do zombies eat horses in this scenario?

crusaders for sure, I can't think of any reason why marines would have any practical advantages

In a world of modern technology I'm going to have to go with the people who know what electricity is. (and the concept of personal hygiene)

50 fully equiped US Marines.

Because the crusaders were crazed lunatics from the Dark Ages who slaughtered people too please some bearded dude in the skies.

Cusaders. They don't turn into winey kids when they run out of ammo.

>>4122

"crazed lunatics from the Dark Ages who slaughtered people too please some bearded dude in the skies."

That's the kind of blind fury you'll need in the apocalypse.

Definitely the marines.

1) They'll likely all have seen a zombie movie of some kind, Crusaders wouldn't have (seriously, knowing your enemy is a HUGE advantage in any situation)
2) Guns
3) More versatile in adapting to terrain
4) More physically capable (this is mostly due to nutrition, not training)
5) More resistant to diseases (from immunisations and such)
6) Better general knowledge in total; a radio guy in the marines could probably set up a generator or something, good luck getting a crusader to do that

Definitely the Crusaders
1. The ability to assert control over mindless peasants for their own purposes nearly everywhere they go thanks to "mission from got" is huge.
2. Armies > Guns
3. Each crusader coes with their own getaway car.
4. More mentally capable to handle dehumanization & mass slaughter.
5. As you go back in time, the human immune system is more and more robust, not less. It's generally accepted that if you transported a person today back a few hundred years, they'd be dead in under a week. if you brought someone from that time to iurs, they'd be fine, but infect us all with shit we have no cures for. The Marines would need a doc & to routinely track down medical supplies, putting them in harms way.
6. Better survival knowledge in general. When their support system runs out, Marines are essentially barely trained animals. Crusaders live on the warpath unsupported for years and thrive on raping & pillaging.

>>4123
>Implying highly trainer soldiers become winey kids when they run out of ammo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Recruit_Training
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps_Martial_Arts_Program

>>4124
The blind fury that won't be equally useful when they decide to burn me alive because I obviously made a deal with Satan so that I could get a stick that conjures light.

>>4127
>The ability to assert control over mindless peasants for their own purposes nearly everywhere they go thanks to "mission from got" is huge.

I don't think zombies give a shit about some "mission from got".

Mmm, hard to say. While the marines have an immediate advantage with superior firearms, vehicles, and communications, their equipment and training can actually become a behavioral disadvantage. Thanks to the size of our standing army, not all marines are combat experienced and are prone to brash behavior due to overconfidence (and sometimes even those who are experienced can still be overconfident); throw in the possibility that many might come with preconceptions about zombies due to the prevalence of zombie movies, the risks of making fatal tactical decisions in engaging zombies (either to save civilians or accomplish some sort of objective) goes up.

On the other hand the knights' disadvantage in equipment and information can actually be an advantage, since they're more likely to perform some synchronized-shitting-of-leggings and turning their horses in the opposite direction of the legions of hellspawn; there's also the fact to consider that knights were almost always some sort of nobility, so there's a possibility most of them won't feel any sort of moral obligation to help civilians (unless there's a priest or king ordering them to do so, in which case the obligation is purely toward their superior).

So in a fight the marines will likely last longer, but in the long term the knights might just have a better chance at surviving because they're more likely to run.

Depends, on wide open rural areas the marines might have the advantage of range and tactics to deal with a situation like that.

On the other hand crusaders have no guns at all and their armor is designed to withstand trauma from sharp objects, implying a zombies teeth. If I had to make a final decision i'd say marines who know what they are doing.

actually, if both are informed about the basics about their enemy (deheading and destroying the brain, and a bitten one turns into a zombie) the crusaders would fare better.

That is, if we are talking about real insane ass crusaders slaughtering in the name of the LAAAAWWD... those guys would be a meat grinder

Guns run out of ammo, generators run out of fuel.

Long term, the Crusaers would do better because they would be in their element, the Dark Age.
Also, I don't believe marines are supplied with stab-proof vests or anything of the sort, while the crusaders would wear at least a mail shirt that would protect their arms, necks and head against bites.

i think knights for sure
better weapons and will fight until they die for god and the queen
disadvantages: if animals could get infected there horses risk infection
also technology isnt as advanced plus less weapons
still in my opinion the knights last longer

File 135874127539.png - (188.81KB , 345x337 , neckbear.png )

>>4122

here we go again...

This shouldn't even be a question. Marines will be the superior choice. They're using modern weaponry, modern tactics, and modern technology. In running out of ammunition they could obviously just resort to different weapons or melee.

In the situation of WWZ style flood zeds, Marines would make the best stand. Crusaders are mentally trained from childhood and Marines at age 18 but it's still no contest.

Think of it, beasts that are infectious you want to stay as far away from them as possible. A sword limits that opportunity.

chain and plate armor would weigh the crusaders down and in hand to hand combat the zombies just have to pile on the crusaders. even if they cant bite through the armor the crusaders would not be able to move. If they take off their armor then they lose really the only thing that made them what they were. Marines would do better. they are trained to live off the land if need be. marines would do best

>>4196

While I agree Marines would do better with their modern tactics and weaponry. Crusaders also lived off the land. As a matter of fact their upbringing and training was exactly that. If they weren't able to forage, they would live off the land. That's how sugar ended up getting discovered in Europe.

