't reliably punch through armour then a guy with a knife can't.
@seriouslynope doesn't the field of vision narrow with a knight's helmet? you are seeing through slits most of the time. Can't that be taken advantage of? also, @Frozen ink , isn't that what shields are for? deflecting weapons with the potential to pierce through the armor? heehee love playing devil's advocate
Visors can be lifted. Most medieval manuscript shows men-at-arms with their visors lifted when in the melee, this gives proper ventilation and wide field of view.
"do note that weapons like crossbows could pierce them however" Not necessarily. A crossbow with 1000lbs draw will but the shorter and heavier bolt with only two fletching tend to lose stability and velocity throughout its travel quickly compared to arrows.
@seriouslynope it depend on the era as proper blacksmithing improved with the ages
impurities were still there
tempered still is after all pretty hard but can't absorb blunt force so even if a guy with a lance on a horse can't pierce it the guys gonna die from blunt force trauma
and modern combat knives can pierce metal a couple of mm thick ..
doesn't that provide a clear target? As @Frozen ink said, knights are undoubtedly less agile than without armor. What if you can out speed the knight and attack?
You can't. Giacomo Digrassi (a fencing master) wrote on what a knight in armour should be able to do, some people who wrote about the exploits of Jean "Marshall Boucicaut" LeMaingre the greatest knight of France agrees.
yeesh this is a seriously long conversation about the technicalities of armor. Fun (^.^)! @Frozen ink you should join AG . You seem to know you're stuff!
@Frozen ink Tempered steel is what swords are made of and they flex a lot to shed impact, the compound curves also help shed a lot of force away from the steel. And modern combat knives can pierce untreated sheet steel.
@seriouslynope ok so let go with knights from late medieval stage vs soldier armed w/Kevlar and modern knife
by this we do not mean plate armor cause those are for jousting
but go with chain mail which is lighter and meant for one on one combat
with a tempered steel sword and shield right?
thing about shields are they are fairly easy to take advantage of but then again the guys got a knife with very few place to go for so a hit and run strat oughta be the thing you go for
"oh ... so plate armor.... with chainmail underneath thats close to 50 kg worth of weight more or less but thats the tourny version right?
" That's too heavy for a field armour, they tend to go around 30-40 at most and is well distributed around the wearer's body. Compared to modern soldier? Watch.
Yes yes but Kevlar comes in a lot of variety as well simply put stamina wise soldiers are trained to last longer if in a war of attrition the soldier would win as wearing the armor itself is demanding enough
Comments on Profile Post by Wobbly