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.

I had a relative that died because of blunt force trauma leading to enough brain damage that didn't show up in terms a large imprint on the head, which is unsettling but goes to show it does work that way

thing is with a zombie, all that tiring dodging and parrying is a non-issue and you can just line everything up nice and perfect with LOG

and just let the little bastards gnaw on it, or roll it down the stairs, because LOG

ugh, blunt force trauma to the head... I've had that a few times myself but I would never want to be hit in the head by a seriously swung blunt weapon, even with a helmet, I know better than to think that will not destroy my brain through the resulting whiplash even if it doesn't snap my neck

>>4862
LOG, LOG, LOG, LOG,
It's big, it's heavy, it's wood,
LOG, LOG, LOG, LOG,
It's better than bad, it's good...

>>4169
Its important to remember stealth is an element. Full armor suits are loud as hell. Also, these knights would all need squires to change and clean their armor- the armor was not designed for one person to put on or take off on their own. Also, because it took a long time to change, knights were expected to just shit and piss into their armor and have someone else clean it after battle.

>>4862
To reiterate:
>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.

In a living person:
1) Head trauma causes bleeding in the brain.
2) The bleeding causes swelling of the brain.
3) The swelling causes a number of brain cells (but not all) to die as they're crushed against each other/the skull/cut off from blood flow.
4) Death of brain cells cause complications, death of the patient being one of them.

In a zombie:
1) Head trauma can't cause bleeding in the brain because zombies don't have blood flow.
2) No bleeding means no swelling.
3) No swelling means nothing is being crushed and there's no blood to cut off either.
4) Every cell in a zombie's brain is already dead and rotting anyway, arguably a much worse state than #4 in a living person.

If you expect a zombie to die from the same kind of head trauma as a living person, then you're not dealing with a reanimated corpse/walking dead/supernatural undead zombie; you're dealing with a "Runner" from 28 Days Later or an actual I'm-not-dead-just-stoned-off-my-ass-because-voodoo zombie.

>>4570
Knights did experience an fear posttraumatic stress
http://sciencenordic.com/violent-knights-feared-posttraumatic-stress

>>4865

for these reasons, I am able to wind up a really great homerun on their head, crumpling the helmet into the brain with super smashes

okay cool I'm glad we had this conversation

don't forget "dead" means dead, therefore not moving at all

therefore it's not gonna bite, it's not gonna move etc ;)

unless we're talking about necromantic spellzombies that have a special magical rule that as long as their head is connected to their heart they can still gnaw chomp and so on

otherwise they'll just be night of the living dead zombies rawrrr! which means bullets won't affect them, in which case everyone more or less just dies as soon as it rains because lol groundwater contamination

etc etc :3

necromancy zombies are awesome though, cause then you get loot for killing them, and then it's a matter of dodge/parry/thac0

but if we're going into that category I'll just cast a purple spell protection from sadness 50 foot radius

>>4127
5. As you go back in time, the human immune system is more and more robust... etc. etc.

^^^ BS, please cite some evidence. Immunity is more reliant on diet and fitness level. There's a reason that 35 was a ripe old age in the peasant class.


>>4515
Verily, thank you for this.

>>4840
>a big stick could destroy a brain inside a helmet quite easily

>>4873
>for these reasons, I am able to wind up a really great homerun on their head, crumpling the helmet into the brain with super smashes

not sure if position has changed or doesn't get it...

>>4883

oh I get it, and the position hasn't changed

a big swing is quite easy to do, it's a big swing on a dodging highly mobile target that's difficult

one of the reasons why in baseball, kids can hit quite hard when a ball is on the Tee, but pros have difficult times hitting well in live-pitch

you should get out more, play some sports, hit some heads or something

>>4884
nope, clearly didn't get it.

protip: you're gonna need to lift more than your keyboard to break skulls.

don't hurt yourself trying though.

