jeudi 20 février 2014

Knight Templar vs Samauri

Is it just me, or is the common assumption that a Samauri Warrior would be better equipped and better trained than the European equivalent a little bit... askew. I am by no means an expert on either, but I think the idea is based more on a lot of misconceptions about how clunky and clumsy a European knight (in this example a Templar) was when compared to the more mystical and elegant Japanese counterpart.



Take the armour. A fully armoured Knight was not (if I understand correctly) the nearly immobile tank who had to be winched onto his horse. Armour could be walked in, horses mounted in armour, and though heavy the armour was flexible enough to allow a knight to fight.



On the other hand a Katana, though incredibly effective in the right hands and an ingenious design, is perhaps not the ultimate weapon many of us assume. The folded metal is a very clever answer to an inherent weakness, which offers benefits, but remains fragile and easily felled by untrained hands. Even if the katana is the ultimate weapon when used as depicted in popular culture, the seemingly less effective Longsword remains more durable with a flexible blade that remains more resilient in combat.



Would that be a fair assessment?





via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1dSQXZW

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire