PDA

View Full Version : Samurai vs Knight



Germanicus
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Have you ever wondered who would win in a one on one duel between a samurai and a medieval knight? I always figured it would be too close to call. I felt that a knight would be bigger and stronger but that the samurai would be faster, better equipped and more capable (TV influence!). I changed my opinion after I read this article:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

(very interesting!)

I now fully believe that a knight would obliterate a samurai....:D

Your thoughts?

Huzar
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 03:21 PM
Have you ever wondered who would win in a one on one duel between a samurai and a medieval knight? I always figured it would be too close to call. I felt that a knight would be bigger and stronger but that the samurai would be faster, better equipped and more capable (TV influence!). I changed my opinion after I read this article:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

(very interesting!)

I now fully believe that a knight would obliterate a samurai....:D

Your thoughts?

Yeah, academic question....:P . Well, i asked to myself the same thing when i was a child;) .....On an ideal vision i don't see a winner, but if i must imagine a very realistic scenario, the answer sound so : The knight, until is on the horse (european horse is, more imponent and powerfull than japanese horse) would be in dominant position. Major assault power. Although, without horses, knight would be very slow with the armour(although well protected by 40 kg. of iron) while samurai would be more fast with his less heavy armour (10 kg. of wood) but less protected too. Knight two-hands sword( 10 kg.) has a tremendous impact, but its weight is so great you couldn't rise your arm many times. Katana , instead is very fast......

nicholas
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 03:56 PM
Yeah, academic question....:P . Well, i asked to myself the same thing when i was a child;) .....On an ideal vision i don't see a winner, but if i must imagine a very realistic scenario, the answer sound so : The knight, until is on the horse (european horse is, more imponent and powerfull than japanese horse) would be in dominant position. Major assault power. Although, without horses, knight would be very slow with the armour(although well protected by 40 kg. of iron) while samurai would be more fast with his less heavy armour (10 kg. of wood) but less protected too. Knight two-hands sword( 10 kg.) has a tremendous impact, but its weight is so great you couldn't rise your arm many times. Katana , instead is very fast......
Take into account fighting styles. My geuss is the Knight would tire quicker due to weight. One good hard blow from the knight and the samurai is toast. My geuss is the samurai would either use his katana to poke through the slots of the knights helmet, lure the knight in such a way as to get him on his back and remove some armor, or crush him with a really big rock. Yet we must also take into account the codes of honor that both follow. They may end up not fighting due to it not being an honorable fight, but for different reasons.

nordic_canadian_male
Monday, February 28th, 2005, 07:54 PM
Knights trained always with their armour on, and the armour was not very limiting at all. Remember war armour was not the same as jousting armour, and Lets be realistic here, first single combat is very short, endurance isnt that important when you're trying to kill the other person.

Knights too were physically superior, stronger, bigger, faster, more agile and better fighters. Trained since chilhood, a knight was not an easy foe to vanquish.

Also the samurai had no shield, this being the knights largest advantage. Why were so many weapons(roman pilum etc..) in history developed to remove the shield, because it was a critical piece of warfare. The samurai developed their warfare along more ritualistic lines, their fighting conditions were also very insular and restricted to change due the acceptance of their way of war. Knights on the other hand developed their way of to achieve victory in combat, with so many continuous wars, and war conditions they continuously changed and evolved although sometimes not as quick as they should have. In the end the small, ritualistic samurai would face the larger, combat efficient knight, who with all his knightly prowess would cut his fish face in half.

If you realy was see slaughter, try putting a samurai against a viking berserker.......can you say sushi :axe

Draco
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005, 01:06 AM
The knight.

Contrary to movies, where people just hack and slash through armor, they were basically immune to slashing weapons, and a brittle samurai slashing sword would have done nothing against plate armor.

The samurais only chance would have been an arrow into a joint. Not easy to do with a shielded opponent.

Awar
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005, 01:17 AM
Well, in realistic fighting conditions... I wouldn't know.

In reality, the Samurai can also retreat, and the knight can also
get tired from chasing after the Samurai :)
Maybe we should put them in a ring? ;)

btw. yes, I agree that a katana would be ineffective against a European armor.