>>4887

don't be ridiculous, skulls are quite easy to break with the proper tools

>>4888
lol, time to stop playing so many video games

tell you what, you said it, you prove it. wrap a coconut in something padded, put a round iron pot no thicker than .15 inches over it, and try to smash that in one blow.

please hurt yourself trying, lol

and before you try to go "durr hurr, you test first"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhFojKM8ZZg
war hammer vs. spangem helm 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ATxLDZbbI
war hammer vs. kettle helm 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC6NwCW1CM0
war hammer vs. kettle helm 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpOFS09rLIY
german dude vs. zombies in modern steel helmet

only the spike does real damage, flat end just makes dents and those are fucking HAMMERS. now run along and do the test to prove how you can crush a helmet and skull with your ripped gaming arms, lol.

>>4890

nice, he even hit it with the side of the warhammer and it crunched the thing :D

>>4891
still not hearing you fail to smash helmets and skulls with a single blow

>>4892

exactly

I've been in the Military for over nine years now. And I can saw without a doubt, no contest that the Marines would fair way better. Not only do they have the necessary Intel required to survive including modern day technology regardless of it's continued operation, many years of weaponry, war and tactics beyond that of any Crusader. But I know we are trained to survive and be combat effective with or without modern tech. Though the ones that would fair best out of all of us are the Spetsnaz... because they are all of them insane... to scary levels. Yeah they probably would suffer the most losses but they would win... if winning could occur... they practice jumping over cars and people while doing a front flip and throwing an axe or knife into a skull... why... because fuck you thats why.

>>4928

Not dissing our disagreeing with your general position, but there are a just a couple of points.

Medieval knights, like the Samurai in Japan, existed ONLY to fight; war was their only function, and they trained for it daily. While they would have been hampered by a lack of large-unit tactical organization and knowledge, don't discount their individual training and combat skill and experience; as noted above, war was their life, their very reason for existence. This was true not only of the Knight, but also of his 'miles', his men-at-arms, the full-time professional soldiers of the day who formed the great bulk of the Crusader armies; the Knights were simply the officer corps.

Secondly, if any combat unit existing today were forced to rely on their basic combat load for any period of time, their efficiency would rapidly degrade to the point of nonexistence. Without resupply, ammunition would be rapidly expended and you would have a gaggle of guys armed only with a light, flimsy, half-plastic AR carbine (completely inadequate as a club) with a knife stuck on the end of it. And the modern military does not train its forces to fight as a unit with bayonets; trust me, I know. Everything is predicated on the assumption that the soldier WILL have ammunition for his personal weapon when the shit hits the fan. When everybody runs out of ammo, the best trained troops in the world become just another unarmed mob. And that is where the Crusader has his (only) advantage; as I've noted before, swords and maces don't run out of ammo.

>>4930
I would argue that marines wouldn't necessarily be limited only to what they carry. They would know the location of armories in their field of operation, plus whatever supplies gun stores (highly doubtful those would be looted, unless the store owner was irresponsible and put in cheap locks/didn't bar the windows, of course that means the marines will have difficulty getting in as well) still have.

>>4934
Okay, let me clarify my point.

If the Jarheads were operating in the modern world, shit; they wouldn't need any sporting-goods stores. They would have access to armories with enough weapons and ammo to literally fight a war with, and that is including heavy (crew-served) weapons, vehicles, fuel, and all the secondary equipment like medical facilities, shelters, field rations, etc. But the scenario is USMC vs. medieval Crusaders. I would think that you would be looking at some kind of temporal disturbance that took the Marines back in time...thereby separating them from their supply base...or some kind of wormhole/alternate-dimension/Stephen-Fucking-Hawking shit. Either way, they are without support and dependent on the gear and supplies they are humping.

If it works the other way, and the Crusaders arrive in OUR time; well, arrest them all for holding a Ren-Faire without a license; think the closing scene in 'Holy Grail'.

>>4935
Oh, yes, I should have made that point clear as well. I'm operating on the assumption that both groups are operating on their home territories and era, reason being it would be an unfair comparison otherwise since any group that has been displaced in location and time will have a massive handicap in addition to dealing with zombies. Alternatively the scenario can be both groups are displaced into some zombie-infested world that neither are familiar with, so both can enjoy the same handicap.