Crusaders, no doubt.
The modern warfare for which the marines are trained and used is based on skirmishing in relatively short assignments. As mentioned, marines are also dependent on supplies that would surely run out within days in a zombie scenario.

Conversely, the crusaders were marching for months and stationed for years in a harsh environment. They were trained in formations designed for fending off hordes of enemies at a time, which would certainly prove valuable. Although their armor would weigh them down, they would offer essential protection which marines would have to do without.

File 135950394989.jpg - (9.30KB , 171x294 , iwrhe83y4wdhsiucrusaidererer.jpg )

Looking at some of these posts I would have to go with crusader knights too, self reliant and efficient, however the whole religious thing might get me killed...

>>4202
No, Crusaders most definitely were not trained to forage or be self-reliant. Many of the foot soldiers were farmers or hunters, so that may be where you got that impression from, but the knights themselves were almost always nobles (exceptions being commoners who got accepted into knightly orders through exceptional performance in battles). A knight's training was exclusively in combat, fitness, horse handling, and tactics, anything beyond those skills would be from personal backgrounds.

So "50 fully equipped crusader knights" are actually unlikely to be able to survive through foraging because they lack the essential support personnel (cooks, washing women, foot soldiers who know how to hunt/farm, etc.) that traditionally made up the bulk of the Crusaders.

Also sugar was discovered by encountering merchants who were selling "sweet salt" during the crusade. It was discovered and refining techniques invented long before the Crusaders arrived.

But the Crusaders nor the Marines have rations like Twinkies that could last even through a nuclear holocaust.

Since Hostess went out and about, they're both screwed.

>>4236
Actually, most of these men would know how to hunt. It was a sport for the Nobility at those times, and im pretty certain that 50 of them working in concert would be able to easily round up several deer in no time.

>>4129
Wasn't talking about the Z's, was talking about all the mindless impressionable fucking hayseed christians they find in the lesser populated, lesser educated areas of the country, whom they can manipulate into fighting for them, so they can command safely from the rear and bail on when the time comes.

Nobody not also a marine can stand to listen to a bunch of goddamn jarheads bark commands for more than a few seconds before wanting to kill them instead.

>>4330
Being a hunter and hunting for sport are two very different things though. The current form of sport hunting done in England isn't much different than how it used to be, except they use guns instead of bows/crossbows. You basically have a /real/ hunter do all the legwork of tracking the game, the nobles run the game down using hunting dogs, shoot the game when it's too tired to be an unfairly hard target to hit, then have their cooks prepare a meal out of it.

Obviously I don't know any nobles, especially any from the bad ol' days, but tracking, food preparation, and cooking don't sound like things that a noble would be taught. That sort of defeats the point of owning servants.

anyone can break a branch off and hit things with sticks

the crusaders lack any understanding of germ theory

or hygiene, or containment

derpity doo this black death gonna be the black undeath +++

File 136547352263.jpg - (3.11MB , 3264x2448 , 2013-02-08 20_47_09.jpg )

As a US Marine, I'll have to choose my brothers, I've seen and done things that give me unfallable faith in my brothers (and sisters now) in arms to trust them enough to join me in a fight against the undead, of course we may have firearms, but we also are trained to use weapons of opportunity, I could use my Ka-Bar, a metal rod, or a piece of wood, some of us are trained to handle HAZMAT, biological, chemical, nuclear, and Radiological attacks, simply through SIDE training, like me, we have men trained for cold weather, hot weather, jungle terrain, desert terrain (those two are ALL basically trained Marines) and as for supplies we are trained to live off whatever we can get, whether it be MRE's or foraging, we can find it. Also we may be "frat boys in uniform" but we're also very ingenuitive, I've seen guys fuse PS3 controllers to a PSP and have it work in a playable fashion (ofcourse only the number of buttons he could rewire) and I've seen Marines shoot themselves in the foot on complete accident, we have our ups and downs, but god damn you get us in a situation where its needed we can be stealthy and tactical or we could be all-out war ridden savages, sure PTSD may be out there but in the zombie apocolypse I'm sure 98 out of 100 will have it, but I've also noticed from my friends in MARSOC that if you keep someone with PTSD in action they are the most effective knife in the entire city, let alone the drawer. SO. Even if the crusaders were vicious warriors, lived without tech, and could live off the land, their leadership lacks because its all led by ONE man, not many coordinating men who can react to a changing situation as they see fit. back then battles were done on a large scale, now they are like evolution itself, they learn from the opposition and adjust strategy, they do it on an individual level. Where as Dark Age warfare was simply "oh he has a wall, chuck dead bodies over it." or "oh he has more men than us, use the slender ocean ledge there as a choke point." I know this is a long one but I just want to make sure I get my point across. In all I'm saying that, yes, Marines may not be the most vicious warrior (unless its old-corps, those fuckers were crazy) but we adapt, we change plans, and we accomplish missions at ALL costs. Done. Enjoy tearing this post apart, gents. Continue to troll.