The Huns, Avars, Mongols, who were also physically weaker, lighter-armoured,
and had weird customs basically obliterated Europeans on many occasions.

fenriSS_
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005, 07:52 AM
I'm sure conan would have beat em 2v1:P. Anyway i think the knight would have won

Stew
Tuesday, March 1st, 2005, 07:58 AM
I would liken the style and speed of a mounted Samurai to the Moors that european knights fought during the crusades. I think we know who won that one. :)

Rhydderch
Thursday, March 3rd, 2005, 10:47 AM
A better way of looking at it would perhaps be to see it in terms of a ratio, because it's likely that either of the two would have the capacity to win on different occasions, but maybe one would win more often than the other.

Huzar
Thursday, March 3rd, 2005, 10:54 AM
A better way of looking at it would perhaps be to see it in terms of a ratio, because it's likely that either of the two would have the capacity to win on different occasions, but maybe one would win more often than the other.

Good. My ratio = knight 70% - samurai 30%

Altruist
Saturday, March 5th, 2005, 04:35 PM
I think the knight would kick the samurai's ass, quite frankly.
I searched google for this and it seems there are differing opinions on the subject. Asian boards seem to prefer the samurai, but even on one of them there is a few who favour the knight. It was said that samurai weren't warriors 24-7 and they did have other jobs on the side, like farming or baking.

If the samurai runs away then I think it is safe to assume he isn't a samurai. Not that I know their code of honour, but that's fairly cowardly.

They're both great warriors. The knight has the physical advantage (at least the height one!). The knight is an iron man. The samurai has affiliations with rose blossums.

Too many people think of knights as immobile stone warriors.

Awar
Saturday, March 5th, 2005, 06:04 PM
I think the knight would kick the samurai's ass, quite frankly.
I searched google for this and it seems there are differing opinions on the subject. Asian boards seem to prefer the samurai, but even on one of them there is a few who favour the knight. It was said that samurai weren't warriors 24-7 and they did have other jobs on the side, like farming or baking.

Hmm... true, but, how does having other knowledges besides fighting hinder one's ability to fight?

A farmer/samurai who had been in 10 battles is much more useful than
a total warrior knight, who has been in one battle in his entire life.



If the samurai runs away then I think it is safe to assume he isn't a samurai. Not that I know their code of honour, but that's fairly cowardly.

The feigned retreat, the way many nomad warriors defeated many
overwhelming forces.



They're both great warriors. The knight has the physical advantage (at least the height one!).

Well, the medieval knights weren't exactly towering hulks. Remember that medieval people were much shorter than today's average.
( I have seen a chart of average heights through times... the palaeolithic hunter/gatherers were as tall as modern people, then heights declined to medieval times, and then increased again until modern times ).



The knight is an iron man. The samurai has affiliations with rose blossums.

So? Does poetry and philosophy make someone a feeble warrior?
I fail to see a connection.



Too many people think of knights as immobile stone warriors.

I agree. Both a Samurai or a European knight would unarmed kick the ass of most today's people with ease.

SiegUmJedenPreis
Saturday, March 5th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Take into account that a Samurai doesnt just fight with the Katana. There are quite a lot of japenese weapons designed spesifically to pierce armour.

Berliners Remember
Sunday, March 6th, 2005, 09:07 PM
i agree with the 70 to 30 ratio on the knight!!....good points.

Rhydderch
Monday, March 7th, 2005, 11:40 AM
It was said that samurai weren't warriors 24-7 and they did have other jobs on the side, like farming or baking.I think most knights would have had jobs (such as farming) beside being warriors.

Altruist
Monday, March 7th, 2005, 08:54 PM
I won't make an attempt to appear well-versed in the ways of Knights, but I'd assume from the training of the Squires and such, that any Knight would have seen various forms of conflict long before he was knighted.
http://www.castles-of-britain.com/castle35.htm
Perhaps some Knights had other jobs, but I wouldn't say that most did. Here we have a few services that were provided:
http://historymedren.about.com/cs/knightsarmor/a/kl1define.htm
They had quite the noble aspect. Tournaments, wars and councils.

jalapenokisses
Monday, March 7th, 2005, 11:53 PM
the samurai vs knight question was applied in the 3rd crusades when turkish gazis stormed palestine and crushed the crusaders made up of all of pope's dominions, kings present where england, france, and the teutonic knights of the holy roman order represented the pope.

