Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Medival European Knight vs a Japanese Samurai

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Galfirdus View Post
    Archers, again failed comparison. Your first post in this topic indicated samurai killing the knight's horse in melee and pirateship read that post as such as well, pirateship tried to fight such a claim, I on the other hand agree with you but I am very much against using the idea and throw the whole thing out as been an unfair tactical situation(mounted vs dismounted) that is unfit to determine the superior unit. But with that gone you bring up a battle where the knights are beaten by terran then you bring up a battle where the knights lose to combined arms warfare.
    My comparison was aimed at the vulnerability of forcefully dismounted knights. I have already presented 2 cases which show dismounted knights were "killable". This supports my initial claim that the samurai if succesful in bringing down the knight by taking out the horse, would win.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Imperial View Post
      My comparison was aimed at the vulnerability of forcefully dismounted knights. I have already presented 2 cases which show dismounted knights were "killable". This supports my initial claim that the samurai if succesful in bringing down the knight by taking out the horse, would win.
      Nether of the battles mentioned in anyway portray knights as been ineffective in dismounted combat, all it shows is that the knights like everyone else can not move well in mud and like everyone else takes damage when their horses are shot down by arrow fire, both of those weakness are inherent in both knight and samurai making all your posts 100% useless.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Galfirdus View Post
        Nether of the battles mentioned in anyway portray knights as been ineffective in dismounted combat, all it shows is that the knights like everyone else can not move well in mud and like everyone else takes damage when their horses are shot down by arrow fire, both of those weakness are inherent in both knight and samurai making all your posts 100% useless.
        Hmm, what's your beef with my posts? I mean I can disagree with you or argue with you on an issue, but the thought of stating all your posts are 100% useless never crossed my mind. What's your problem, dude?

        Now for the subject discussed, my 2 examples show that the tactic of going after the horse first then finishing off the knight who's mobility and defense was disrupted, was used. This in support of my initial opinion that the samurai will attack the horse and if successful will then easily neutralise the fallen knight. I don't see why you should be upset about this.

        cheers

        Comment


        • Because it is not relevant to the topic, it doesn't make the samurai look better or the knight look worse, it doesn't bring us any closer to the end goal of this topic. We should focus on the advantages one has have over the other.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Galfirdus View Post
            Because it is not relevant to the topic, it doesn't make the samurai look better or the knight look worse, it doesn't bring us any closer to the end goal of this topic. We should focus on the advantages one has have over the other.
            Okay, let's say there are no horses or mud or any other thing that would impede either combatant. A flat, grippable surface with nothing to trip either man and plenty of room to move around. I don't see the knight catching the samurai if the knight is fully armored, then he would tire and the samurai could pick and choose his spots of attack and finish the knight off. The samurai would just keep dancing out of range of the knight, of course the samurai would tire also but not at the rate of the knight.

            I looked into my samurai books to find a weight of the samurai armor but it wasn't listed. If anyone knows the weight of both styles of armor I think it would be very helpful in this ongoing(8 pages now! ) debate. So if anyone knows please post it.

            I must also correct an earlier post I made regarding the samurai armor. It was made of cotton and leather but also had small metal plates that were laquered to prevent rusting and then woven into a form of armor with the leather and cotton. So this would make the samurai armor heavier, it still would not be as heavy as the knight's but at the same time it could take a little more punishment than I earlier stated. Sorry if this confused or misled anyone in this discussion. I really need to look things up before I post. No more shooting from the hip.
            Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

            Comment


            • Elements of European armour were incorporated into later period Samurai armour, such as the one piece steel breast plate.

              The European emphasis on shock attacks using the lance and mass charges might also prove superior to the Samurai emphasis on melee, when it comes to battle, as opposed to a duel.

              By the 16th and 17th Century, Japanese armies fought using many European elements in their battle, particularly with the increasing emphasis on the infantry, on the use of massed firepower using bows and firearms, with the calvary (i.e. the Samurai) being of declining importance.

              I can't say which would be better in a duel.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by revans View Post
                Okay, let's say there are no horses or mud or any other thing that would impede either combatant. A flat, grippable surface with nothing to trip either man and plenty of room to move around. I don't see the knight catching the samurai if the knight is fully armored, then he would tire and the samurai could pick and choose his spots of attack and finish the knight off. The samurai would just keep dancing out of range of the knight, of course the samurai would tire also but not at the rate of the knight.

