Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: Samurai vs Knight

  1. #21
    Funding Member
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member


    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 5th, 2008 @ 06:36 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    California California
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    4,096
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    16 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    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.

  2. #22
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Thursday, March 31st, 2005 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Politics
    middle
    Posts
    12
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    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.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Altruist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Friday, March 23rd, 2007 @ 11:21 PM
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Location
    A city
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Posts
    38
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    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.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Phill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 10th, 2007 @ 09:25 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    USA
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Occupation
    Student.
    Politics
    I don't really have one.
    Religion
    Metalhead.
    Posts
    261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    Quote Originally Posted by jalapenokisses
    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.

  5. #25
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 @ 10:10 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    52
    Posts
    6
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    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.

  6. #26
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    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.

  7. #27
    New Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 @ 10:10 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    Gender
    Age
    52
    Posts
    6
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    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.

  8. #28
    Disinterested
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 09:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,403
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    Quote Originally Posted by jalapenokisses
    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.

  9. #29
    Member Awar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 21st, 2005 @ 11:04 PM
    Subrace
    Corded/Balkanoid UP
    Country
    Confederate States Confederate States
    Location
    Olympus
    Gender
    Age
    40
    Politics
    Nutzi
    Religion
    Agnostic!!!
    Posts
    4,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    Quote Originally Posted by jalapenokisses
    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


    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?

  10. #30
    Account Inactive Huzar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 11th, 2008 @ 09:35 PM
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Paganist
    Posts
    2,488
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts

    Post Re: samurai vs knight

    I agree with almost all Awar points.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Saigo Takamori - the Last Samurai
    By Thusnelda in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Thursday, September 1st, 2016, 04:24 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: Tuesday, December 18th, 2007, 10:29 PM
  3. William Adams, the First Foreign Samurai
    By Cnooc in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Sunday, October 16th, 2005, 03:13 AM
  4. 'The Last Samurai' reviewed by Troy Southgate
    By Siegfried in forum Film, TV, & Performing Arts
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Wednesday, September 28th, 2005, 10:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •