Member
Member
Member
Junior Member
Knights all the way. I have always been infatuated with the medieval times so I would have to go with the knights, even though the Vikings were as well part of the dark and iron ages.
The knights are noble, might have a slower swing then the other 2 do to the armor slowing down movement, but they should be more powerful as well, and if the knights are true to there history, depending what age the knights are taken from, swords stopped penetrating the knights armor making the swords useless, that is when the war hammer was created. it could create fatal blows without penetrating the armor and that nice sicle point at full force on the helmet would pierce it.
KNIGHTS ALL THE WAY....One of KING ARTHURS legions no doubt.
Junior Member
Yeah, it's a legit thing. The move that the knight specifically uses is called the "murder stroke" which sounds really badass, but essentially the idea is that you turn your longsword into a makeshift warhammer which can bash in armor and hook and pull limbs. It's not as good as a proper warhammer, but a sword on it's own does terribly against armor unless it is very specifically designed, and even then not as well as a hammer or spear.Originally Posted by Djakitchen Go to original post
As for the question, historically speaking the knights would almost certainly win in a fight between the three. Better armor, better weapons.
That being said, TO HELL WITH HISTORY! I AM A VIKING! ODIN SHALL GIVE ME POWER, THOR SHALL GIVE ME STRENGTH, AND LOKI WILL GIVE ME CUNNING!!! YOU SILLY KNIGHTS AND SAMURAI WILL FALL BEFORE THE FURY OF THE NORTH!!!
