Knight or Samurai?
Via geekpress we answer the timeless question, "In a fight, who would win, a medieval knight, or a samurai?"
Still no answer on whether Daisy Duke could beat a Charlie's Angel at foxy boxing, though. To the library!
Posted by
Johno
on
| § 1
on
| § 1
§ One Comment
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
While that was an interesting
While that was an interesting exercise, I've always had more fun pondering how armies or generals would do matched up against opponents they would never have had a chance to fight do to awkard, clumsy, one-way linear timeflow.
I still think that a Roman legion from say, Augustus' reign - ably led and with good intelligence - could defeat just about any army up to the 1400s. The only exceptions might be the English at the end of that period, and the Mongols. And, give them time to adapt to new weapons, give them flintlocks and a couple months' training, they could defeat just about anyone up to Napoleon.
The if I could pick and choose, for pre-gun warfare I would want an Augustan Legion, and then trash the pathetic gothic cavalry and replace them with Byzantine Cataphracts from around 500ad. (And give them stirrups.) Both are from the same military tradition - they'd understand each other, and both are pretty much the supreme example of their respective types - infantry and cavalry respectively. This army could defeat just about anything, including the Mongols.
It'd also be interesting to see what a great commander of the past would do with gunpowder weapons. I'd like to see a Belisarius or Hanibal v. Napoleon matchup. Or see how well Scipio Africanus would do against Stonewall Jackson.
Fun, fun, fun.