As a Crusader Knight, my valiance bears itself in the crusted blood and bone upon my breastplate. I have been witness to such brevity and daily acts of derring do that one would question the very mortality of my fellow Knights. With our cherished amulets of faith, endurance, strength, swiftness and sure footedness around our necks and in our hands, swords forged with the one true God's divine will as their core we never once err from our path of providence yet stand ever ready to flood the plains of the Earth with the blood of the unholy.
We may be warrior monks but I have witnessed ingenuity beyond compare in my men, one who wove the guts of a live kitten into a ukulele to provide music and entertainment on a quiet night.
On one occasion my band of merry men happened upon a cavalcade of wenches being driven through the desert sea of Rebiana by a troupe of degenerate sand pirates when it took our fancy to wound each pirate in a similar fashion by hitting their left knee with an arrow each and quickly rushing to subdue them further with a quick blow to the head, stripping them of their clothes, slaughtering their camels and gutting them, then carefully placing all of the unconscious pirates into the camel's cavities and sewing them shut with devil's wire. We rescued the wenches and took our fill of their comeliness before harvested their flesh for doner kebabs and partying while the slaver pirates writhed and gagged in a stew of fetid flesh and guts under the hot desert sun.
Enjoy tearing this post apart, gents. Continue with your persiflage.

>>4512
>their leadership lacks because its all led by ONE man, not many coordinating men who can react to a changing situation as they see fit. back then battles were done on a large scale, now they are like evolution itself, they learn from the opposition and adjust strategy, they do it on an individual level.

Yes. Things have changed...

I would have to go with the marines, eventhough i prefer the whole Knight in shiney armor aspect the marines of today are far more combat efficient and capable in a zombie apocalypse scenario and they are also survival trained on top of everything. Think about it.

US marines would be better at the survival part of the apocalypse, since they are trained to be able to survive in deserted areas and rifles are a bit easier to hunt with than longswords. Plus they don't have to carry around a 50 pound armor all the time which just by itself takes around 1000 calories an hour to just move around in. But the knights would make less sound, have better suited armor, they're stronger, and have better suited weapons.

US marines would be better at the survival part of the apocalypse, since they are trained to be able to survive in deserted areas and rifles are a bit easier to hunt with than long swords. Plus they don't have to carry around a 50 pound armor all the time which just by itself takes around 500-700 calories an hour to just move around in. But the knights would make less sound, have better suited armor, they're stronger, and have better suited weapons.

>>4530
>rifles are a bit easier to hunt with than long swords.
Hunting with a bow is a lot easier than hunting with a sword as well, it's probably why people preferred to hunt with bows rather than swords.

>Plus they don't have to carry around a 50 pound armor all the time which just by itself takes around 500-700 calories an hour to just move around in.
Standard modern infantry combat loads are 80 pounds. You're looking at a minimum of 30 pounds from the weapon, ammunition, armor, and other combat essentials, 50 if the soldier is the "heavy" of the squad, so modern soldiers don't actually carry lighter loads than Crusaders.

>they're stronger
Well, considering the modern soldier actually carries more than a knight would, and he fact that a soldier has the benefit of superior knowledge in nutrition and hygiene, it's not likely that a knight would actually be stronger than a marine.

>Well, considering the modern soldier actually carries more than a knight would
Should clarify that a modern soldier is trained to carry more than a knight would, and they regularly do; there are times and places where soldiers have to get to locations that cars can't reach and helicopters can't land.

>>4532
And that's why Knights have horses. They can go everywhere and carry their equipment for them.

>>4533
As with the marines, there's a limit to how much can be carried by transportation. A marine carries 30 to 50 pounds with just weapons, armor, ammunition, etc, and a knight carries a minimum of 50 pounds from weapons and armor. With transportation they're both carrying roughly the same minimum load.

The difference being that modern soldiers are trained to carry their own necessities when transportation isn't available, whereas knights typically had their squires take up the slack.

Now to be fair knights were expected to be much more active in combat than modern soldiers, so I wouldn't say they were necessarily weaker either.

>>4534
actually due to nutrition levels even amungst nobles it can be inferred that knights would be weaker than a modern soldier.

>>4512
The question of who would do better is really vague first off
I think crusaders would be great in a final stand situation they were experienced in fighting the light infantry armies of Saladin and being on the front lines all day battling in the middle eastern heat was pretty normal at that point for them as for their armor they wore it all the time so the weight would be negligible.
I feel like marines would last longer overall even more so if they are the smart kinda marines and if they split into groups and stay in the same area if they can figure a way to signal for help if it is needed its hard to feed 50 people from a small area i dont care how well they know how to hunt and forage

it would be really cool if they hunted together

Y'all are forgetting something real important, the crusaders have done something that the marines never did, they traveled on horse and foot across a continent and CONQUERED the middle east. Reclaimed the holy land from the muslims.

They were far outnumbered by enemy combatants, not shambling dead, had full body metal armor(chain mail would be highly effective against zeds), never ran out of ammo, they were better logistically trained, had no fire support, and were battle hardened soldiers. If it was just 50 vs. 50 the crusaders would without doubt win.
While the marines are excellent combat troops and have accomplished amazing feats against impossible odds, by and large they have come to rely on gear that would only protect them in a modern firefight. Their body armor would do no good against multiple zeds nor would their combat fatigues. I'm not saying they wouldn't put a dent in a zombie horde. They are just not as well equipped for this theatre of war.

>>4555
You're forgetting the marines also never padded their numbers with tens of thousands of conscripted farmers to soak up enemy bullets over the course of four years just to take a few cities.