>>4936

Oh, hell; if that's the case, then there isn't even the beginnings of a contest! Assuming Romero/shambler zombies, the Marines would be infinitely more effective. Measuring Crusaders against Marines is a lot worse than comparing apples and oranges, after all.

Think of it this way; how well would a Crusader amphibious invasion of Guadalcanal have worked during WWII? It's doubtful that the poor bastards would have managed to kill the first Jap before they were entirely wiped out.

>>4938
Indeed, there's no contest when it comes to sword vs. gun in racking up kill counts, so it's unfair if the metric to "do better" is kill count, but it's also unfair if the metric is long term survival when the contest is rigged from the beginning by displacing one group in an unfamiliar environment.

Another thing to consider is just how many zombies each respective group has to kill. Marines may be able to kill more faster, but say they're trying to secure New York: that's potentially 8 million zombies in one city; conversely 13th century crusaders would need to kill at most something like 100 thousand zombies to secure Venice (most populace European city at the time, iirc). Of course, it would be dumb for either group to assault the most populated cities of their time, but it's just to illustrate the scale of their challenges.

>>4939

That's where correlation of forces comes in. Obviously, you can't send a single company of Marines in to secure NYC. Or a single Brigade, or a single Division. Any modern military organization facing a zombie outbreak would face far greater numbers of zeds than their feudal Crusader predecessors. Of course, the Crusaders in the Holy Lands never numbered more than a few thousand; in the first Crusade they didn't even have sufficient numbers to completely invest the city of Jerusalem. So, they too would be facing vastly overwhelming odds.

I think at the end of the day this topic, while interesting and provoking considerable discussion on an undead board that can certainly stand the activity, is very much a case of comparing apples and oranges.

File 138730533197.jpg - (13.64KB , 320x247 , ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.jpg )

>>4940
>apples and oranges
That's exactly what it is, it still sparks discussion.
They are going to have completely different advantages and disadvantages. There are too many "what if" scenarios and exceptions though, the discussion could really go back and fourth forever.

Assuming that the two groups share the same time and location, if I were the noble in charge of the Crusaders or the officer in charge of the Jarheads, my first thought would be "Why are we competing with these guys? We gotta team-the-fuck-up!" Seriously, even given language and cultural difficulties, wouldn't the living warriors make common cause against the walking dead? The Crusaders as cavalry scouts (assuming the Jarheads are leg-infantry without Humvees or IFVs) and close combat specialists, the Marines for general engagement of the enemy, especially removal of single targets or taking out large swarms.

Of course the noble and the OIC would have to fight a duel to decide who was Boss...which the noble would lose when the Marine officer shoota him right through the center of the forehead with his sidearm.

Didn't Mark Twain write something like that?

>Of course the noble and the OIC would have to fight a duel to decide who was Boss...which the noble would lose when the Marine officer shoota him right through the center of the forehead with his sidearm.

I disagree, the Crusader would win. For starters, duals are fought up close. The CO wouldn't be trained to handle an armour clad crusader at close range and would likely panic whereas the crusader would be relatively oblivious to the risk of the gun and charge head-first at the CO eliminating him in a swing or two. If the CO did manage to win, unless he got into an up close struggle with the Crusader and miraculously came out on top then the other Crusaders would be disgruntled with the win and see him as a cowardly cheat. Sure, they'd play nice for a while (likely until they learnt to use the new tech.) but they'd certainly throw a coup taking out the marines out when they least expect it.

Then you'd have 49 fully equipped crusaders with 20th century tech. which would undoubtedly make them the best during a zombie apocalypse.

Why the hell would there be dueling? The fact that an officer would never bet their command or that a noble would never duel a commoner aside, it's entirely possible for two military groups to cooperate without having the respective leaders try to kill each other.

In fact, they would want to cooperate and not absorb each other, because the roles of the two group differ so greatly that there's no way a single leader could effectively control the two even if they knew how to utilize the soldiers; any decent tactician would recognize this and the most they would do is appoint liaisons to facilitate communication and coordination.

