[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
I would take the Legionnaire. They acted more efficiently as a fighting unit rather than one on one combat. Knights excel at solo battle. A Legionnaire was an average position in the Roman military. Knights were soldiers of distinction who also donned superior gear than the average fighter had.[/quote]
This was exactly my thought. The legionnaire was trained and equipped to fight as part of a unit. They really didn’t have tactics for single combat. For that reason, I would even pick the Viking to beat the legionnaire in single combat.
As far as the knight, if we’re talking about the best armor developed in the 13th to 14th century, you should consider that it was practically impenetrable and didn’t really restrict movement. On the other hand, knights on foot wouldn’t cover their faces as per the picture since breathing and peripheral vision are sort of important in combat. Of course, you could always choose the same equipment, but odds are he’s better at it than you are. You’re only real option is something really big and smashy that would get through the armor. [/quote]
Give me the berserker armor and I got that shit under control (hope someone gets the reference)
I still believe 1 on 1 the Viking would win. they were familiar with man to man combat where the Romans and Knights were used to formation fighting. even in large battles they fought independently. a Knight on foot was slow and clumsy, and the Roman Legionnaires didn’t have a good rep against an ax wielding foe. remember this is a single weapon and maybe a shield. Vikings were physically much larger than other races at that time and they did wear chain mail.
war axes were light, fast, and well balanced and since most were farmers or farmhands they grew up with an axe in their hand.
bearded war axe
[quote]silverblood wrote:
I still believe 1 on 1 the Viking would win. they were familiar with man to man combat where the Romans and Knights were used to formation fighting. even in large battles they fought independently. a Knight on foot was slow and clumsy, and the Roman Legionnaires didn’t have a good rep against an ax wielding foe. remember this is a single weapon and maybe a shield. Vikings were physically much larger than other races at that time and they did wear chain mail.
war axes were light, fast, and well balanced and since most were farmers or farmhands they grew up with an axe in their hand.
bearded war axe[/quote]
I am not disagreeing with the viking winning, but I do not recall Knights being formation fighters. A Medieval army consisted of a couple of handfuls of knights with mostly peasant farmers with swords and crappy gear. I thought the Knights were successful because they were able to break through enemy formations (on horse back) and introduce some chaos into the enemy ranks. I could be completely wrong though.
Knight if on foot, otherwise legionnaire. The berserk er would be straight up suicide, if one berseker can stall the entire Saxon army(Stamford bridge) im not too confident about my chances.
[quote]silverblood wrote:
I still believe 1 on 1 the Viking would win. they were familiar with man to man combat where the Romans and Knights were used to formation fighting. even in large battles they fought independently. a Knight on foot was slow and clumsy, and the Roman Legionnaires didn’t have a good rep against an ax wielding foe. remember this is a single weapon and maybe a shield. Vikings were physically much larger than other races at that time and they did wear chain mail.
war axes were light, fast, and well balanced and since most were farmers or farmhands they grew up with an axe in their hand.
bearded war axe[/quote]
I am not disagreeing with the viking winning, but I do not recall Knights being formation fighters. A Medieval army consisted of a couple of handfuls of knights with mostly peasant farmers with swords and crappy gear. I thought the Knights were successful because they were able to break through enemy formations (on horse back) and introduce some chaos into the enemy ranks. I could be completely wrong though.[/quote]
the armored knight was the best-known heavy cavalry warrior of the Medieval period. when the Knights charged they were in a line that was designed to break the enemy’s ranks. In fact, when foot soldiers held their ground, something that happened far more often than is realized, they usually defeated them unless the Knights were supported by infantry, and possibly archers of their own. when it broke down to single combat the foot soldiers tried to surround their Knight to protect him and his horse.
if you want to see what happens to Knights as they charge in formation look up the Battle of Agincourt.
Hint to the guys who, like me, are fighting the legionnaire: try and corrupt his commander and convince him you’re on their side. Then, when they’ve got their guard down, massacre him with all his little friends in the forest.
[quote]silverblood wrote:
I still believe 1 on 1 the Viking would win. they were familiar with man to man combat where the Romans and Knights were used to formation fighting. even in large battles they fought independently. a Knight on foot was slow and clumsy, and the Roman Legionnaires didn’t have a good rep against an ax wielding foe. remember this is a single weapon and maybe a shield. Vikings were physically much larger than other races at that time and they did wear chain mail.
war axes were light, fast, and well balanced and since most were farmers or farmhands they grew up with an axe in their hand.
bearded war axe[/quote]
I am not disagreeing with the viking winning, but I do not recall Knights being formation fighters. A Medieval army consisted of a couple of handfuls of knights with mostly peasant farmers with swords and crappy gear. I thought the Knights were successful because they were able to break through enemy formations (on horse back) and introduce some chaos into the enemy ranks. I could be completely wrong though.[/quote]
the armored knight was the best-known heavy cavalry warrior of the Medieval period. when the Knights charged they were in a line that was designed to break the enemy’s ranks. In fact, when foot soldiers held their ground, something that happened far more often than is realized, they usually defeated them unless the Knights were supported by infantry, and possibly archers of their own. when it broke down to single combat the foot soldiers tried to surround their Knight to protect him and his horse.
if you want to see what happens to Knights as they charge in formation look up the Battle of Agincourt.