An 14th century english knight would be the typical mideval knight of common culture today

while a turkish gazi would be pretty much a samurai in fighting style, sword usage and spirituality.

If you dont know what a turkish gazi is, they are like samurai warrior castes, the turkish handzar has very similar slicing method of a katana, and they were shintoist in spirituality , after all the word for allah in turkish is tengri, shinto is the worship of tenshin. martial arts techniques would be the only effective way to use a handzar while english long swords were more built like a baseball bat for blunt damage.

The gazi code is the rule of law for the ottoman empire, they had justice system ruled by the gazi code, like for example if a turk did a crime , islamic laws dont apply to them but gazi code does. The pirate barbarosa was tried for killing 149 greek men, women and child as a member of the turkish military and he was tried by the gazi tribunal and sentenced to prison, thats why he left the ottoman empire to become a pirate. The gazi code is in effect very similar to bushido code, its about shamanist honor and loyalty.

Altruist
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 02:51 AM
Do you have numbers on the Knights and the Gazis?
It doesn't really help us to find that the Turks overwhelmed the Crusaders with a flood of men. That would also be a war-type scenario, where we're aiming to measure the ability of a Samurai and a Knight in a duel. Here we have a number of variables:
[ http://www.edgegrove.herts.sch.uk/academic/history/section5.htm ]
If that's the Third Crusade^:
"Saladin was not strong enough to meet the crusader knights in open battle"
"The situation was made worse by disease and the climate"
I'm not sure if the site is biased or even very reliable, but nevertheless, good observation.

Angelcynn Beorn
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 03:06 AM
Yeah, academic question....:P . Well, i asked to myself the same thing when i was a child;) .....On an ideal vision i don't see a winner, but if i must imagine a very realistic scenario, the answer sound so : The knight, until is on the horse (european horse is, more imponent and powerfull than japanese horse) would be in dominant position. Major assault power. Although, without horses, knight would be very slow with the armour(although well protected by 40 kg. of iron) while samurai would be more fast with his less heavy armour (10 kg. of wood) but less protected too. Knight two-hands sword( 10 kg.) has a tremendous impact, but its weight is so great you couldn't rise your arm many times. Katana , instead is very fast......

I think you've been getting a bit too much of your info from tv. European armour, even plate, didnt weigh 40kg, and the weight was evenly distributed over his body to allow a remarkably good level of agility and speed. And no sword has ever weighed 10kg!!! Most European swords tend to weigh in the region of 3lbs (just over 1kg) and are designed for rapid 1 handed cut and thrust.

Awar
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 04:01 AM
Well, some European swords did weight up to 12kg... those were the heaviest two-handed duel swords.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 06:41 AM
These two fighting systems were never designed to go up against each other. Still, the Samurai had better steel in his sword and it was lighter and his fighting stye, his moves, were shorter and quicker. The Samurai never fought against armor, though. On the other hand, the Knight could have sat back with nothing more than a hammer and awaited an opening or mistake. Without any sort of protection, it would have been over for the Japanese, instantly.

In terms of fighting evolution, I would have to go with the Samurai. He was much later and it is not surprising that in some sense at least, he was superior.

racial_intellect
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 07:11 AM
well, numbers are hard to come by, but the 14th century crusade was entire county's military force, so you are talking about entire army of noblemen, and best fighting force (remember in story of robin hood england was plagued by bandits cuz every single abled soldier was in palestine) from the modern countries of England, France, Italy, Germany, and Netherlands all which are large sedentary nations with large farming base vs a band of nomads without a home.

I think the numbers were heavily against the gazis.

Altruist
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 03:19 PM
Well, I did my best on searching for army sizes here and I founda thing or two:
[ http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Crusades.html ] Concerning the Third Crusade:
"Saladin attacked Richard at Arsuf with 80,000 men, three times the size of Richard's army, but Richard led a cavalry charge and routed Saladin's troops.45-47"
[ http://www.rickard.karoo.net/articles/battles_acre.html ]
"1187 saw the crusader kingdoms reach their low point. The crusaders fought amongst themselves, while at the same time Saladin was unifying large parts of the Muslim world, eventually coming to surround the crusaders"
"Guy of Lusignan, king of Jerusalem, was able to raise an army of almost equal size to Saladins', but it was badly led, and the crusaders suffered a decisive defeat at the battle of Hattin" (keyword: almost)

I think we're perhaps underestimating the breeding powers of Saladin's kingdoms. He was fed by wasn't a small-fry, himself! Ancient Middle Eastern armies are legendary for their sizes.