Comparing results in this case is very much comparing apples and oranges. Crusaders and Marines have different operational rules, objectives, and hazards to deal with. That the Marines haven't "conquered" the Middle East isn't an indicator of their abilities, it's a result of political and social constraints, the reduced roles of infantry in siege warfare, and the current nature of the standing army (that is to say, most soldiers would rather come home than settle in conquered land, particularly since modern armies can't local assets and use it to entice soldiers to stay like Crusaders could).

*can't seize local assets

>>4515
I was half expecting someone to do something short like that, but that was just well played, I commend you good sir XD anyways I still gotta side with my Brothers of the Corps

A crusader would certainly be more hardy than a marine, they marched hundreds of miles in 80-100 pounds of armor, when they weren't marching they were swinging their swords in practice or in combat building muscle, they committed cannibalism to survive and thought nothing of it, they are zealots and will fight to their last breath because they believe death in battle will get them into heaven and deserting will land them in hell, they will probably think they are literally fighting the devil assuming zombies are devil spawn giving them more of a will to fight, one third of marines come back with mental problems however crusaders thought nothing of killing. without a doubt there is no debating the crusaders were tougher, but lacked technology, but remember swords dont run out of ammo, and a lot of swords from their era survived until today, and crusaders were teached to fight their enemy face to face, not shoot them from 100 yards away

>>4567
But zombies are especially good in close quarters, a gun would no doubt perform better against zombies than a sword

>>4567
80-100 pound armors did not exist on the battlefield. Those were jousting suits that were three times as thick as armor meant for battle because knights didn't want to accidentally die while ramming into each other with lances during festivals. Jousting armor was so heavy knights needed several people to help them get on their horses, offered no protection to the back, and limited mobility because it was meant to only do one thing: joust.

Also, nothing "survived" over the centuries, everything you see in museums that look like they're still useable are only in that state because someone took care of them. They're usually family heirlooms that have been passed down the generations, carefully cleaned and stored to prevent deterioration... but if you put that same kind of care into a gun and it'll "survive" the centuries too. Swords that didn't get that kind of attention wind up as sword-shaped lumps of rust (which they have in museums too).

Of course we have more records of marines suffering from PTSD than knights, it's kind of the advantage of living in the modern world. Knights didn't have that convenience, the closest thing to mental care they had back then was the confessionals (assuming they'd even want to confess, they might have just kept shut to avoid accusations of being possessed by the devil), which the priests didn't exactly keep a good record of. Lack of records doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Youtube  people wouldn't make combat armor that gets you killed so obviously - knights in full plate (maybe minus helmet) can do cartwheels - where is your god now?

The armour was articulated and was covering a man's entire body completely from neck to toe. In addition it was much more easy to move, run and fight in a suit of plate armour than commonly believed, since it weighted 15-20 kg. and the weight was spread evenly on the body so a man wearing it was not an easy target for agile footmen. In fact many men wearing full plate were usually fighting on foot, especially in the 15th century.

Youtube  chain mail works too naturally

but let's not go there

>people wouldn't make combat armor that gets you killed so obviously
Is that in reference to the previous post? If so, note the topic was about jousting armor, not combat armor; if not, who was it directed at? Nobody has claimed a knight's armor would get them "killed so obviously".

consider what the videos are displaying

are you telling me an immobilized opponent isn't obviously easily killed? if not then who else is referring to immobility?

>>4593
Ah, my apologies then, never bothered putting 7chan back on the noscript safe list since /zom/ was temporarily rolled into /x/ and kept trying to run some ridiculous script every time I visited the page. Have developed a habit of ignoring anything I can't just copy and paste into the address bar.

>>4120
Is this a joke? How about long range, mobility and can attack quicker (last time I checked firing bullets is quicker than the swing of a sword).

>>4122
This is also dumb. What bearded dude in the sky? Were they of a country ruled by some guy in an airplane? Get AIDS.

File 13706511947.jpg - (69.06KB , 480x352 , 124971638531.jpg )

>>4641
Not even sure where to begin with you... I'd like to teach you about history, but I think the only way you'd learn about the Crusades is if we had an infinite amount of time and you were someone else.

>>4643
>Oh facepalm image because I don't understand you so I'll just take you out of context! LOL I'm so smart because strawman

Yes, because Christianity focuses around a man with a beard in the sky, or a man of any kind, or someone living in the sky. I think you've combined about 10 different religions there.
I am well aware of history, which you are clearly unaware of... Or are oblivious to the concept of theism. Either way, you're clueless as to what I was saying.

>>4128
This, not to mention marines and soldiers have other weapons. How about a Ka-Bar, or an M9 bayonet? I'm sure there are other close-quarter weapons. They aren't long, but they are weapons, and they are trained to use them, along with MMA.

>>4169
These answers don't make any sense. Seriously. Do you guys really believe that the USMC are some kids with guns, who live with electricity and A/C all day without training? Your common Marine has none of that, not even electricity, not when deployed. I mean, maybe some basics like light, the rest is training in the desert. Where are the critical thinking skills in this thread?

>>4648
>Where are the critical thinking skills in this thread?
At least you're getting a good idea of how many people will wind up being zombies.

>>4649
None because the zombie epidemic is a dream. Those who expect logic in a dream are retarded.

>>4650
Shh, don't ruin the dream.

>>4653
This


Anyway...

The cusaders have a definite advantage.

1. They're used to living off the land, foraging and hunting for instance. In other words, they don't need to raid stores... For anything.

