Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Which of these kills is a more important kill. What I mean is which would win, the amazing Echani or the incredible Mandalore.

The Mandalore. Ended the war entirely.

Mandalore was good no doubt, yet Yusanis had battle pre-cog though I can't remember how strong it was, I think it was the most advanced. A regular echani like the handmaidens is much tougher than a normal human due to the weakest level of battle pre-cog. Yusanis' was several times greater so I think he could put up a good fight but IMO Mandalore would still win, barely.

Ysannis would destroy a Mandalorian warrior. Echani are better in hand to hand combat, and focus on melee more than the Mandalorians. Also, echani prefer to be perfect duellists, whereas Mandalorians prefer to be perfect soldiers. There is a defence in approach to fighting that makes a one on one duel against a Mandalorian go in favor of the Echani.

I don't know, Mandalorians constantly fight and are a type of warrior race (or group, not sure which). Bralor wasn't too bad either, I think Mandalore could do pretty well.

The Echani are especially good at close personal combat. They excel at it. Hell, they invented the cortosis weave that is used in vibroblades.

The Mandalorians are better warriors than they are duellists.

Mandalore would be owned, it would be like when Achilles killed Boagrius in Troy. Mandalore like most Mandalorians would rely on brute strength and intimidation in a fight. Even though he would have tons of experience on the battlefield and personal duels, he doesn't practice the art of fighting or the spiritual side of it. The Echani, however, have a battle system based on just that. Finesse beats power any day, and Ysannis takes it.

Originally posted by Human Vader
Mandalore would be owned, it would be like when Achilles killed Boagrius in Troy. Mandalore like most Mandalorians would rely on brute strength and intimidation in a fight. Even though he would have tons of experience on the battlefield and personal duels, he doesn't practice the art of fighting or the spiritual side of it. The Echani, however, have a battle system based on just that. Finesse beats power any day, and Ysannis takes it.

Exactly.

Finesse doesn't beat power in all circumstances. After a degree, it doesn't matter how fast, skilled, or experinced you are, strenght will overwhelm you. If there was a three year old kid who could hit you ten time for everytime you could hit him, your strength would still overwhelm him. I've also noticed Echani don't normaly wear armor. If you punched something that could withstand atmospheric reentry, what would be more damaged, it or your hand?

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Finesse doesn't beat power in all circumstances. After a degree, it doesn't matter how fast, skilled, or experinced you are, strenght will overwhelm you. If there was a three year old kid who could hit you ten time for everytime you could hit him, your strength would still overwhelm him. I've also noticed Echani don't normaly wear armor. If you punched something that could withstand atmospheric reentry, what would be more damaged, it or your hand?

Samurai wear light armor, and they could kill most European swordsman in a duel. Note that European sworsman are much taller, stronger, and have heavier weapons.

Strength is a brutal but primitive asset, but anyone who knows swordplay will tell you speed if important, not strength.

Who says Mandalorians are slow? They killed quite a few Jedi in this war and in Jango's time.

Like the old saying goes: Speed kills.

It doesn't matter how strong you are if you can't lay a finger on them. Janus is right, the Samurai were probably the most feared swordsmen of their time, and I would bet they would kill effectively anyone other than a few select duelists of the European continent.

Now, if you were to include those said duelists, who specialize in more lightweight rapiers, you'd have an interesting contest, I'd like to watch one of those duels.

You also have to take into account weapon sets. The Katana wielded by the samurai was probably considered the most fearsome weapon you could own.

Originally posted by Illustrious
Now, if you were to include those said duelists, who specialize in more lightweight rapiers, you'd have an interesting contest, I'd like to watch one of those duels.


Ha...ever tried to parry a Katana with a rapier ?

Back to the topic:
Ysannis would kill Mandalore. Mandalorians are good soldiers, yes but they don't have much experience in melee combat at least not as much as an Echani would have. Adding a very developed level of battle pre-cog Ysannis would kill Mandalore. Well at least if this would be a melee fight and not a ranged weapon duel.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
Ha...ever tried to parry a Katana with a rapier ?

Back to the topic:
Ysannis would kill Mandalore. Mandalorians are good soldiers, yes but they don't have much experience in melee combat at least not as much as an Echani would have. Adding a very developed level of battle pre-cog Ysannis would kill Mandalore. Well at least if this would be a melee fight and not a ranged weapon duel.