And even if they were to duel, for whatever reason that might force them into such a situation, a marine's training is adequate in fending off people with swords (they do get into that situation quite a bit in the middle east and there hasn't been a single reported case of death by swording), the only difference is the armor (which is useless against grappling techniques, which is taught in CQC training, because it doesn't make joints any harder to bend), which is useless against a bullet. It doesn't matter how close they start, by the time a knight draws his sword a soldier would have his pistol out and discharged. It's not even a goddamn contest.

Marines for sure, sorry to break it but I wouldn't trust 50 men that don't know how to operate most of what exists today to go on and fight a few thousand foes.

Military nowadays know how to walk for hours without much trouble, they know how to take care of and use their guns, are in top physical shape etc etc

Though I haven't met a US Marine so I can't judge, but their training seems good.

>>4169
>Guns run out of ammo
>Implying ammo is actually a problem ( it's not, assuming the Marines shoot properly they'll spend as much ammo to clear out a whole town as they usually do to kill a hidden sniper )
>Implying swords don't need to be maintained ( that goes double for european medieval swords made of shitty iron )


Though for that kind of situation, the best would be 50 british soldiers ( the ones in colonies )

(>USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

Benefits only one group has:

Marine
+technology
+immunization

Crusaders
+brute strength
+extreme toughness (by modern standards)

It depends on whether they're in a developed region or not. I'd take the Marines to compensate for foreign disease and (my) lack of extended survivability. If I were in a developed area, I'd take the Crusaders because of their huge not-pussies edge on almost everyone else.

File 138814846096.jpg - (61.66KB , 600x800 , FOLDED OVER 1000 BILLION TIMES.jpg )

>>4956
>>4956
>european medieval swords made of shitty iron

MOSHI MOSHI KAWAI DESU?

>>4956
They'd probably know how to repair their swords.

>>4977

If the Crusader had access to his smith then he would also have his sutlers and other camp followers and the baggage-train that supplied his needs and luxuries. That would mean that the Marines would also have their logistical support system, and therefore every jarhead will have his ammo-resupply. Advantage, USMC.

On the other hand, while swords get all the press, attention, and adulation, even at this early date it had already been pushed into a subsidiary role; the Crusader knight and man-at-arms first primary weapon would be a lance/heavy spear, followed (given the heavily armored nature of his Saracen enemy) by mace or battle-ax, both of which would provide very good service indeed against zombies. Also, don't forget the archer/crossbowman corps to provide fire support and flank security.

50 random civilians with a six month training and a lot of state of the art tech gadget will do a great job. Until they run out of ammo.

50 warriors trained to melee fight since they are 6 year old will do a great job.

Skill>stuff

Context please?

Are you talking:
- zerg-rush, a la WorldWarZ, (marines would last 5 minutes longer)
- 28 weeks later(city) (marines would last half a day longer)
- lower intensity zombie rush a la (28 days later countryside (knights would have to learn to hunt) but would prevail
- long haul, a la TheRoad/WalkingDead (ditto)

File 140038860289.jpg - (10.21KB , 250x225 , MCMAP.jpg )

>>5063
>random civilians with a six month training
What do you mean? Marines are not just trained for 6 months and then done forever. Even the national guard you have to go to debriefings and PT every other weekend.

Also, U.S. Marines do not get very high tech gadgets. Some stuff like radios, but that's useless if no one else is there to talk to. Otherwise it's just a rifle and some other gear.

>>5100
Yeah; the Corps sucks hind tit when it comes to gear, which is why they have traditionally been masters at getting the most out of what they did have. For example, after the Army got the Apache attack helicopter the Marines were left with the old Vietnam-era Cobras...which they retrofitted with upgrades to make it as good a combat platform as any in the world. They say that you can't make bread without flour, but the USMC have been doing so, and doing it WELL, for a couple hundred years now.

>>5101
Mhmm... It's mainly the Navy and Airforce who have all the technology. Army gets some good stuff, and the USMC basically gets shit and has to make do.