Phill
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 04:12 PM
the samurai vs knight question was applied in the 3rd crusades when turkish gazis stormed palestine and crushed the crusaders made up of all of pope's dominions, kings present where england, france, and the teutonic knights of the holy roman order represented the pope.


As a counter, let us not forget the Order of St. John the Baptist, whom fought off multiple waves of Turkish invasions ranging from 50,000 to 200,000 men while the Order, if I remember right, always had less than 10,000 fighting bodies. Most of those consisting of Militia. As for the Turks, if I remember right, I believe a lot of their forces consisted of Janissaries.

jalapenokisses
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 04:56 PM
Maybe it wasn't the 3rd crusades, because I know saladin lost that one and he was a kurd. seems very strange turks would number more than 100,000 and loose that many in men, 100,000 is alot back in those days, an army of 50,000 (a roman legion was around this number) was considered to be huge in those times. How many abled men do you thing england could provide with food, weapons and armor? around 50,000 i think and england had backing of cities, villages, farms, and many artisans and craftsmen. Turkish didn't have this. Let's say England fielded 4 legion sized armies, France also, and Holy roman empire being bigger fielded 6, thats around 300,000 men without counting support. I don't think turks could field 5 times that number that would put them at 1.5million. or Half the entire population of england in 1700s.

Awar
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 05:06 PM
What do you mean Turks didn't have cities???

The middle east was several times richer than Europe in those days...
the deal with army sizes isn't that crucial, because Muslims surely could've
gathered huge forces, but, many of those were simple peasants armed with sticks.

I think those numbers are overestimated.

jalapenokisses
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 07:50 PM
ottoman turks were nomadic tribes people and didn't live in cities.

This thread was about samurai vs knight, and not all muslims had the type of fighting style of the gazis. Turkey today is rather homogeneous as well suggesting that turkish armies rarely had outside help.

All I am saying that Samurai and Gazis were kinda the same and would help this thread's original question.

I find both cultures the turkish and the japanese to have similar aspects.

Turkish is a dialect of mongolian
Japanese is a dialect of mongolian

Turkish call their god tengri
Japanese call their god tenshin

Turkish have shamanism as part of their islamic education for example their word for god and their national flag is shamanist rooted

Turkish have kirkpinar and Japanese have the sumo both religious ideas
Turkish have sheesh kebak or don kebab, japanese have terijaki and hibachi

The handzar and the katana

since we will never see a samurai and a knight in action this is the closest I think ever was to that.

And I don't think any european power had any ability to defeat the gazis until 500 years after the battle of constantinoples. By then sword skills were not so important.

It's safe to assume europe is lucky Japan was an island 5000 miles away. Giving the samurai the ability to face a knight would not be so pretty for europe.

morfrain_encilgar
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 08:38 PM
ottoman turks were nomadic tribes people and didn't live in cities.

No, but Turkic conquerors could raise and support a greater armed force after they had urban subjects.


Turkish is a dialect of mongolian
Japanese is a dialect of mongolian

I think you mean Altaic, which also includes Mongolian.

Awar
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 08:59 PM
ottoman turks were nomadic tribes people and didn't live in cities.

Nope. By the time the Ottoman dynasty was in power, the Turks weren't nomads for over 300 years.


This thread was about samurai vs knight, and not all muslims had the type of fighting style of the gazis.

That's besides the point. But, you're right, in this thread we should focus more on Ghazis than on general Muslim armies.



Turkey today is rather homogeneous as well suggesting that turkish armies rarely had outside help.

It's not homogenous in any way.


All I am saying that Samurai and Gazis were kinda the same and would help this thread's original question.

Well, similar in many aspects.


Turkish is a dialect of mongolian
Japanese is a dialect of mongolian

Nope. Turkish is associated with Altaic languages,
Japanese isn't directly.



Turkish call their god tengri
Japanese call their god tenshin

Turks of Turkey, the Ottoman Turks are mostly
the population of Byzantine empire ( various Anatolians, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds ) and Iranian tribes which became Turkified.