Actually, it can be done. You can't do it with a FOIL, perhaps that's what you're thinking, but a rapier can stand up to heavier blows. It would require more finesse than your average duelist, but an elite duelist could likely have some fun dancing with the Samurai .

Samurai versus Rapier fencer.... I rike the idear.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Samurai versus Rapier fencer.... I rike the idear.

Indeed. Power vs. Deception.

There is something to be said for two professionals duking it out with all the style and power they can muster for as long as possible.

Yeah, and both of them fight for their personal honor. You gotta like it when two people swing swords because they got glove slapped.

Glove slapping and duelling should be legal.

Absolutely. You have peerage in England, why is defending the honor of that peerage illegal? Silly rules.

I blame humanitarism. That and all those people whining about 'freedom' and 'respect for laws'. What about principle, dammit?

Originally posted by Illustrious
Actually, it can be done. You can't do it with a FOIL, perhaps that's what you're thinking, but a rapier can stand up to heavier blows. It would require more finesse than your average duelist, but an elite duelist could likely have some fun dancing with the Samurai .

Well...I'm full off bias here since I am Kenjutsu practioner myself.

But at least I think a Katana fighter would pretty much own a rapier fighter because a rapier is a weapon used one-handed only and it's more a thrusting weapon than a slash weapon. At least the masters of Rapier fights (such as Ridolfo Capoferro or Savinien Cyrano de Bergerac) used thrusts and nearly no slashs and it was common to use a secondary weapon (dagger) or even a cape for defense.

Now a Katana is a two-handed weapon and it can be used for thrusting and for slashing and I actualy think it's the most deadly weapon to use when it comes to melee combat. And a Samurai would be the most deadly user of that weapon. So if it's European fencer vs Samurai I would say the Samurai wins.

Just have a look at this:

One thing... Does a katana go through thick European armor? Jusr curious.... Because the Samurai fought enemies who were lightly armed at best, unarmed more often than not, while European fighters wore heavy, protective armor until the invention of the crossbow and then gunpowder put an emphasis on speed. So really, to compare a rapier master versus a samurai is a bit off considering each "evolved" out of different circumstances.

Ahah, but when the Europeans used that hell-heavy armor, they were still riding horses and wielding lances and broadswords. Rapiers wouldn't be that effective against thick and heavy armor. And even with such armor, the Samurai would simply need a well-placed swing at the weaker chain-mail present in the gaps in the armor, such as at the neck.

You guys are arguing who is stronger, whe nthe question is who was the more important kill.

Rapier fighters didn't wear any kind of armor at least the masters of that art were around in the 16th and 17th century. Rapier fencing was no "military" skill.

In medieval times the people wore that heavy armor (chain, plate) but in this time no one would have used a rapier. If you take a look at the weapons back then they were heavy enough to break bones when hitting somebody.

Exactly what I said.

I knew that, I just somehow started talking about something totally different. But anyways, my point was to compare them directly would be impossible since both came about for different purposes. I mean, Europeans didn't focus on weapon mastery outside of what it takes to win on the battlefield until melee weapons were already in decline.

Originally posted by Darth Windu
Ahah, but when the Europeans used that hell-heavy armor, they were still riding horses and wielding lances and broadswords. Rapiers wouldn't be that effective against thick and heavy armor. And even with such armor, the Samurai would simply need a well-placed swing at the weaker chain-mail present in the gaps in the armor, such as at the neck.

The thing is, mos European armour was not weak at the neck. They made a neck guard because otherwise it would leave you with a major flaw that anyone could see.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
I knew that, I just somehow started talking about something totally different. But anyways, my point was to compare them directly would be impossible since both came about for different purposes. I mean, Europeans didn't focus on weapon mastery outside of what it takes to win on the battlefield until melee weapons were already in decline.

Ah yes...that's right. Rapier fighting was more likely a "hobby" or "sport" than something useful. Still they did a lot of dueling with that things.

And well...a Katana might be able to cut chain armor and the physical strength behind a two-handed strike might be enough to break bones of somebody who wears plate armor. Those things are really sharp.

They are. I was playing around with one and put some good slices in a chair. Didn't harm the blade one bit.

Actually, most people who used rapiers didn't fight for a living, but those noblemen that wanted to live certainly weren't bad at it.