[/quote]
Doesn’t count. Those were French Knights who got owned in that battle.
I am just kidding. Thanks for the great information.
[quote]silverblood wrote:
I still believe 1 on 1 the Viking would win. they were familiar with man to man combat where the Romans and Knights were used to formation fighting. even in large battles they fought independently. a Knight on foot was slow and clumsy, and the Roman Legionnaires didn’t have a good rep against an ax wielding foe. remember this is a single weapon and maybe a shield. Vikings were physically much larger than other races at that time and they did wear chain mail.
war axes were light, fast, and well balanced and since most were farmers or farmhands they grew up with an axe in their hand.
bearded war axe[/quote]
I am not disagreeing with the viking winning, but I do not recall Knights being formation fighters. A Medieval army consisted of a couple of handfuls of knights with mostly peasant farmers with swords and crappy gear. I thought the Knights were successful because they were able to break through enemy formations (on horse back) and introduce some chaos into the enemy ranks. I could be completely wrong though.[/quote]
the armored knight was the best-known heavy cavalry warrior of the Medieval period. when the Knights charged they were in a line that was designed to break the enemy’s ranks. In fact, when foot soldiers held their ground, something that happened far more often than is realized, they usually defeated them unless the Knights were supported by infantry, and possibly archers of their own. when it broke down to single combat the foot soldiers tried to surround their Knight to protect him and his horse.
if you want to see what happens to Knights as they charge in formation look up the Battle of Agincourt.
[/quote]
Doesn’t count. Those were French Knights who got owned in that battle.
I am just kidding. Thanks for the great information. [/quote]
I think the viking would take the legionnaire because their equipment, training and tactics weren’t that different from the saxons- and the saxons didn’t so much hand their asses to them as bludgeon them to death with their own asses.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Any unsupported cavalry attack against disciplined infantry is doomed to failure.
I’d fight the legion, though. Because fuck Romans.[/quote]
Not true. The guerrilla nature of the Picts for instance.
[quote]strongmanvinny wrote:
I don’t mean to come off as cocky, but I feel I’m fully capable of taking on a full grown Grizzly Bear. They might weigh upwards of 500lbs, but I can yoke well over 700, and lets be honest, if I’m opted to deadlift it, I will do so, and incapacitate the beast. I’ve got a pretty good grip, so I don’t think it’s going to be able to get out of my clutch, and as for it’s teeth, I’m very quick. They call me the Steel Wizard.
[/quote]
There’s a lot of things you’re not considering, my friend. Treat the bear as a living sandbag.[/quote]
That’s interesting insight, friend. But a 500lb sandbag is even out of reach by the most elite strongmen. Perhaps, I should drill handles into the bears spine allowing me to deadlift him, thus dominating him and killing him.
[/quote]
That’s kind of the point. A fighter is essentially always able to deadlift the weight of his opponent in strict bar weight. Yet one of them will lose.
In regards to the jaguar vs. caiman, that is really awesome. I wouldn’t have expected there to be that big of a difference between a jaguar and a mountain lion since they both look to be about the same size and probably have largely similar evolutionary forces driving them to be more aggressive and dangerous. [/quote]
They are not the same size. That’s an illusion.[/quote]
That’s because jaguars are into bodybuilding.[/quote]
They lift.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Any unsupported cavalry attack against disciplined infantry is doomed to failure.
I’d fight the legion, though. Because fuck Romans.[/quote]
Maybe, but the first infantry disciplined enough to withstand heavy armored cavalry were Swiss mercenaries.
To be disciplined when 500 tons of flesh approach you lightning fast with lances pointing at you is no small feat.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Any unsupported cavalry attack against disciplined infantry is doomed to failure.
I’d fight the legion, though. Because fuck Romans.[/quote]
Not true. The guerrilla nature of the Picts for instance.[/quote]
Guerilla is another word for cant face you on a battlefield.
English longbowmen of course worked around that problem, neither Crecy nor Agincourt was a good day for the French nobility.
[quote]Der_Steppenwolfe wrote:
Any unsupported cavalry attack against disciplined infantry is doomed to failure.
I’d fight the legion, though. Because fuck Romans.[/quote]
Not true. The guerrilla nature of the Picts for instance.[/quote]
Guerilla is another word for cant face you on a battlefield.
English longbowmen of course worked around that problem, neither Crecy nor Agincourt was a good day for the French nobility.
[quote]GrizzlyBerg wrote:
I would take the Legionnaire. They acted more efficiently as a fighting unit rather than one on one combat. Knights excel at solo battle. A Legionnaire was an average position in the Roman military. Knights were soldiers of distinction who also donned superior gear than the average fighter had.[/quote]
[quote]pushharder wrote:
The knights did not fare all that well against the Mongols but then again that may have been a sheer numbers thing.
Had the Khan’s general not turned around and returned to Mongolia for a family problem Europe may very well have been overrun and many of us would now have a bit of a slant to our eyes.[/quote]
that wouldn’t have been so bad. he hated ass kissers and ate with his troops. he let people worship whatever god or gods they wished. it was also said that “a man can ride from sun rise to sun set with a gold platter upon his head with out fear” as the Khan took any crime in his kingdom personally and would hunt them down himself if need be.