I vote for the Crusader Knights. Most of these guys were raised as villagers which is the next thing to being a post-apocalypse survivor. It also depends on the basic scenario.

Team vs Team: The U.S. Marines got this.

Cooperative: The Crusaders have the background to see them through.

Teams Isolated from One Another: The Crusaders definitely have the more appropriate skill set.

In two out of three scenario, the Crusaders are better positioned to survive, so I'm throwing in my vote with them.

I vote very confidently for the Marines, and this is due to just two words: Battlefield Medicine.

See, the marines are all going to be trained at least in basic first-aid. They know how to clean and dress wounds, how to prevent infection, how to diagnose ailments. They'll all know human anatomy and medical technique well enough to at least perform a successful amputation if necessary. In a squad of that size, there will be several well-trained medics to boot. Once they run out of supplies, they'll still be savvy enough to do things like use alcohol to disinfect wounds.

The crusaders, on the other hand, don't even know what infection IS, much less how to prevent/treat it. In short order, all of them are going to die of relatively small wounds out there in the wastes. You step on a rusty nail, you're dead. You brush your leg against an old barbed-wire fence, you're dead. You get hit in the hand with one of your friend's swords, you're dead.

>>5393
>I vote for the Crusader Knights. Most of these guys were raised as villagers which is the next thing to being a post-apocalypse survivor. It also depends on the basic scenario.
Nope.

Knights were rarely lowborn, most knights are nobles who started their careers as children as pages then squires; the only way a commoner could rise to the status of knight is if they really impressed the shit out of someone during a battle, otherwise all of the traditional ways to become a knight were just way too financially prohibitive to a majority of the population. There were non-noble knights, granted, but those guys were generally mercenaries that were paid by some noble family to take the place of some son that's either too young or worthless to actually participate in the crusades (can't outright ignore the call to the crusade because it's instigated by the church and any God-fearing noble family that outright defies it won't be noble for much longer).

Villagers who were conscripted or lured by the promise of land ownership into crusader armies filled the ranks of pikemen, archers, and every other role that was essentially disposable. They would have been the guys with the knowledge of how to live off the land, not the knights.

>>5432
Actually, The Marines do NOT have their own medical unit nor get trained for such an event. Their medics come from the NAVY in the form of Hospital Corpsmen. So Marines alone wouldn't cut it.

Experience: Former Hospital Corpsman - US Navy

File 148225803781.png - (1.19MB , 1600x795 , s_e_v_e_n_swordman__s_by_geerdesings-d4lzjfc.png )

I vote for the knights cause they can slash the fucking throat outta of the zombies.

They are knights and will act reasonable while us marines dont possess the capability of fuck off.

US marines are just marines. Smoke some joints, get high and do the poppa poppa pop.

>Crusaders whip out the Ark
>Marines' entire country is destroyed

The crusaders would have a hard time not infecting themselves because of the use of swords (lots of fluid contacting the blades) vs. guns (one headshot, no splatter).

The way I see it. The Marines would do better initially as guns obviously have the range advantage, but as the ammo wears thin they would eventually be fucked even in Hand to hand, the knights would do better long term assuming they use good tactics and don't just run at the zombies like some crazed assholes with a death wish.

>>5610
Knights usually fought in formation, or at least in command of a formation of lower-ranked troops. Like pretty much all european nobility since at least the bronze age, and perhaps even going as far back as the late neolithic era. There is no such thing as "blindly charging into battle" like some hollywood-fantasy "barbarian".

Crusaders because ammo runs out faster than a sword's sharpness. Also because they most likely will have more knowledge and experience about real life. While the Marines are good at offensive, the Crusaders are better at defensive. If the Crusaders fled a crowd of zombies, they would be able to defend themselves against them because they don't rely on guns (which use limited resources). But for the Marines, their supplies would run out easily, and if they take up all of the remaining supplies in the world, eventually they would lose all other remaining supplies altogether and would have to rely on weapons that don't rely on limitation. So they would only last for a short time, being most effective at attacking zombies but not so for defending themselves.

imo. crusaders have the upper hand.