                I looked into my samurai books to find a weight of the samurai armor but it wasn't listed. If anyone knows the weight of both styles of armor I think it would be very helpful in this ongoing(8 pages now! ) debate. So if anyone knows please post it.

                I must also correct an earlier post I made regarding the samurai armor. It was made of cotton and leather but also had small metal plates that were laquered to prevent rusting and then woven into a form of armor with the leather and cotton. So this would make the samurai armor heavier, it still would not be as heavy as the knight's but at the same time it could take a little more punishment than I earlier stated. Sorry if this confused or misled anyone in this discussion. I really need to look things up before I post. No more shooting from the hip.
                Now we are talking, I now have an image in my head of your idea. It is a good tactic to employ against a superior armoured foe but there are things to take into consideration, first(this isn't to revans but to others who might mistake his tactic for been battle effective) this will of cause only work in a duel, in battle even if both sides fight in the loosest formation there will still not be enough room to evade like that, you ether end up running into a foe/ally dead/alive falling over or one of the many enemies who you haven't got your eye on will cut you down while your evading their allies.

                In a duel the only environment it can be used in then what type of duel, if it is a duel in peace time with two fighters setting up an arrangement to meet and fight to the death it is likely both fighters wont be armoured at all meaning all bets are off and the victory will be the most experienced fighter. If it's a duel in a battle then you have to remember that duels are about honour and such a tactic would be dishonourable and if the duel becomes dishonourable in a battlefield then the other warriors will no longer respect it, interfere and the two duelist will end up in group fighting where the tactic becomes unusable.

                Comment


                • Sir John Without His Trusty Steed

                  Horses were a big deal for the knights. I think that much of the initial shock value of a heavy cavalry with lances was thanks to the European horses. These were bulky, beefy, big (i'm running out of synonyms here) animals bred for their weight. Their weight came in handy in a knights' charge on the field, because it augmented the reach of the lance with momentum, "mass in motion". Therefore, the best role a knight could serve was to provide "mass" and the best role a horse could serve was "motion". The initial collission in such a charge had a devastating, demoralizing effect on troops as well as a visceral, physical effect. Once in the throng of battle the knight could throw his lance and take out his broadsword or mace and start bashing skulls. This was not the norm however! Usually knights attempted to flank, like any cavalry force, or to mop up routing foes, or to CHALLENGE the heavy cavalry, if there were any, forces of the enemy and beat them in a series of duels.
                  I think that Galfirdus is right that many soldiers would have tried to "knock out" the horse and many did try and succeed! Who is to say that pikemen, as the swiss demonstrated, were not successful in one bristling mass of spear points. That is why, as I already mentioned, knights were reserved for the aforementioned three main roles in a battle: flanking, pursuing, and dueling. Kings, or generals, witheld the knights from a charge against massed infantry. The French, according to the usual practices (cavalry against archers was a "usual practice"), charged them against the longbowmen at Crecy, not realizing the power of this new bow yet and suffered enormous losses.

                  Now, in terms of flanking and pursuing this is irrelevant to the topic. The topic is dueling: the fantasy scenario of a knight dueling a samurai.
                  If both are mounted, both had an equal intelligence and cunning, the knight would avoid charging the bow -armed samurai with his flee-footed horse(in order to avoid exhausting himself and his animal, which would leave them vulnerable), while the equally perceptive samurai would stay far (even with a yari) from a plate armored knight sporting a long, nasty lance and his chain-mail protected horse. Here I think that the samurai could try to pepper the knight, or more likely, the horse with arrows. However, I don't know how effective that would be because samurai did not have the special armor-piercing arrows that the mongols had. What is likely to happen is a stalemate - in reality.
                  If they unmounted their horses to duel each other on an OPEN TERRAIN (not a castle or something where the knight would have an advantage; small spaces neutralize mobility, remember) the knight would quickly exhaust himself swinging and thrusting a broadsword while bearing 70-100 pounds - and before you jump at this and start spewing "facts" at me that "actually a knight's body armor amounted to no more than 30-50 lbs and blah blah blah", take a deep breath and remember that it wasn't just plate: plate AND chain-mail AND clothes underneath. So eventually, when the knight is fatigued from throwing his weight around, pun intended, the samurai would knock him down using, I guess, his jujutsu skills (an ancient japanese martial art; remember that samurai were also skilled at disarming and killing opponents using jujutsu EVEN when unarmed!!), disarm him, take his helmet off, and slash his throat. Even though they are, as we assumed, equally intelligent and cunning, in an unmounted duel the knight would be at a loss as to what to do with the fast-moving, feinting, and ducking swordsman, and in two minutes, no matter how good of a shape he is, Sir John will be sweating profusely and short of breath. The samurai, who is equally intelligent and cunning will avoid full contact sparring with this metal giant, until the metal giant starts to slow down. All that a samurai has to do is outlast the knight and he will, again, assuming equal measures of intelligence and cunning. Your guys' thoughts?
                  Last edited by biliev1; 08 Feb 07, 18:37.