Yes, katanas are two handed weapons, and very fearsome ones at that, but the rapier type sword wasn't a slouch. While it is one handed, it attacks the weakest point of the katana, which is much more effective at blocking slashes than stabs.

Also, to block a slash, you don't need to counter the force, you just need to slightly redirect it, which isn't too dificult for the duelist to do. Also, with a free hand, the rapier duelist has counterbalance and is able to be more nimble on his feet, including the use of feints and close body parries in order to avoid getting hit. And while rapiers are primary piercing weapons, they do have edges and as a result, can slash.

It would be a good fight in the fact it would be power vs. deception.

If the rapier duelist was quick on his feet, I say he could take this, if the katana duelist was precise, he'd win.

Oh, I agree. Fencing is by no means a poor sport or style. But each has its advantages.

So what's your thoughts on Filipino dual wielding versus Florentine style fencing?

I personally would find it very hard pressed to dual wield much of anything. If you watched the Olympic sport of fencing, particularly the saber division, you'd notice just has fast they can move that rapier.

The fencer will need every bit of speed and nimbleness on their feet they can get.

The primary reason Florentine style duelists may equip a second weapon, usually a short dagger on their lesser hand, is to parry that lightning quick stab that avoids their rapier. While the dagger alone is not sufficient by any means, it's their last line of defense before they get skewered.

I would find it much more awkward to duel wield, especially since you don't have the counterbalance or the ability to make feints and lunges anywhere near as easily.

Originally posted by Illustrious
I personally would find it very hard pressed to dual wield much of anything. If you watched the Olympic sport of fencing, particularly the saber division, you'd notice just has fast they can move that rapier.

The fencer will need every bit of speed and nimbleness on their feet they can get.

The primary reason Florentine style duelists may equip a second weapon, usually a short dagger on their lesser hand, is to parry that lightning quick stab that avoids their rapier. While the dagger alone is not sufficient by any means, it's their last line of defense before they get skewered.

I would find it much more awkward to duel wield, especially since you don't have the counterbalance or the ability to make feints and lunges anywhere near as easily.

Hm. I've always thought the advantages to using just one weapon outweight the advantages of using two. Besides, using two is a clumsy art at best, and an abysmal failure at worst.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
They are. I was playing around with one and put some good slices in a chair. Didn't harm the blade one bit.

Well...the "new" Katanas are quite better then the "old" ones because of material developement.
But well...I've read some book about the "Battle of Whispy" (1361) and they found people in chain armor that had cut both legs off with one single strike. Urm...I guess a Katana would pretty much own somebody in chain armor.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Glove slapping and duelling should be legal.

I fully agree

Originally posted by Illustrious
Yes, katanas are two handed weapons, and very fearsome ones at that, but the rapier type sword wasn't a slouch. While it is one handed, it attacks the weakest point of the katana, which is much more effective at blocking slashes than stabs.

The point is: A Katana user might just aim at your Rapiers blade and not at your body and this might be enough to end the existence of the rapier because those things aren't made for taking direct hits from "heavy weight" weapons.



Well yes...it would be power vs deception. Still a "precise" Katana fighter can use thrust attacks and I guess it would be pretty hard to fend some two-handed slash with a one handed weapon.

Originally posted by HimoKun
You guys are arguing who is stronger, whe nthe question is who was the more important kill.

I meant which one is better.

Depends on what you're looking for, and who you're fighting. . .

Originally posted by Darth_Glentract
Finesse doesn't beat power in all circumstances. After a degree, it doesn't matter how fast, skilled, or experinced you are, strenght will overwhelm you. If there was a three year old kid who could hit you ten time for everytime you could hit him, your strength would still overwhelm him. I've also noticed Echani don't normaly wear armor. If you punched something that could withstand atmospheric reentry, what would be more damaged, it or your hand?

Sorry Glentract, I lost sight of this thread, my retort will come a little late. Anyways a three year old who knows what he's doing could pwn me since I don't know sh1t about martial arts. If the three year old lands his punches in the right spots and is quick enough and smart enough to dodge my attacks and outmanuver me, my ass is pwned. Same as Mandalore would be, except he'd have it worse because Ysannis is a grown man like he is and porbably possesses quite a bit of strength himself.