>>4119
Chainmail for the win. Fight as they may, sooner or later someone is going to get bit. Marine's cloth uniforms aren't going to hold up long, but knight's chainmail will grind those zombie's teeth out.

For real, I hope I can get a full-body chainmail (shirt, pants, gloves, hood) before the end comes.

>>5664
I would pay a million dollars to watch you, or anyone else, try and bite through a modern soldier's uniform, especially the kevlar parts.

That's not to mention how you're assuming the chainmail is made of modern steel so as to be corrosion-resistant. Since we're talking about historical Crusaders, their armor is going to rust away to nothing very quickly.

>>4119
If 50 fully-armed marines made it out of the initial incident together they would become one of the most powerful forces in whatever country they were in. It's not like the guns are the only thing in their arsenal, with or without the weapons you're talking about 50 mentally strong motherfuckers who've received some amount of survival training. A lot of them probably came from backgrounds like hunting/bushcraft/airsoft/etc., all of them have seen zombie media before because they're from the modern day. Assuming you're dealing with classic zombies and not oceans of super saiyan nu-zombies, and also assuming that they don't take on too many new people, they could take on a nomadic lifestyle, survive and probably prosper

File 159898764531.jpg - (178.28KB , 700x430 , Crusader Killing.jpg )

The Crusaders would do better than the Marines.
The reason for this is because we aren't talking about surviving for a few years. The Marines would likely run out of ammo in half a year tops, maybe if they are lucky they can last one year before they run out of ammunition.
After that they only have what makeshift weapons they can conjure up before they die.
The Crusaders however have specially crafted melee weapons, horses, armor, and years of experience of combat. They would survive in the long run for thirty to fifty years before dying of natural causes. Some might even make it longer.
That's assuming that this is a blank world where ammo and supplies are virtually non-existant. But I'd still take a Crusader over a Marine any day simply because I know he can win a fight without air support or crying about ptsd afterwards.

File 159898903635.png - (1.80MB , 1130x884 , Crusader Victory.png )

Never Forget
https://youtu.be/pT7VNCM12G4

>>5683
its not like the whole uniform is made of kevlar, its just nylon and a single plate on the front and back to protect vital organs, and i think some get side plates too. either way it doesn't matter, the point i'm making is that a zombie could still bite a fabric art hard enough to break the skin underneath and his saliva could soak through into the wound potentially. chain mail would disperse the pressure of the teeth and prevent the skin from breaking and they would probably get a bruise at worst.

>>5722
(((modern estimates)))

>>5733
Get your antisemitism the fuck out of here.

Marines:
>might be able to kill up to 100 times their number with perfect ammunition usage, Zombies won't stand a chance!!!
>oh fuck, that's only like 5000 Zombies, actually not a lot in context
>using their equipment immediately alerts all Zombies in an area
>can only run as fast as a human with a heavy backpack
>and even if we let them be fully motorized or have a helicopter, what are they going to do? Fly/Drive from place to place, waste their ammunition and alert Zombies?

Knights
>was able to so completely outmatch untrained, unarmored peasants, that you could control entire Kingdoms with just a few hundred knights
>the morale stat of the Zombies are broken, but they are really stupid as well
>Knight can functionally kill an unlimited amount of Zombies in any context
>In Situations where a cavalry charge is suicide, because of too dense Zombie Hordes, they can just slaughter them on foot or pick their battles
>can pick their battles, because their weapons won't alert Zombies from everywhere
>can use all kinds of various strategies, using chokepoints, stealth, etc to destroy Zombies
>chainmail and plate armor can protect against bites, Zombies can't pierce their armor and neither can they organize into formations, which if it wasn't for the fact of them having no morale state, would mean absolute destruction for the Zombies

Yeah. Zombies won't be able to do shit against Knights. Their only weakness would be bad writing to create tension in medium, where that sort of thing would be depicted.

The Marines wouldn't be bad btw. It's just that their tactics, equipment and training doesn't prepare them for a fight against Zombies, but they would still fare pretty well, once they adapt, because they would be vastly more powerful than a typical human.