                  Comment


                  • Damn, you said it very well! I stated the same idea previously but not as eloquently or in such detail. Thank you, Bob
                    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                    Comment


                    • Ok,

                      A Knight V. Samurai play by play that involves all areas of the arts.

                      Assuming the following:

                      Field: Open Grassland in all directions
                      Time: Morning (0900 Lima)
                      Concession to Time: Samurai has limited arrows (7) (This will be clear in a minute. Samurai will actually use more energy trying to shoot knight than knight will use to get away from arrows)
                      Situation: Challenge has been offered to Knight by Samurai. Challenge has been accepted. Retreat is not an option. Nor is a long distance running battle. Battle must be offered within 1000meters of current battle field center.
                      Contestants:

                      Knight: Fully Trained Knight with the following accoutrements: Warhorse with chainmail blanket and front, covered in front by a decorated piece of leather.
                      Sword: Single handed broadsword and small thrusting dagger
                      Shield: Standard Heater
                      Armor: Plate chest and thighs, greaves and shoulders, arms and gauntlets. Chain Mail gorget and hauberk, and forming joints between plates (Total plate suits being insanely overweight)
                      Helmet: Full Helm with conical top and vision slit
                      Pole Arm: Combat (not jousting) Lance

                      Samurai: FT S Following: Japanese horse and saddle
                      Sword: Katana and Tanto
                      Shield: (None)
                      Bow: Standard Japanese Horseman's bow, Standard Japanese (Broadhead) arrows
                      Armor: Laminated wood with limited light metal over silk
                      Helmet: Wood and metal dragon with face piece
                      Pole Arm: Yari (Same in length as lance)

                      Range: Starting 300meters


                      The battle:

                      Samurai opens up the engagement by riding quickly within arrow range, loosing arrow 1. Miss.
                      Samurai dances right to get a flank shot, knight simply turns his horse to face S. Miss
                      Samurai continues to roll right for flank shot, knight simply brings horse to a walk and aims towards S. Arrow glances off shield on left side of K.
                      S rolls left for flank, K compensates again. glance off shield and helm
                      S charges in to close range, K braces for impact and angles shield. S shoots at horse. Tears leather but is stopped by mail.
                      S gets behind knight and turns to fire rear shot. Knight quickly wheels around. Glances off mail blanket of horse.
                      S quickly fires round 7 and turns to advance. Knight spurs his horse forward. Miss

                      Lance Duel: Samurai unbuckles his Yari and turns to face knight.
                      (note: S has run his horse roughly 450-650 yards now while K horse has hardly moved)
                      K angles shield, tilts lance and brings his horse to a trot.
                      S does same with lance and horse.
                      Using his speed, S aims for K. K aims for SH. S wheels SH at last minute making K miss. S glances off shield.

                      Both turn their horses and face off again.
                      (S now knows he has problem with shield at gallop (~25mph) speed. K knows SH is maneuvering faster.)

                      Both tilt and gallop towards each other. Both aiming for horse.
                      At last second K bodychecks shield out and wheels his horse to a hard stopping turn into S.
                      S. Yari hits KH on right side, breaking through links and mauling Right shoulder and leg.
                      K. Lance hits SH on left side piercing deep into chest cavity. K. Shield hits S helmet.
                      S is dismounted while KH is badly wounded. K gets off horse.

