The Instigator
max_p_robertson
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
wierdman
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
wierdman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/11/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,927 times Debate No: 18289
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

max_p_robertson

Pro

I think that knights where the best warrior before the invention of gunpowder

awaiting challenger

please lay down the weapons and armor

Maximilian Gothic plate armour
mail

morning star . special weapon
broadsword . short range
Halberd (or lance) . mid range
crossbow long range
wierdman

Con

We meet again...

Before the main round begin, i would like to state one characteristic that makes a knight inferior to the vikings, gladiator and the samurai. This characteristic been that they are ruthless. Unlike the Viking, the gladiator and vikings were barbaric warriors who cared not for loyalty. The samurai where more loyal to the ones the served and unlike the knight, would never run away from a challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
max_p_robertson

Pro

please choose only one

and Knights would not run away and could be very ruthless, due to a slight superiority complex

congrats on cats and dogs
wierdman

Con

Thank you and good luck on this debate.

Sorry but my debating style does not allow me to focus on one warrior alone and since the resolution does not limit me to one warrior, i am not inclined to only select one warrior. 9i am not trying to be a jerk, I just can't select one war

I would like to start by comparing the characteristics that makes a knight a great warriors to the characteristics that makes other warriors great.

Weapon: To be the best warrior, one must have the greatest mastery of weapons in whatever way possible. Whether the weapon is your fist, hammer, sword or spear you must be able to overcome your opponents weapon to be the best. In terms of share power, it is clear that the Japanese katana is unmatched in both sharpness and cutting power. The Knight is trained to fight as a unit and not as an individual. True they are trained to fight individual battles to some extent (jousting), they are still no match for the samurai who is solely trained to fight in individual battles.
http://www.thearma.org...

Short range: When it comes to short range attacks, it is clear that the viking surpasses the knight is every way possible. There fighting skill is superb, there weapons (ax) is stronger than the sword and in some cases sharper than the sword. The Axe is designed to excell in both short and mid range battles. The vikings were also ruthless killers who killed everyone that stood in there way despite there heritage. The Vikings liked in rigorous places making them physically stronger than a knight and since they had to have an immense amount of skill to survive, they were more skillful than a knight. This is why in a combat between a viking and a knight, the viking would win due to skills and an effective weapon.

http://www.hurstwic.org...

Cross bow long range: This is no competition, the archer would obviously win due to skills. The archer is trained for long range attacks unlike the knight who is trained only for close range attacks. http://www.medieval-spell.com...
Debate Round No. 2
max_p_robertson

Pro

To "Sorry but my debating style does not allow me to focus on one warrior alone and since the resolution does not limit me to one warrior, I am not inclined to only select one warrior" I am very sorry but you half to choose whole warriors not juts parts of them

the topic is about the night being the best worrier in history. he may not have all better weapons than some warriors but all around it evens out

like if you are an archer up ageist a knight the archer would shoot at him and(since it has sloped armor http://en.wikipedia.org... read) the arrow would glance of the night. then the night would behead him if the archer didn't run away first, plus the knight probably would have blocked the arrow with his shield

if the Viking attacked a knight with an axe at the most get through the knights plate armor but not his chain male. Now the Viking has his weapon stuck in The Vikings armor(if it got past the shield) and then the knight kills the Viking with his morning star

by the way the fight takes place in a field in the holy roman empire(so basically Germany)

for the samurai. the katana is not made to fight against Maximilian Gothic plate armour( abbreviated MGPA ). MGPA has a design that makes it difficult to puncher with any thing other than a stab from the tip of a straight edged weapon

gladiators where slaves and only fought animals and one another their chest was unprotected. their are many types of gladiators so please be specific

thank you
wierdman

Con

"like if you are an archer up ageist a knight the archer would shoot at him and(since it has sloped armor http://en.wikipedia.org...... read) the arrow would glance of the night. then the night would behead him if the archer didn't run away first, plus the knight probably would have blocked the arrow with his shield"

It seems that my opponent misunderstood me, i wasn't saying that the archer could defeat a knight in a hand to hand combat, i was simply saying that the archer is far superior to the knight when it comes to long distance fighting. The archer could kill tens of men form atop a tree while the knight would have to resolve to one on one combat due to low skills in long distance combat.