Turkish have shamanism as part of their islamic education for example their word for god and their national flag is shamanist rooted

:suspect



Turkish have kirkpinar and Japanese have the sumo both religious ideas
Turkish have sheesh kebak or don kebab, japanese have terijaki and hibachi

It's a question which traditions are of which origin.
Many Turkish traditions have been taken from Greeks or Arabs.


The handzar and the katana

That can easily be a coincidence.


since we will never see a samurai and a knight in action this is the closest I think ever was to that.

True probably.



And I don't think any european power had any ability to defeat the gazis until 500 years after the battle of constantinoples. By then sword skills were not so important.

The Turkish presence in Europe from the late 14th to the 17th century was
by conquest. Later, it was there because of power-play between various European empires. The 'power' of a single unit doesn't have such a hand in all that.



It's safe to assume europe is lucky Japan was an island 5000 miles away. Giving the samurai the ability to face a knight would not be so pretty for europe.

Hehe... that's so far-fetched, I don't want to even begin answering.
You have some pro-Asian bias... why?

Huzar
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 09:09 PM
I agree with almost all Awar points.

jalapenokisses
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 09:44 PM
how am i biased when all i give is facts. And all you give is stuff that don't really say anything about the samurai vs knight stuff, it doesnt help the subject.

You say 14th to 17th century turkish power was by conquest...this statement says what? so turks have conquered europe for 300 years and you think i am biased to say that samurai living on island and not anywhere near europe is a good thing for the knight is bias?

Schutzstaffelor
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 09:56 PM
any two distantly related cultures will have similarities, if you look hard enough. the obscure similarities you listed were no more than mere coincidences.

your argument that the japanese samurai and the turkish ghazis were the same has no more basis than some claims (even by the japanese themselves) that they were descendents of ancient jewish tribes.

for example, the site: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/israel/losttribes3.html
lists some intriguing similarities between japanese culture and jewish culture, but they are just coincidences, no less.

racial_intellect
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 10:16 PM
sumerian language is also related to turkish, so it's not a coincidence hebrew language has japanese words. They are not distantly related cultures. the hebrew race came from ancient sumerians, because hebrew has many turkish words but the grammar is semitic. Japanese and Chinese are also grammatically different, yet every single word pointed out by that website also is the same with Chinese, in chinese gai-jin is guai-ren. But chinese grammar is not turkish but polynesian. so based on that website chinese are also jews and turks too. or jew are turks?

Awar
Tuesday, March 8th, 2005, 11:47 PM
how am i biased when all i give is facts.

What you stated can hardly be called 'fact'.



And all you give is stuff that don't really say anything about the samurai vs knight stuff, it doesnt help the subject.

Well, the thread has wondered off in some interesting directions.


You say 14th to 17th century turkish power was by conquest...this statement says what? so turks have conquered europe for 300 years and you think i am biased to say that samurai living on island and not anywhere near europe is a good thing for the knight is bias?

You oversimplify things. First of all, Ottomans conquered SE Europe up to Hungary and Vienna, but haven't managed to go further than that.

If the European forces were united against them, they wouldn't have even made it past Constantinople. Let me remind you that the fatal blow to the Byzantine Empire was struck by Catholic crusaders, the Turks didn't have such a tough job about it.

Their entry into the Balkans was granted by the internal struggles of Serbian and Greek nobles. Their further movements into European soil were from there allowed by the disjointed acting of various European kingdoms and empires.
Circumstances were great for Turks, for a while.
At the time, many Orthodox christians saw Islam as a lesser evil than that of western Catholics.

So, European forces at those times weren't inferior to Turks, the circumstances did make a large part of Europe fall into their hands,
and later, their influence remained, largely thanks to various European empires
struggling between themselves. I think all European empires supported Ottomans at some point during the interval between the 1600's to 1900's.

Circumstance is what saved Europe many times, circumstance is what ruined it many times. Such is history.

racial_intellect
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 01:04 AM
you dont call all the nations under christ united in one single crusade, by its kings not union of all europe???!!!!!! if the english king and the french king and the holy roman inquisitors and archbishops couldnt defeat the turkish forces in palestine what big difference do you think it would have made if they showed up at constantinoples? King louis the coward of france got his title when he was captured by turkish forces and then he was let go to walk back to camp of his allies after all his knights had been killed. The english king then decided it was time to go home and the crusades ended, not shortly king louis dies at the hands of the english and france was invaded by england for 100 years.

