Who would win?

[EmperorJeramyu]

Ninjas. Mother fucking ninjas.

[Glenn47]

Wow Jeramyu. Just wow.

[Exiled]

I don't think a spoiled noble could take on a samurai who practices night and day perfecting their talents.

Ninjas only win because of their "drop down from tree, throw shit in your eye, and then kill you while you're blinded trick."

I think the key here is speed...

[DSOK]

I don't think a spoiled noble could take on a samurai who practices night and day perfecting their talents.

No, but neither could a spoiled samurai take on a knight who has finely honed his skills, night and day. It works both ways.

[Impossible]

I refuse to vote until a mod adds the option "Ninja Pirate". They ALWAYS win.

[Strayed Wanderer]

No hybrid classes!

[Inderos]

I had an argument with my friend Matt in my Civics class. But only between pirates and ninjas. I've had arguments with other people about samurai and knights though.

As much as I would prefer pirates to kick all of the others' asses(I love One Piece), you have to remember a pirate's strength came from their numbers. Pirates were not trained fighters.

Traditional samurai and knights would be a fair match and the outcome would vary upon the combatants.

When most people have this argument, the people who say samurai would always win, aren't usually thinking of traditional samurai, but kenshi. Kenshi were swordsmen but not from the samurai caste. They often didn't not wear armor, so a battle between a knight and a kenshi, would end with the kenshi victorious because of his greater speed.

Ninjas are assasins. Not fighters trained for face to face combat. Ninja loses all others, despite his coolness.

[Excell]

[sarcasm]Yes Excell, everything is about you.[/sarcasm]

You said it right after me.

DSOK, a lot of the stuff you have said is true. I don't feel like typing a whole bunch of crap out here so I'll sum up. The main reason why they stopped riding horses into combat is because of the Mongol invasion. Their mounted samurai faired very poorly against Mongol cavalry.

Second point is that a samurai is a superior fighter in the general sense. A knight had no true swordplay. It was a far more hack and slash style of fighting due to the heavier armor worn in the west. It developed into a more brawn less skill style of fighting. True, the more advanced sword style used in Japan didn't come until around the era of fencing in Europe but Japan also developed far later.

Finally, a katana is the most superior sword ever created by man. This is not due to how it is smelt but how it is shaped and how it is balanced. It is fast, razor sharp and fairly hard to break. It also relies on more of a slashing style and allows for more skill than a European straight sword and has a stabbing advantage over a traditional Arabian sword. I think I've covered all the points I wanted to, but if not oh well.

Personally, I like Knights more. I like European history more. I just love katanas. But it doesn't really matter to me who wins. They all have a chance at it.

[Impossible]

Okay, well, excluding Ninja Pirates, Ninjas win. Always. Everyone else sucks.

[Porter]

Knight, hands down

[HolsteinCow]

Batman would come in and kill all four.

[War]

I would vote for a knight for the reason that they are meant to be on horse back for the heavy armor they waer. A knight uses more then swords unlike the Samurai who only uses a Sword. Knights use Mases, Axes, lances...ect. Also I would think even a highlander could beat a Samurai. Not trying to diss a Samurai, but a Highlander fought knights (on horseback) and could win. The Claymore is another reason you got to love the Highlander for. The katana many be harder then the Claymore, but the Claymore could strike first. Also Steel wasn't invited until the 1868 so stop saying Steel say metal.

[Strayed Wanderer]

I'm pretty sure steel was produced by smiths long before that.... that was the invention of a process to create steel easily.

[Impossible]

But before the knight can do anything, a Ninja attacks him with a flurry of ninja stars and he dies.

[Strayed Wanderer]

And by the way...

"The world production of steel grew exponentially (like chips today): 22 kto in 1867, 500 kto in 1870, 1 Mto in 1880 and 28 Mto around the turn of the century." (http://www.baronesteel.com/history.html)

"The process of converting iron into steel had long been known among
the Eastern nations before it was introduced into Europe. The Hindoos
were especially skilled in the art of making steel, as indeed they
are to this day; and it is supposed that the tools with which the
Egyptians covered their obelisks and temples of porphyry and syenite
with hieroglyphics were made of Indian steel, as probably no other
metal was capable of executing such work. The art seems to have been
well known in Germany in the Middle Ages, and the process is on the
whole very faithfully described by Agricola in his great work on
Metallurgy.*
[footnote...AGRICOLA, De Re Metallica. Basle, 1621....]"
(http://www.nimblewisdom.com/Iron_Worker ... N_HUNTSMAN)

They were mass producing steel a year before it was invented? and they were converting iron into steel for tools and weapons centuries before that?