"if the Viking attacked a knight with an axe at the most get through the knights plate armor but not his chain male. Now the Viking has his weapon stuck in The Vikings armor(if it got past the shield) and then the knight kills the Viking with his morning star"

A vikings axe is designed to sustain mid range fighting meaning that if the Viking's Axe gets stuck, the viking can quickly let go of the weapon fast enough to shield himself from a strike. The Viking is also equipped with other weapons such as a fighting hammer which would easily crush the Knights underneath his armor. Not to mention the amount of force the viking's shield alone could exert if the viking was forced to use it as an attack mechanism. The Viking is also equiped with huge swords that would overpower the Knights sword.
http://www.hurstwic.org...
http://www.hurstwic.org...

"for the samurai. the katana is not made to fight against Maximilian Gothic plate armour( abbreviated MGPA ). MGPA has a design that makes it difficult to puncher with any thing other than a stab from the tip of a straight edged weapon"

The samurai's way of fighting was not to inflict direct damage on his opponent but to find weak points that would lead to his opponents downfall. "Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor."
http://www.thearma.org...

gladiators where slaves and only fought animals and one another their chest was unprotected. their are many types of gladiators so please be specific

We are talking hypothetically. There is no way for a samurai and a knight to fight. As far as specification, i do not have to specify as all gladiators no matter what rank or type fight in the same manner and use practically the same weapons.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
max_p_robertson

Pro

A Viking's axe is designed to sustain mid range fighting meaning that if the Viking's Axe gets stuck, the Viking can quickly let go of the weapon fast enough to shield himself from a strike. The Viking is also equipped with other weapons such as a fighting hammer which would easily crush the Knights underneath his armor. Not to mention the amount of force the Viking's shield alone could exert if the Viking was forced to use it as an attack mechanism. The Viking is also equipped with huge swords that would overpower the Knights sword"

to the Viking hammer the knight brings the morning star (mace version) witch has spikes. the Viking only has mail as an armor and although he can really dish it out he cant take it ( the knight can do a fairly good job in doing both.

"several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it, just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor"

Under the gaps and joints in MGPA is chain mail( and not open link Asian mail but riveted European mail ) leaving no spot unattended. Europeans stabbed at the rib in the middle of the armor, to go for vital organs not limbs where the only openings are.

I'm Sorry but I'm not a very big reference person.

thank you for this delightful debate.
wierdman

Con

"to the Viking hammer the knight brings the morning star (mace version) witch has spikes. the Viking only has mail as an armor and although he can really dish it out he cant take it ( the knight can do a fairly good job in doing both."

The Vikings life style alone is enough to suggest that they could have sustained immense amount injuries while fighting. They were also very agile people which would give them an advantage over the knights limited movement.

http://www.instructables.com...

The image shows us that there were indeed openings in the European chain mail which could have been easily probed by the Japanese katana. My opponent forgets the fact that the katana could indeed cut through metals with ease.

Thank you for the debate and i learned quite a lot from you.
Debate Round No. 4
max_p_robertson

Pro

and thank you for this was an amazing debate
I hope to find other warriors to match the Knight

I hope to meet you in a different debate

best wishes max
(its like a letter)
wierdman

Con

Since this is the last round, i cannot continue to argue.

I thank my opponent for a fun debate and hope to debate him soon.

I urge the voters to vote for me because i presented all my topics as well as countered my opponents points.

It was a great debate and i wish my opponent the best of luck in future debates.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by DictatorIsaac 6 years ago
DictatorIsaac
There really should have been some clarifications, esp. with terms like "best warrior."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
max_p_robertsonwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling was obvious. As for arguments, Pro did not do as good of a job as was needed against the field. Though it was a very enjoyable debate and I look forward to others like it.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 6 years ago
darkhearth
max_p_robertsonwierdmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Better spelling and grammar goes to Con due to significant spelling issues on pro's side. Con to me made the most convincing argument in this debate. As for sources, Wikipedia is not a reliable source (pro).