                      Hand to hand duel. Both spears are impaled and therefore useless.

                      Hand to hand duel tommorrow due to current time constraints!

                      Who will win?

                      The dismounted but relatively unhurt samurai?

                      Or the unmounted and unscathed knight?
                      Last edited by TacCovert4; 08 Feb 07, 21:29.
                      Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by biliev1 View Post
                        Horses were a big deal for the knights. I think that much of the initial shock value of a heavy cavalry with lances was thanks to the European horses. These were bulky, beefy, big (i'm running out of synonyms here) animals bred for their weight. Their weight came in handy in a knights' charge on the field, because it augmented the reach of the lance with momentum, "mass in motion". Therefore, the best role a knight could serve was to provide "mass" and the best role a horse could serve was "motion". The initial collission in such a charge had a devastating, demoralizing effect on troops as well as a visceral, physical effect. Once in the throng of battle the knight could throw his lance and take out his broadsword or mace and start bashing skulls. This was not the norm however! Usually knights attempted to flank, like any cavalry force, or to mop up routing foes, or to CHALLENGE the heavy cavalry, if there were any, forces of the enemy and beat them in a series of duels.
                        I think that Galfirdus is right that many soldiers would have tried to "knock out" the horse and many did try and succeed! Who is to say that pikemen, as the swiss demonstrated, were not successful in one bristling mass of spear points. That is why, as I already mentioned, knights were reserved for the aforementioned three main roles in a battle: flanking, pursuing, and dueling. Kings, or generals, witheld the knights from a charge against massed infantry. The French, according to the usual practices (cavalry against archers was a "usual practice"), charged them against the longbowmen at Crecy, not realizing the power of this new bow yet and suffered enormous losses.

                        Now, in terms of flanking and pursuing this is irrelevant to the topic. The topic is dueling: the fantasy scenario of a knight dueling a samurai.
                        If both are mounted, both had an equal intelligence and cunning, the knight would avoid charging the bow -armed samurai with his flee-footed horse(in order to avoid exhausting himself and his animal, which would leave them vulnerable), while the equally perceptive samurai would stay far (even with a yari) from a plate armored knight sporting a long, nasty lance and his chain-mail protected horse. Here I think that the samurai could try to pepper the knight, or more likely, the horse with arrows. However, I don't know how effective that would be because samurai did not have the special armor-piercing arrows that the mongols had. What is likely to happen is a stalemate - in reality.
                        If they unmounted their horses to duel each other on an OPEN TERRAIN (not a castle or something where the knight would have an advantage; small spaces neutralize mobility, remember) the knight would quickly exhaust himself swinging and thrusting a broadsword while bearing 70-100 pounds - and before you jump at this and start spewing "facts" at me that "actually a knight's body armor amounted to no more than 30-50 lbs and blah blah blah", take a deep breath and remember that it wasn't just plate: plate AND chain-mail AND clothes underneath. So eventually, when the knight is fatigued from throwing his weight around, pun intended, the samurai would knock him down using, I guess, his jujutsu skills (an ancient japanese martial art; remember that samurai were also skilled at disarming and killing opponents using jujutsu EVEN when unarmed!!), disarm him, take his helmet off, and slash his throat. Even though they are, as we assumed, equally intelligent and cunning, in an unmounted duel the knight would be at a loss as to what to do with the fast-moving, feinting, and ducking swordsman, and in two minutes, no matter how good of a shape he is, Sir John will be sweating profusely and short of breath. The samurai, who is equally intelligent and cunning will avoid full contact sparring with this metal giant, until the metal giant starts to slow down. All that a samurai has to do is outlast the knight and he will, again, assuming equal measures of intelligence and cunning. Your guys' thoughts?
                        What about group melee? The knight is a soldier, a fighter of war, is that to be ignored and instead we focus on an ego contest that will have little to no effect on nations. Fare enough throwing out flanking and pursing yet you jump right to dueling and pretend group melee isn't an option, if your going to ignore it at least admit it. And why would the knight tire from swinging his sword? Real swords can end in 1 to 4 strikes and more then that is rare, unless both fighters have a shield which we agree they wont. The weight of a knight's sword is no more then that of a katanta.