File 160228981794.png - (287.19KB , 800x400 , Untitled.png )

Let's flip the script.

>>5734
Don't mind him. You are one of the good goyim.

>>5738
The liberals because they're naturally collectivist (they will work together) while conservatives are naturally competitive (they will fight each other as well as the zombies). Surviving any sort of hardship has less to do with individual traits and more to do with the actions of the group as a whole.

>>5738
>Liberals have no brain

So they're safe

>>5746
>Surviving any sort of hardship has less to do with individual traits and more to do with the actions of the group as a whole.
This is why I think the conservatives would be better off, actions. The conservatives will act without thought, at times in a manner detrimental to the group but they will still act.
The liberals however will debate and consider every issue before committing, time will not be on their side.

While the liberals spend time debating the best way to keep the Mexicans out the conservatives will be building a wall from anything on hand and actually keeping them out.

Provide the liberals survive the short term the long game is on their side, but realistically the conservatives will be coming out of the short game stronger and will overrun them when their own supplies dwindle.

>>5748
>the conservatives will be building a wall
Really? REALLY...? Trump just lost re-election, it's been four fucking years, and the wall has still not been built.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN YOU BRAINWASHED BOOTLICKING RETARD!

Give it up, man.

>>5749
>Really? REALLY...? Trump just lost re-election, it's been four fucking years, and the wall has still not been built.
And who was in charge of congress and blocking his efforts during that time?

Picture it:
You're made it to the mall and the dead are in pursuit. Captain thunder-farts tells everyone to quickly block the doors and windows. The conservatives rally and start hauling shit to block all the entrances. Meanwhile the liberals are screaming "WHAT ABOUT DAVE!".

Dave is running mere feet ahead of the horde, there won't be enough time to block the doors if you keep them open for him. The conservatives realise this but the liberals resist, they want to save Dave, so they start blocking the conservatives from erecting the barricades. Dave makes it, and now the place is swarming with zeds.

There's now only a handful of people left, trapped in a solitary store room behind a door, soy-boy-liberal-cuck-14 looks through the window and sees the deceased Dave on the other side looking gormless and hungry... the door opens, "Dave I missed you, come on in" as the horde swarms over him...

>>5750
There's no politics during the apocalypse, you retard.

>>5762
Don't look at me, >>5749 brought it up.

>>5750
>The GOP controlled 3.5 out of 4 of the branches of government and still couldn't find a way to do anything
If there had been one liberal in Nebraska who voted against you, they'd still be screaming obstructionism. You idiots have literally been raped up the ass and then believe the rapist when he claims it's the fault of someone else.

>>5766
I think you're getting off-topic soy-boy.

We're talking zombie apocalypse. Building a wall is a fundamental way to protect yourself from a zombie attack.

The merits of a haphazard and flawed wall being rapidly constructed to keep the zombies and straggling survivors at bay is preferable to delaying the erection of a barrier in order to ensure your fellow cuck is inside as the delay may result in a zombie incursion. At least in the short term...

>>5767
How fast can you build a wall, dumb shit? Do you even have the slightest fucking clue, or are you just going to assume that because you're not a "soy-boy" or a "cuck" that you can manage to just toss a fucking pile of rocks together in a half-hour and that'll keep the zeds out.

First you need materials. Bricks/blocks/rocks and some kind of mortar. Most likely you don't have any of that shit where you are, and when SHTF you probably aren't going to have time to run to Home Fucking Depot and pick up the materials. To say nothing of the time to actually build it (hours) and time for the mortar to set so it can't just be pushed over (days). No, you can't just pile it up because the angle of repose of whatever you pile is going to be so shallow it can be crawled up like a ramp.

Second, do you even have the mathematical sense to understand the scale going on here? If you wanted to make a brick wall 8 feet high so a zed can't simply climb it, you're looking at about a ton of material per every ten feet. A wall ten feet long isn't going to do you a damn thing; the zeds can walk around it. You'll have to wall AROUND an area, like a house, which is going to be a perimeter of like 200 feet. So we're talking SEMI-TRUCKS worth of material, and weeks of construction time.