But what is that gotta do with samurai vs knight? do you think knights are better based on what, what if this what if that? or the turks were only occupying the balkans in the insignificant 500 years time, they had such bad fighters. Jalapeno provided some facts, she didnt say anything non factual event maybe a few errors here and there.

Awar
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 01:44 AM
you dont call all the nations under christ united in one single crusade, by its kings not union of all europe???!!!!!! if the english king and the french king and the holy roman inquisitors and archbishops couldnt defeat the turkish forces in palestine what big difference do you think it would have made if they showed up at constantinoples?

:suspect

Angelcynn Beorn
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 04:00 AM
I think some of the people on this thread need to hit the history books before they come back and embarass themselves again...

Awar, interesting about the 12kg swords, i'd never heard of them. Do you have a link? I cant really comprehend how difficult it must have been to wield a sword that heavy.

Awar
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 04:33 AM
Awar, interesting about the 12kg swords, i'd never heard of them. Do you have a link? I cant really comprehend how difficult it must have been to wield a sword that heavy.

I have an illustrated book about various weapons, and it features
a photo of such a medieval sword, and some old illustrations on duelling with such swords.

I've tried to wield a 10kg bar in the gym in such a way... not good for the testicles, but definitely possible... with good balancing :D

Altruist
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 04:09 PM
It would be handy to have some websites or something to refer to. I find it hard to imagine that the crusaders had inferior warriors... I agree that there is a huge difference between Mid-Eastern and Japanese people. Different people, different environments, different situations and different lifestyles. It's basically settled for me though, knights have more convincing arguments on any forum/site that I have found concerning this subject.

Joermungand
Friday, March 18th, 2005, 05:47 PM
Well there are german Zweihänder (simple means "for 2 hands") that weight up to 10 KG - up 170cm in height.
And there are European Armor Piercers too like the Rabenschnabel (Raven`s Beak) what is a 1handed hammer with a sharp spike otoh the hammerkop , what brings much power onto the target.


And Samurai also had heavy armors up to 25KG (source: Was ist Was*G*)



so my english isnt that good i hope u can understand my writings.


mfg. Joer.

SC-Mann
Saturday, March 19th, 2005, 12:11 AM
The katana blade was of higher quality and less impurities, but the blade itself was extremely fragile. The hollywood depiction of samurais,ninjas etc deflecting each other's attacks using the frontal portion of the sword as defense is fallacious, they deflected using the back of the sword (if possible) because if the opposing force was strong enough it would shatter the front of the blade. Also, great skill and craftmanship went into European blades, the depiction of medieval armies beating each other to death with steel clubs is once again Hollywood. I feel the original quality of steel in parts of Europe was easily equal to Japan's , but of course the Japanese method to rule out impurities and the specific process made it an exceptional weapon. I mean the sword itself was of amazing sophistication and quality but the razor-edged thinness in the front couldn't of handled a direct blow by a medieval sword, axe, halberd etc.

Also in kendo and actual sparring practice, i forgot the term for it, but they perform swinging and cycling motions with the blade that goes completely into their philosophy of life, spirituality, etc. and it would of been completely foreign to the fighting style of the european knight. The European fighting style was always progressing, and the tactics and style would of seened completely alien to the Japanese in many ways, and perhaps similar in a few. As for on horseback I know the samurai had a shorter version of the lance, forgot its name also, but I doubt it was as long or well-developed as the European version. The samurai form of horse archery seemed superior to anything in Western Europe, the only equivalent would of been crossbowmen or English longbowmen on foot. A samurai on horseback as an archer could of picked off a knight easily, as was seen with the Mongols in Eastern Europe.

I tend to go with the knight on this because of additional armor and variety of weapons, but then again the samurai's armor wasnt exactly paper, and their weapon array was numerous as well. Would be a very interesting fight, among two of the finest warriors in military history.

Vanir
Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 02:23 PM
ROTFL Knight vs Samurai...Ahh dear, OK...
How could a Samurai of basically ANY skill level defeat Jean Reno in "Les Visiteurs"? :lol now that bloke is thought&action as one personified.

