European Knight vs. Japanese Samurai

Con has just committed plagiarism in that they didn't write a single word of their last post other than to say that they used the same sources. The amount of copy and paste is painfully obvious when one notices the odd non sequitors here and there. As such, I will be responding to the only actual arguments they've made.Samurais had heavier armor than knights, and that knights were more agile. However, this is not entirely true. Based on an actual experiment done by Science Magazine, it has been concluded that the steel plate armor of knights caused the wearer to be forced to expend 2.3 times the normal amount of energy required for walking and 1.9 times the normal amount of energy required for walking. Furthermore, the tight compressing of the chest caused by the armor and the low ventilation caused by the helmet made breathing much more difficult. As my sources clearly demonstrate, the Samurai did indeed wear heavier armor. Your source gives an exagerated number for the weight of European armor, and as such I would question its validity.Both knights and samurai were warriors who were most suited to horses. The difference is that the lower class samurai would act as foot soldiers and wear a light version of the O-Yoroi armor, while knights were nearly always horseback warriors, both on the battlefield and in tournaments. As a result, knights did not need a lighter version of the traditional armor, since in both tournaments and battles knights would ride on horseback. In the context of this particular fight, since the samurai knew that he (or she, since there were women samurai) would be fighting on the ground without horses, they would have opted for the O-Yoroi armor worn by infantry samurai. The high class O-Yoroi armor was typically worn for those samurai on horseback who would fight with arrows or yari, not ground fighting.No, there is no low class O-Yori, the armor worn by lower class Samurai was called Do-Maru. In this case, the Samurai was specified to be wearing the class of armor that is most equivalent to the Knight's armor. Con forgets that foot soldiers in Europe also wore a different kind of lighter armor (three quarters plate), but in this case both warriors were specified to be wearing what they would wear as a high class warrior. Do-Maru was certainly much closer to full plate in weight (maybe a little lighter), but Con may not change the terms of the debate after accepting them.Now, I will provide a brief simulation of what the actual battle will look like. The knight will know that he is completely protected, while the samurai will be unused to fighting such a heavily armored opponent and will initially be thrown off guard. He will then learn that his katana is unable to penetrate the opponent's armor, but is capable of deflecting the opponent's longsword quite easily, as it has much greater speed. This is incredibly silly. Anyone with any blade experience (such as myself, a fencer) would know that in a real fight, the blade makes contact with an opponant after very few actions. I've previously established that the notion that a Katana is more wieldly than a longsword is bogus, and even in the case of a blade that is much quicker, the slower blade still doesn't struggle to make contact. As an example, I've provided a bout between a longsword wielder and a rapier wielder (the rapier being much lighter and faster than any katana or longsword).However, the samurai will have more frequent combat training than the knight and will realize that the full suit of armor is taxing to the knight's body.This is utterly rediculous. I've also already established that the Samurai's armor is more taxing, especially in the context of the size of the warriors, and the idea that a Samurai has more training or combat experience is false and unfounded. As one of my earlier sources shows, knights began training between the ages of five and seven, saw action on the field of battle from their early teens, and were only knighted after intense training in the martial arts and significant battle experience. The Samurai is most definitely NOT the better trained warrior. Since the samurai himself wears lighter armor than the knightFalse., he will be able to lead the knight in a long, drawn our battle without much offense from either side.This is not how any bout of swordplay works, other than between complete amateurs. These are well trained professional soldiers. Con could have at least looked into some sword fighting before making such an erroneous claim. The samurai would be faster than the knight, both in terms of running speed and swinging speed, since the knight has heavy padding on his thighs, usually weighing 8 or 9 kilograms.One doesn't "swing" a blade, the samurai was more weighed down, and once again, I've established that the longsword handled as well or better than a katana, with more reach, versatility and thrusting ability. After several hours, the knight will be exhausted, and yet the samurai will not stop fighting because his honor is devoted to the battle, so the knight will not be able to enact a truth.Knights were just as honor bound as Samurai (chivalry vs bushido). This is yet another silly and erroneous claim being made by Con. Also, once again, no sword bout lasts longer than several minutes. Through sheer exhaustion, the knight will be forced to either surrender or retreat, since he has no way to force the samurai into direct confrontation. The battle will be long and hard fought, but definitely a victory for the samurai at the end.Con demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of combat, and completely disregards and refuses to adress the mountain of evidence and sources I've gathered.