Seriously how could you not realize this?? If you wanted to make a foot-tall retaining wall for a fucking 5x5 garden you need a half-pallet of bricks and like five bags of mortar mix. Not to mention the SHTF so probably the water has been shut off, so you CAN'T EVEN MAKE THE MORTAR (or concrete)! And that'd still take you a day.

Seriously. This is your "short-term" plan? To turtle in place and "build a wall" when you have no idea how...? You'll be eaten by nightfall the first day.

Oh, and by the way, any wall is ineffective depending on the scale of the zombie hoard. If there are a LOT of them (and in what scenario are there only a few) they'll simply pile alongside the wall and crawl over each other until they reach the top, like the bugs in Starship Troopers. And now YOU are the one trapped behind the wall, ironic.

And you suggest you'll outlive those damn soy-boys with their stupid math and intelligence and strategy because... what? You're a badass? You have chutzpah? You're not a liberal therefore you win?? What a complete joke.


You want my advice: in the short term you RUN. Get away from population centers and find a place that ALREADY HAS a wall. And if you're still being pursued by zeds, whether poor Dave is still outside or not, you haven't run far enough. "Holing up" anywhere, when you're surrounded by immortal hungry predators is just extending your suffering.

>>4186
>I don't have any argument so I'll just post neckbeards

>>5770
Wow your butt is hurt!

>>5775
It took you almost an entire month. Is that the best you can do?

>>5776
>It took you almost an entire month. Is that the best you can do?
Could no doubt do have done better but it's been a long month and you forget, this board is /zom/ and practically (un)deadly as is. The only reason I saw and respond to your post is because I spotted >>5574 on the front page.

But back on topic:

Did you even read what I wrote:
>The merits of a haphazard and flawed wall being rapidly constructed to keep the zombies and straggling survivors at bay is preferable to delaying the erection of a barrier
> At least in the short term...
We're not talking about a wall to stand the test of time here boy, we're talking about one that will maybe stand the night. Say you've made it outside of town and the only place nearby is an empty gas station. The doors been left open and the display windows smashed, you don't have any way to lock it or replace the pane, are you just going to leave that shit unlocked overnight? No, you barricade the door and window with anything on hand to keep any potential threats out. That's the kind of proverbial wall I'm talking about. What you're counter-proposing is you're either going to go off wandering in the dark or not going to bother fortifying your position because "if I can't do it right what's the point", which is, ironically, the wrong way of thinking.

The only time you even consider building a permanent wall is when you've found somewhere quiet, isolated and settle-worthy. And even then, you'll erect a temporary wall whilst you're building your permanent one. Of course, you also have to be able to bug-out in a heart - beat.

Feel better now you got a fuller response?

>>5777
>We're not talking about a wall to stand the test of time here boy
>boy
I'm not going to let you continue to condescend to me after I unleashed a metaphorical slaughter of knowledge and experience on your retard LARPing ass.

Enjoy your (un)dead board by yourself.

>>5778
>I'm not going to let you continue to condescend to me after I unleashed a metaphorical slaughter of knowledge and experience on your retard LARPing ass.
Dude, this whole boards a larp. If you're telling me you believe otherwise and that zombies are real then me calling you boy is not out of touch.

The Marines easily slaughter the knights with their guns and drone strike the survivors and their families. However, it would be a pyrrhic victory as the Marines would die from biological contamination of long extinct viruses that have no cure.

Crusaders. Here's why.

>No reliance on modern luxuries like gps and electricity
>Knew basic survival skills like foraging, preserving, hunting, and cooking
>Comparatively easier repairing method to guns
>Often carried spears
>Robust immune system
>Came with both a vehicle and emergency food source
>Weren't retarded

>>4119
Crusaders because they have the help of God.
Oh, and also lances wich don't require ammunitions.
Oh, and also horses wich are always an advantage.
Oh, and also armors.
Oh, and also some of them might have shields.