I know that the Scottish/Irish mercenaries in the 11th or 12th century known as Galloglas preferred wielding pretty large two-handed swords in combat...here's a pic of what I guess they must've looked like.
http://home.earthlink.net/%7Erggsibiba/images/gal2.gif
http://home.earthlink.net/~rggsibiba/html/galloglas/gallohist.html (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Erggsibiba/html/galloglas/gallohist.html)
Any sword of those kind've dimension must be getting up around the 10kg mark given the amount of steel in it!
Maybe in quelling a rabble, or for ritual duelling, perhaps they might have been useful then, but such weapons seem utterly useless to me in a militarily practical sense. Maybe such bodyguards were a status symbol? An Axe seems a far better choice of two handed weaponry, particularly the Norse longtooth lightened ones...you could wave one of them around, smash shields, sever limbs, crush bones, and it's just a lump of steel on a cheap wooden handle!

Anyway, I'll put my 2 brass razoos on the Knight in Round 3 by TKO

Though that Branko could kickbox them all to the head :lol

Edwin
Sunday, March 20th, 2005, 06:32 PM
If we go back to the days of the Celtic Champions like Cu Chulain, then we find men to match the Samurai. The Champions represented their clans in a purely pastoral society, so they were extremely skilled and vicious, as so much more depended on them.

Rhydderch
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005, 06:53 AM
Perhaps some Knights had other jobs, but I wouldn't say that most did. Here we have a few services that were provided:
http://historymedren.about.com/cs/k...a/kl1define.htm
They had quite the noble aspect. Tournaments, wars and councils.Most of them were at least landowners with serfs on their land; I think managing their estates would have required work at a fairly consistent rate.
Also, war was probably not frequent enough to be a constant profession.

There were varying ranks of knight, in fact I think all the Mediaeval nobility were knights, from the regional rulers (such as earls and the leaders of "hundreds" in England) and kings, down to the knights in villages who presumably held their land as tenants of the chief knight of the village; in turn this knight held his land as a tenant of a higher noble, such as the "hundred" leader etc.
So I would think the lower knights (who would have been more numerous) probably had their own jobs to do even though the Councils, Tournaments and war no doubt was a very significant part of their life.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005, 09:07 PM
Knight vs. Samurai??? Well it would heavily depend on the circumstances of the fight. Both had their strengths and weaknesses. Although I'd propably put my money on the Knight.

Taras Bulba
Wednesday, March 23rd, 2005, 09:09 PM
Concerning the Third Crusades, I do believe the Turks by that time were much more settled a people, so they werent entirely nomadic by that time.

Rhydderch
Monday, May 30th, 2005, 02:52 AM
Perhaps some Knights had other jobs, but I wouldn't say that most did. Here we have a few services that were provided:
http://historymedren.about.com/cs/k...a/kl1define.htm
They had quite the noble aspect. Tournaments, wars and councils.
Another thing is the evidence from thanes/thegns. These were the pre-Norman English equivalent of the post-Conquest knight.

Now, a merchant who had crossed the sea three times at his own expense was entitled to the "weregild" of a thane, and if his descendants retained that wealth to the third generation, they became thanes (and as such, they were to serve as warriors). A man also became a thane if he'd owned a certain amount of land for three generations.
So it appears that the non-noble knights or thanes were basically just men who were wealthy enough to afford relatively expensive weaponry, and to afford to be absent from their ordinary profession for a specified number of days each year, when they served their lord in battle or something related to it.
In early English and in Celtic society, all freemen were entitled to bear arms, and were trained in war, but the less wealthy, non-warrior freemen were more like reserves, and were only called upon in times of greater necessity. Their weaponry was probably of a more simple, unsophisticated style.

Ravenrune
Sunday, January 27th, 2019, 05:11 PM
I remember reading about some European battle (ah yes, Battle of Agincourt) where the French knights had a hard time with the muddy terrain. If they fell in the mud, their armour could even cause a suction effect with the mud making it even harder to get back up.


So I'd say the Samurai should lead the knight into a muddy area as a first tactic ;)

Astragoth
Sunday, January 27th, 2019, 08:01 PM
The samurai had mounted archers. This would help. The problem was a knight in metal armor would laugh at
one of those katana's. Most of the samurai weapons would bounce off a knights armor.