2. They don't rely on guns for protection which means they don't need ammunition. Nor do they attract attention when killing a bunch of Zs.

3. Their physical strength is much higher than the marines.

4. Close combat is on a completely different level than that of the marines. Swords, spears, axes etc, that a marine can SWING but not utilize to near its full potential like a crusader could.

>>4121
This must be the stupidest thing I've ever read in my life! :D

>>4659

One more fact to add to your argument... Today, most military personnel are taught to aim for the center mass when shooting. That would be a problem against a zombie, where all that will do is knock them down at best. A crusader was taught to go for the "chinks in the armor"... specifically the joints where the breastplate linked up with the limb armor.

So, theoretical fights would go something like this. 50 Marines start shooting. Zeds fall down, get back up. Marines switch to rapid fire. A few get lucky with head shots. Marines run out of ammo and go hand-to-hand. Zeds eat Marines. Zed army is not 50+ stronger.

vs...

Crusaders spot Zeds. Crusaders spend precious minutes kneeling and paying homage to the Lord as enemy shambles forward. Zeds get close. Crusaders start hacking away. Crusaders start laughing 'cause the Zed is an enemy without a fucking scimitar. Lotsa Zed heads go rolling away. Lots of arms get hacked off, lots of legs. If the Zed army is over 1000+ strong, Crusaders will take some damage, lose a few Warriors of God. Survivors take care of fallen comrades. Crusaders dance on Zed corpses.

>>4659
I'll address these individually.

>They're used to living off the land

That's pretty subjective. While it's partially true, in the military you are trained to live off the land to an extent. How far depends on your branch and MOS. Chances are there are plenty of marines out there who hunt prior to enlisting, I know several in my area that do (since I live in the country). That could be shared knowledge if this ever happened. Marines are also trained to raid, so that would be an advantage in some scenarios.

>They don't rely on guns for protection
This has been addressed many times already. I also think long-range could be an advantage in some cases.

>Their physical strength is much higher than the marines.
Completely subjective. I think there are too many variables to say for this one. Strength isn't the only thing you can rely on though. Marines are trained for stamina/endurance... Swimming and running for distance, that has to account for something. There are also bulky/strong marines that I know though.

>Swords, spears, axes etc
This is related to your third. This is counting on the fact that everyone would be using these weapons specifically to survive, and that no one already knows this or could train these skills. In this case, it's not so the point falls short.

>>4659

>1. They're used to living off the land, foraging and hunting for instance. In other words, they don't need to raid stores... For anything.
>>4236
>>4333

>3. Their physical strength is much higher than the marines.
>4. Close combat is on a completely different level than that of the marines. Swords, spears, axes etc, that a marine can SWING but not utilize to near its full potential like a crusader could.
>>4531
>>4534

Come to think of it, I believe the consideration of whether marines or knights are physically superior and more suited for close quarter combat is irrelevant.

I mean, really, a knight or marine can fend off a dozen people by waving a sharp object around not because of skill, but because people tend to avoid having sharp objects opening up new orifices in them. Replace those dozen people with healthy senses of self-preservation with zombies that are completely unimpressed by sword-waving? A knight may be able to cut down a couple more than a marine before being overwhelmed.

The group more likely to survive is the one that chooses to avoid zombies altogether. Crusaders might be a bit more cautious with the limited range of their weapons, while Marines might be less cautious thanks to the accuracy and range of their rifles.

>>4664
Exactly my point. It's subjective and pretty irrelevant. Their strength is obviously more than enough for survival if they are strong enough for their military.

>>4664
> The group more likely to survive is the one that chooses to avoid zombies altogether. Crusaders might be a bit more cautious with the limited range of their weapons, while Marines might be less cautious thanks to the accuracy and range of their rifles.

I agree with the premise, but I'd actually use it to reach the opposite conclusion. The crusades were a holy war where the knights, believed they were empowered by their 'one true God', set out to destroy anything non-Christian because heathenism was an affront to God.

They thought people with dark skin who refer to their same dickshitting God as "Allah" and wrote a bible sequel were satanic abominations who must be purged from this world in the name of God and all His Glory. And if you die in battle, in his service, then it just means that you've an eternity in His kingdom of paradise, chilling in the garden and shooting heroin with Jesus.

You think these zealous twats wouldn't blindly charge into the first herd of zombies they see?

The marines, on the other hand, are trained to use tactical awareness to engage intelligently, and (generally) fight for the preservation and prosperity of their home country. And I'd imagine every single one of them knows that you can't do that when you're dead.

The only situation in this whole thread where I see the knights getting an edge is with the "musing the mission from God to rally locals into a massive army"--but that would only happen in 12th-century, on friendly ground. If they're on a crusade, the recruitment conversation would go a little differently.

"Hey, you, filthy heathen child. Where is the man of the household?"

"You killed him last Tuesday, Mr. Knight."

"Oh. Right. Is your mother fit enough to carry a spear?"

"She was, until your army raped her half to death."

"Oh yeah, right. Uhh, we're probably going to blame you for this zombie apocalypse thing and burn you later, but you wanna fight some zombies for a bit?"

"..."

>>4667
Well, it's true that they were generally zealots, but they also didn't just up and decide to go slaughtering people in the middle east on a whim. It was initially a political move to distract rival Christian nations from each other by having the church wave a holy bone at them that evolved into a 200 year old grudge match.