                        Interestingly, the weight of katanas compared to longswords is very close with each on average being less than 4 pounds.
                        As for the Armour I'm sorry but I just have to

                        Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move.
                        http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

                        I tried to do this my self but if we keep going like this it will go on forever. I'm going to seek better wisdom on the subject from some people who know far more about this then me. I will return ether with reinforced knowledge or a note of surrender to your idea(in duel fighting only, it is 100% impossible in battle even in the loosest of army formations).
                        Last edited by Galfirdus; 09 Feb 07, 06:46.

                        Comment


                        • Knight Vs. Samurai:

                          CLOSE COMBAT HAS BEGUN!

                          To recap:

                          Hand to hand duel. Both spears are impaled and therefore useless.

                          Hand to hand duel tommorrow due to current time constraints!

                          Who will win?

                          The dismounted but relatively unhurt samurai?

                          Or the unmounted and unscathed knight?

                          The rest can be read in my preceding post.

                          K and S approach each other, starting to circle as they size up their opponent.

                          Immediately availible pros/cons (K is slightly slower due to weight of armor, but that armor will protect him from most of the fast slashes of the S. S is faster by weight, but armor will not protect against heavily driven bludgeoning blows or stabs, only against slashes. S must try to stab K in mail covered areas, while K can simply hack virtually anywhere for some affect. K is also marginally taller than S, giving him advantage in arm reach, despite any difference in sword length.)

                          Assumption: Both of these men have been training at their respective art for quite some time, meaning that while the K is more heavily laden, for fighting purposes, his stamina will be nearly equal to S, as he has trained extensively with both his sword (or a heavier training version) and shield (or HTV) while S has trained extensively with his marginally lighter armor and weaponry.

                          Concession to Time: A general engagement seems imminent, so the two champions must square off and emerge victorious in a reasonable timeframe, otherwise they will find themselves well outside their own lines when the archers open up.

                          S and K continue to circle.

                          S comes in with a quick slice to Ks shield side (S has trained to attack the enemy's off side, as he is used to fighting against unshielded opponents. K catches blow on top corner of shield, doing little damage to the shield.

                          K brings a hard top blow at collarbone area of S on S's sword side. (K has trained against shielded opponents and will attack lesser defended sword side to test enemy skill.) S sidesteps and catches blow on sword, no damage.

                          Using the combo of shield and sword, K immediately returns to a defensive stance, but recoils his sword for offense. (S must be both defensive and offensive with same weapon.)

                          Seeing Ks slightly slower movement, S rolls under Ks next blow, deflecting it just aside with katana before delivering his own blow against K's sword side. Blade is caught on recoiling Ks bracer. slight bruise underneath bracer.

                          At this point the battle could go all day, blow and counterblow until one makes a mistake. Two points of interest. The S has the ability to draw his Tanto, giving him limited parrying ability, though making his own sword blows less effective. In conclusion, S must manuever K into a position for either a hard hacking blow against helm, something that would daze K and open him up for the kill, or a stab against visor or mail covered joints.
                          K must hit S, preferably in an arm first, to slow him down, then follow up with either a hack or stab to torso or head. This is now not a function of weapons systems, but a function of skill and no small amount of luck. This concludes our examination of the two weapons systems, Knight and Samurai, in question.
                          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

                          Comment


                          • Round 2

                            Thank you Revans, if you were addressing me.

                            Galfirdus, I agree that a Medieval broadsword is not that heavy in principle - that both katanas and broadswords made of tempered steel must be confined within identical boundaries in all practicallity; the katana is not magical and neither is the broadsword. However, some broadswords, due to the personal preferences of the individual knights were made longer or thicker, resulting in varying degrees of weight. I have browsed data from several websites, including this interesting compilation of sword stats at http://www.palus.demon.co.uk/Sword_Stats.html.