Originally posted by Nai Fohl
Well...the "new" Katanas are quite better then the "old" ones because of material developement.
But well...I've read some book about the "Battle of Whispy" (1361) and they found people in chain armor that had cut both legs off with one single strike. Urm...I guess a Katana would pretty much own somebody in chain armor.

Well of course, the newer ones are better made. But even the cheap replicas are excellent compared to, say, a replica longsword of about the same price.

And I wouldn't doubt that a katana could wreck chain mail... Stuff's pretty flimsy as it is.

Originally posted by Human Vader
Sorry Glentract, I lost sight of this thread, my retort will come a little late. Anyways a three year old who knows what he's doing could pwn me since I don't know sh1t about martial arts. If the three year old lands his punches in the right spots and is quick enough and smart enough to dodge my attacks and outmanuver me, my ass is pwned. Same as Mandalore would be, except he'd have it worse because Ysannis is a grown man like he is and porbably possesses quite a bit of strength himself.

The problem is that three years old bones and muscles don't have the power to cause damage to lets say a fourteen year old. The Mandalorians also were quite capable in melee combat. They are probably not as good as Echani, but they are extremly capable. The Echani usually wear robes that don't restrict their movement. A Mandalorian wearing his armor that can withstand atmospheric re-entry, large chemical explosions, and signifacant amounts of blaster fire can definatly stop the strikes of a Echani, no matter how fast they strike. Each time you hit something, microfractures are created in the bones. These rebuild stronger, but that takes time. I'm not sure exactly how long, but probably more than a day. Before Ysannis could break the armor, there would be so many microfractures in his hands and feet that they would break.

With a sword, they could get through the armor, but both have beaten Jedi before in melee combat. It is hard to say who is better in sword combat. I would think that Mandalorian armor could withstand anything but a strong hit from a sword, but Echani without armor would get a significant injury from even a slight touch.

I think the Echani strikes are underrated there, the Mandelorian armor was good but it could not stop a bunch of Melee strikes it had to have had its weakenesses. A really great Echani could sure as hell find them, without armor the Echani wins without any doubt with armor, there is a small doubt in my mind but I still think the greatest Echani has it.

And if you look for the most impressive kill then its definitly Yssanis, Mandalorian armor does not resist lightsaber attacks anyways.

You're referring to the Basilisk War-Suits that Canderous spoke of in KOTOR 1 I believe. . . The Mandalorians suited up in battle armor, yes, but they didn't just jump out of a starship in armor. They were in Basilisk War-Suits, which were capable of all the things you stated. The suits also had built-in blaster cannons. But one problem; they flew. Mandalore's armor isn't Basilisk-grade armor. It's just, well, armor.

And as for your toddler-teen analogy, Mandalorians are strong, but they are not that much stronger than the Echani. You make it seem like comparing a Wookie to a Jawa. There is a strength advantage, yes, but it is not enough to overwhelm Yusanis.

Originally posted by Darth_Janus
Well of course, the newer ones are better made. But even the cheap replicas are excellent compared to, say, a replica longsword of about the same price.

And I wouldn't doubt that a katana could wreck chain mail... Stuff's pretty flimsy as it is.

Chainmail wasn't meant to take slashing attacks, but wtith stabbing it was the best. Chainmail was specially designed to combat stabbing, which was the more widely used weapon in Europe.

A katana might be strong, but it would not break through platemail. The European has the advantage just because of his armour. The Japanese swordsman would not be able to take a hit from the Europeans weapon, but a European could take a hit from the Samurai's weapon.

same with Mandalore and Ysannis. Mandalore can take a hit from Ysannis, but Ysannis can't take one from Mandalore.


Except I think a Samurai could take a European.

Maybe, maybe not. Try practicing with a 40 pound broadsword for hours a day, every day for about ten years. European broadswordsmen were no pushovers either. Using a blade that much means you can whip that sucker around fast.

A broadsword would not stand up to a katana, the katana is simply the superior weapon. It's got a finer cutting point, allows for more leverage, and is a lighter and more nimble weapon than the European broadswords.

Plate armor isn't invincible, in fact, they had daggers designed to go through plate armor. Katanas are finely crafted sheets of metal that are folded numerous times to achieve a fine point. A katana would disarm a cumbersome plate armor broadsword wielder and then proceed to hack at him until he drops.