Without a recognized church authority ordering the knights to go kill zombies, it's just as likely they would decide discretion is the better part of valor and hoof it. Considering how large a social rift existed between nobility and peasants, and how cheap they considered lives back then, it's unlikely a group of crusaders would even put the plight of civilians into consideration while figuring out what to do.

Marines, on the other hand, are practically guaranteed to engage zombies to protect civilians, even without direct orders from their chain of command.

I wouldn't want either, the crusaders + their press gang are going to be a mess and I would be going the opposite direction of the marines on my base as soon as I heard about zombies.

Whilst I agree that Marines are better equipped and trained to deal with a zompocolypse I think the knights would fare better.

The problem with the marines is they're U.S. marines, considering how they're notorious for blowing off steam by shooting mosques, civilians and any thing else that catches their eye the chances are they'd lure more zombies to them during their first chance of downtime than they could handle. Throw in guns 'n glory overkill and their ammo will be gone quick due to the lack of a dedicated supply line.

So:
Single skirmish - Marines,
Extended situation - Knights.

modern soldiers typically have combat armour which protects the torso, they also have helmets, they also can have padding of various sorts

while a knight is more proficient at melee combat with larger weapons and to some extent small weapons, it doesn't take a lot to stab something shambling mindlessly towards you

so easy a caveman can do it

as for living off the land, this is not truth, crusaders didn't have access to wikipedia and what this meant was that instead of being able to learn and just not bothering to, they had no ability to learn how to live off the land in foreign places

which is why without supply caravans many of them died in the desert during the crusades when armies were crushed and also because they were dumb and kept armor on in the heat at times (although not always) - such is war and it's uncertainties about what's more likely, getting baked to death in a tin can, or arrow'd to death out of it


marine armor is more lightweight though

marines would win simply because of modernity's tertiary benefits

marines would engage to save, but possibly have equipment that can be used for survival in extra ways

perhaps if one were to suggest a setting, perhaps how would knights fare in a medieval setting with lower populations, versus marines in an urban situation

then it'd be closer to a tie, but even then, there's that damn germ theory thing where disease's causes are readily recognized and medical training and grade 9 biology that marines have access to that knights don't

all they know is "piss sometimes keep you from dying from an infected wound, apply directly to wound"

and all the fancy medieval weapons were made for dealing with intelligent armed individuals

a spear is sufficient for mindless beasts, hence why "so easy a caveman can do it"

because that's what they did

also

marines have the advantage of finding chemistry textbooks

and cars

and welding equipment

we know where this is going. don't even try to stop it, just let it happen.

and failing that they can put charcoal sulphur and diamonds and sodium into a log and make cannons out of it

or something

srsly

srsly.

>4. More mentally capable to handle dehumanization & mass slaughter.

noooooope

the marines, knowing how their predecessors rolled, would probably manipulate them into bringing the zombie horde into a spear fitted out killzone where they just repeatedly stab the little bastards over and over again

and then when the knights templar go all "wot wot, explain thyselves!" the marines will be all like THIS IS MY BOOMSTICK

except there'll be hundreds of them

and it'll be glorious

and we will have warhammer 2k

>and failing that they can put charcoal sulphur and diamonds and sodium into a log and make cannons out of it
I guess blowing themselves up with a home-made cannon technically neutralizes zombies as a threat.

you clearly have no appreciation for physics

I said bamboo cannons not bamboo bombs

not that it's a bad idea, one argument for crusaders is the tar/pitch method alongside stakes and other stuff

the tar pitch could be lit and zombies would walk right through and into that, boiling oil could be produced to simply... boil the enemy to death from undeath

with shamblers, crossbows and bows work fine, against faster ones, crossbows and/or lots of bows for pinning fire to damage joints to slow the enemy down so that upon contact, spearmen can stab the enemy's heads more readily in largescale fights

>you clearly have no appreciation for physics
You clearly have no appreciation for mechanical and structural engineering, or appreciation for the physics and chemistry behind the creation of explosives.

If you just randomly mix ingredients, even the right ingredients, that doesn't mean it'll automagically produce the right kind of powder.

If the powder burns too slowly, then all you've created is a giant sparkler.

If the powder burns too quickly in relation to the structural integrity of the barrel, then you just created a bomb.

There is no commercially-available chemistry textbook out there that teaches people exactly what kind of mixture is best suited for a given type of homemade cannon material and projectile(s). The marines would only be able to produce that through trial-and-error, which means they'll generating a lot of unnecessary light and noise. This is assuming they even manage to find a reliable source of the required materials.

>I said bamboo cannons not bamboo bombs
A distinction made only by the quality of craftsmanship.

>>4123
Melee weapons break good sir.

It's a nice dilemma.
Both marines and knights are highly trained, yet the crusaders knights will be much better at hand to hand combat and teh concepts of zombies is not unheard of in the middle ages. Their armour also makes them nearly invulnerable to the zombie horde
On the other hand the marines will have modern weapons, and much, much more knowledge - on making weapons, on medicine and on civilian technology. This gives them a big edge

>>4119

>A distinction made only by the quality of craftsmanship.

it's a good thing the marines have seen star trek then

>slow burn
>unnecessary light and noise
>this is assuming

stop assuming everything and just let physics take you through hell and back unscathed

and chemistry too

Marines. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Marine CQC > Swordsmanship. Their armor is thin and light, and no zombie is going to bite through that. (They can drop the bulletproof materials that weigh more, they don't need it) Their guns will ultimately run out of ammo, sure, but the butt of a rifle will do enough damage. The equipment they have will provide an immeasurable advantage as well. Lighters for instant fire, binoculars, radios, two way radios, engineering ability. All of those will help them survive.