                            Galfirdus, check this one out too about the armor: http://www.swordsandarmor.com/mediev...ail-armor.html. The estimate on this one for chain-mail ALONE runs from 45-55 lbs. Plate and chain mail combos were not uncommon (in order to protect the knight from his weak areas or joints, which the German school of swordsmanship taught knights to exploit) - although this website http://library.thinkquest.org/10949/fief/medknight.html mentions that full-plate armored knights used primarily a combination of plates and the gambesons, linen-made "pads" that lent some comfort to the overall rather uncomfortable attire. Interestingly, this site contradicts other sites that too claim to dispel myths with "raw facts" and states that the knight's sword "was about thirty-two pounds"! I have observed a number of similar contradictions amongst the several sites I have visited that 'discuss' Medieval arms and men-at-arms, including the arma website. This has, needless to say, confounded me as a student and an amateur of the Middle Ages military history. I have read things that have confirmed AND contradicted my own assumptions and academic 'knowledge' of Medieval warfare.

                            I have decided to buy the "Medieval Knight" a book by David Edge, which claims historical accuracy and no-nonsense facts. We shall see...

                            About the samurai: http://www.japanese-armor.com/japanese-armor.shtml this site claims to reproduce authentic kikou and kabutos, armor and helmets, the weight estimates are 60-65 lbs total NOT including the likely kimono which the samurai would have worn underneath.

                            Galfirdus, you need not "surrender" in regards anything in this mere discussion of a fantastical fantasy scenario. If we are debating, I believe our object is not to defeat or best each other in argument over this but to gain knowledge and insight into knights and samurai, and not so much as to who will win because in a fantasy scenario any 'absolute conclusion' would be, at best, comical and groundless. I think we can state our opinions as to 'who' will win but, again, at best, these will always remain as 'opinions'.

                            Melee: broadsword is best used for thrusting not so much slashing; maybe chopping. I agree that any exchange should not last for more than 4-5 strikes in 'real life'. However, how do we know that an equally intelligent and cunning samurai will look to exchange strikes and not merely feint and duck? We cannot know that and it would be misguided to assume that we can. In a mounted duel, and charging each other, the knight would win - he lived for this sort of a duel, training how to knock or hit the quantains off their pole. Dismounted and in sword-to-sword melee, my opinion is that the samurai would win but by no means is this not arguable. I had also argued many times before that the samurai will win dismounted against a dismounted knight, sword-to-sword "easily" but this point perhaps needs clarification. Easily or effortlessly, assuming that jujutsu grappling is much better than Greco-Roman grappling and this also arguable... Remember Royce Gracie vs. Dan Severn at UFC 4? In that case it was brazilian ju-jitsu (which is the progeny of kimura's japanese jujutsu and helio gracie) versus greco-roman, and Royce and his bjj won the day. However, assuming the same level of skill and the factor of heavy body armor on both sides who would win in the grappling battle since a lot of 'real life' battles end up on the ground?

                            By the way, TacCovert, good analysis, realistic conditions, overall I liked your assessment, assuming your 'neutral conditions'. However, I think a mutual charge would be suicide for a samurai. The samurai will probably realize this looking at the metal giant with the long lance. The samurai will probably try to kill or maim the horse somehow or flank the knight somehown in order to neutralize the lance.

                            Group Melee: I am doing some further research on knights in group melee. Looking at the Battle of Hattin which Saladin won, and Battle of Arsuf which King Richard won (for a more 'balanced' perspective on knights). When I think that I have a decent analysis of how knights fared in historical group melees, I will post a comment.
                            Last edited by biliev1; 09 Feb 07, 13:13.

                            Comment


                            • biliev1, yes I was addressing you and you're welcome.

                              Taccovert 4, welcome to this ongoing debate and very nice posts. But one little quibble and I also have waffled, who wins in your scenario? You have avoided taking a side in this thing. I believe the samurai would win, Galfirdus, I think takes the knights, not sure about pirate or biliev.
                              Last edited by R. Evans; 09 Feb 07, 18:27.
                              Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                              Comment


                              • I asked some people at the ARMA forum, they agree with me fully that in battle it's impossible but dueling not so sure. biliev, revans and anyone else that's interested go to http://www.thearma.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=22766 and join the discussion(but use your real first and last name) but if possible try to leave out the samurai bit as long as you can because a history of people mentioning such topics has made the mods less tolerant.
                                Last edited by Galfirdus; 09 Feb 07, 19:09.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X