What's the battleground though? Because Crusaders, while MUCH less equipped then marines, are going to be fighting fewer zombies. Villages would only carry a few dozen at a time, and major cities are scattered far enough that zombies would have wandered far into the woods. The odds of crusaders encountering a horde is slim to none, while the marines are going to be fighting a constant onslaught.

It all be about the logistics. If the jarheads will have a readily available source of ammo...and weapons, when they inevitably wear out...then the obvious choice would be the USMC. The Crusaders have one, and only one, big advantage: swords and maces don't run out of bullets. By the same token, war-horses don't run out of fuel as long as there is grass to munch.

This is truly a case of the tortoise vs the hare.

The 50 marines have a lot of guns and ammunition. Lets assume this goes down at a military outpost with an electic barb wire fence. Each of them has a lot of ammunition. They take shifts sleeping an guarding and they have enough enough food and rations to last for a some time. The problem is the more zombies that they kill the more show up. The loud gunfire draws in more and more zombies. I would think they would kill more zombies than the knights and survive for a few months at least. Eventually rations and ammuo run short. Some of the marines would venture out for food and supplies. Eventually the marines numbers would run thin. I estimate the last marine would die after about a year.

Since the marines got an electric fence and a lot of food and ammo I'm gonna say that the knights get a castle to defend. The castle has an internal farm to grow food during a siege, and a deep well full of plenty of water along with a moat that can be used as a source of water if need be. As long as a knight is wearing his armor absolutely no portion of his skin is exposed. He is completely bite proof. The knigts have plenty of swords and shields and axes and daggers. They have every mellee weapon you can imagine. Since the mellee weapons kill relatively silently then not as much zombies are drawn in. The castle provides a good sanctuary for the knights to sleep. I would think they could survive a bit longer, but the number of kills would be far lower.

anyone here think that modern humans who know how to fight will commit ritual suicide against slow dumb targets called zombies?

at least the marines won't all become zombified by drinking contaminated water like the knights will

File 138040351086.jpg - (42.46KB , 1280x720 , Thirsty.jpg )

>>4806
Of course not, they'll fire off all their ammo at the first solitary zed they see, luring the horde to their location where they'll promptly be eaten before they even get thirsty.

I must admit, encountering undead-knights would be awesome. Dead military personal will be a dime a dozen, zombie knights will be a special rarity, kinda like zombie clowns.

Modern armorr tends to be much lighter than full chianmail or plate.
Would a zombies rotting limbs succumb to the weight of dark age armour and thus prevent any fallen crusader from rising as the enemy?
It's an advantage.

>>4815
I suspect the extra weight would have no significant effect until the later stages of decay and final degradation kick in.

Wouldn't a lot of the crusaders be ineffective zombies as their full facial helmets prevent them from biting anyone? The ones with full helmets, that is.

25 Crusaders and 25 Marines.
/Thread.

impossible, the glorious eagle and the holy father are mutually incompatible

sure they give a good talk about how allied they are, and how tolerant they are, but you know there can only be one

>>4815
Bodies don't rot that fast, a crusader zombie would still be able to move about, though the armor would trap heat during summer and quicken the rotting process - unless they're in a desert, in which case they'll just mummify and you'll have a plated mummies to deal with.

>>4818
I'd consider them just as dangerous. They might not be able to bite, but imagine having a zombie in 80 pounds of steel clinging to you, resisting all your attempts to bash in its head as you bang against its metal helm, which winds up attracting more zombies to investigate.

They're zombie anchors/alarm systems.

last I checked plate went out of steel because boom headshot was superior

also everything that's dangerous about a knight is not dangerous if it's a zombie and everything dangerous about a zombie is non existent if it's in armor

a big stick could destroy a brain inside a helmet quite easily

>a big stick could destroy a brain inside a helmet quite easily
Did you just ignore the entire reason why helmets were invented?

go ahead, invite someone to swing at your head with a log while you wear combat helmets or knight helmets

you won't be posting here again~

I'm not sure if you're seriously suggesting swinging a tree trunk (that being what "log" generally refers to), which nobody swings, or if English isn't your native language and you didn't realize what you just said.

If it's the former, presenting unrealistic situations does nothing to support your opinion.

If it's the latter and you are in fact simply referring to a large club/pole/plank/any other wooden object that can be (and has been) swung, then you are seriously underestimating the protective value of helmets. Helmets didn't stick around for almost three thousand years because nobody in the history of warfare ever thought to hit it with something as basic as a big piece of wood.

That being said, if someone were to swing an actual log at my head when I was wearing a helmet? I can guarantee my brain will be intact, but I'd likely be dead due to my neck snapping.

>>4845
It's probably worth noting that it was only the first generations of helmets that had no internal padding. Later generations either had built in padding or the knight was wearing an arming cap underneath, sometimes both.

Two reasons, comfort and padding/shock absorption.

File 138207977652.jpg - (66.41KB , 587x391 , Helmets Don't Work.jpg )

Tell this Jarhead that helmets don't work.

well, we're talking about impacting a knight's helmet here with a heavy object

if you want to talk about open faced helmets and smashed in faces that's fine, show a picture of someone shot in the face while wearing a stahlhelm and we'll talk

and remember, we're talking about bashing zombies faces in here, they're not going to be superninja ducking or whatever kungfu one imagines will save someone from a really heavy object being swung really hard

>>4852

Oh! So we're NOT talking about the superhuman flying zombies from World War Z! That's a fucking relief!

>>4852
No, see, one of the reasons that style of helmet went out of use in warfare was pretty much exactly as you said:

>last I checked plate went out of steel because boom headshot was superior

Bullets made steel helmets obsolete, not heavy objects being swung by human hands. In fact, there's a reason why construction helmets (plastic) and firemen's helmets (boiled leather) are still used today to protect heads against heavy objects falling on them.

>and remember, we're talking about bashing zombies faces in here, they're not going to be superninja ducking or whatever kungfu one imagines will save someone from a really heavy object being swung really hard
Okay, now this clarifies quite a bit. When you say "destroy the brain", I assumed you mean by beating a zombie around the forehead, side, top, or back of the skull - the points closest to the brain and, not coincidentally, the points that most helmets are designed to protect. So what I was arguing against was the idea that a person can overcome the structural and material strengths of a helmet AND skull with a single, mighty swing.

That being said, trying to destroy the brain by going through the face doesn't make much more sense if you're using something blunt. Imagine the face being the crumple zone of a car's front end: when it gets hit, all that breaking bone and flesh being compacted is going to absorb a lot of the force from your swing; that's just fine in a living person, they'll be plenty distracted breathing blood and gargling teeth, but when talking about zombies it's probably safe to assume they won't care much.

Then there's the issue of the angle you have to swing at to get at the brain from the face, plus how far you can crush will be limited by the presence of a helmet, at which point you either switch to stabbing (which you should have probably done in the first place) or removing the helmet before swinging again.

I guess repeated hits to the head regardless of helmets is just a neck snapping good time or will mimic the effects of shaking babies except on zombies

one of the reasons construction helmets work though is precisely because plastic absorbs shock, as a slightly softer material, and boiled leather is slightly flame resistant on top of shock absorption

that's why wearing hell's bells on your head isn't necessarily going to work so well, and people die surprisingly easy due to brain trauma due to heavy hits in the face, it's one of the reasons airbags exist in cars, granted there'd undoubtedly be some sort of padding in a knight's helmet but this in no way shape or form prevents heavy blunt objects from doing what heavy blunt objects do best

transfer kinetic force through physical barriers even if they don't pierce them, same principle as when someone stomps the ground and you can feel it through your own feet/shoes

or, things like wood, or metal, etc, it's not just the concussion it's the force transference and differences in resistance that aid the whole effect too within multi-layered helmets and so on

I see your point, disagree a bit on the effectiveness of steel helmets (material is more rigid, yes, but at the same time they're constructed specifically to increase the chance of deflecting attacks and, depending on style of helmet, transferring forces away from the point of impact), but the thing is regardless of how much additional force is being transferred into the brain through the helmet, you can't actually "destroy" it in the same sense that popular zombie lore expects the brain to be destroyed.

If you're talking about damage caused purely by force being transferred by a blunt object through a helmet, then you're limiting the damage to what can be caused by internal bleeding and swelling; the more force you transfer is just going to make the brain bounce faster and harder around in the skull, but given how soft and spongy the brain is you'll crush the skull long before you impart enough force to obliterate the brain from bouncing alone. I'm also assuming reanimated corpses kind of zombies here, so I'm considering internal bleeding/swelling as non-issues for them.

A steel helmet is largely a steel helmet. That said, penetration of the helmet (and the cranium beneath) would depend largely on the weapon used. A broadsword, well swung, will do the trick. But it is not what the sword was designed to do, it takes a VERY fierce blow to accomplish the mission, and there is a good chance that the blade will be damaged, or even broken. A spear or lance is even worse; only fluke good luck would let one do the job. A battle-ax would have better luck.

It was well after the Crusades, but improvements in armour led to a whole new generation of weapons; the warhammer, the crowbill, and dozens of different design of polearm...all specifically made to penetrate plate armour. The protective value of the helmet is greatly reduced if the opponent is armed with one of these weapons. I hate to illustrate my point with a movie, and a historically inaccurate one at that, but set the way-back machine to the scene in Braveheart, the opening action of the Battle of Stirling. The Hero uses the back-spike of a warhammer to dreadful effect against a Sassenach knight's helmet and underlying noggin. I think that is a weapon which would work just as well IRL.

Actually, swords and axes were largely ineffective against helmets because they would glance off if the angle of the strike wasn't at just right; the helmet was also generally made of thicker steel than other pieces of armor, so you need that much more force to break it than if you went for the torso or limbs.

That being said, the beaks on the weapons you listed were indeed intended to pierce plate armor, but not helmets (for the reasons above). What you usually see in medieval combat manuals is the blunt end being used to concuss someone in a helmet, followed up by the sharp end being used to piece the thinner cuirass. That isn't to say it isn't possible, but it would be a lot more tiring than standard techniques, which could be fatal in a long, drawn-out battle.