NationStates Jolt Archive

13th-14th Century period, a flat plain, clear weather & cool temperature, equipt with their choice of respective non-ranged weaponry and armor. Two representatives of their culture's military elite enter, only one may leave. Who is wins?

I am with the Teutonic Knight. :)

Knight on his horse.

Are they wearing any armor? If so, I'm going for the Knight. If they aren't then I'm going for the Samuri. Samuri's have magical mysthical powers! :eek:

Easy, the samurai would win. Their armour always stressed maneuverability and agility while still remaining amply protective - the Medieval Knight's armour would be bulky and hindering, and really give him a disadvantage.

Now, if the knight was on his horse... the Knight would definitely win.

Are they wearing any armor? If so, I'm going for the Knight. If they aren't then I'm going for the Samuri. Samuri's have magical mysthical powers! :eek:
Both had unparalleled combat technique for their time. Both were extremely proficient in sword-use. One difference though is that Teutonic Knights fought off foreigners, so they got to adapt their styles. The Samurai in insular Japan didn't have much opportunity. So they would be vulnerable to surprise techniques.

I would favour the knight. Both are on a roughly level playing field to start with, but as the battle progresses, the Samurai's light-armour method of evading strikes through speed advantage starts to wear down while the knight will continue to be well protected even when he's tired.

Samurai.

More agile then a man in a tin can, better weapons (katana is stronger, lighter, and more durable then the standard double handed meat-cleaver)

They also rode horses, also shot bows from horseback and were proficient in one on one tactics- this equals if not overtakes the knight.

Easy, the samurai would win. Their armour always stressed maneuverability and agility while still remaining amply protective - the Medieval Knight's armour would be bulky and hindering, and really give him a disadvantage.

Now, if the knight was on his horse... the Knight would definitely win.
Not true. Medieval armour was lighter than what most soldiers wear today. Plate mail was flexible. Knights were the elite. They were equipped with the very best.

Now, there are martial arts that focus on breaking joints and so on that are effective against armoured opponents, yet I am not sure if the Samurai specialised in these at all.

The samuri had superior weaponry, armor and discipline. I'd go with the samuri. (He gets a horse too right?)

knight wins.
knights would even own harder in a big battle with thousands of combattants, because their superior armor will protect them from hits that they doesnt see comming in the thick of the melee.

The samuri had superior weaponry, armor and discipline. I'd go with the samuri. (He gets a horse too right?)
Knights, especially Teutonic ones, were extremely disciplined. They possessed the finest armour of their time, and their combat techique was refined and adaptable.

And just for the record: A European knight's armour was not just a tincan. He would still have been capable to move everything he needed to move.

And just for the record: A European knight's armour was not just a tincan. He would still have been capable to move everything he needed to move.
Exactly. They could even jump onto their horse in the armour. They had studies on how the Knights fought on Discovery, as well as how their armour functioned. Quite impressive. They also had programmes on the Samurai. I think the two would be evenly matched.

Knights, especially Teutonic ones, were extremely disciplined. They possessed the finest armour of their time, and their combat techique was refined and adaptable.

I suppose it does come down to the era. 1200-1300 European knights had quite poorish armour compared to the samurai- chain mail and loose plate mail was the order of the day (think Normans). Full solid plate only came in in later centuries.

The samurai had not reached their zenith either at this stage, but still I would give it too the agility and mobility of the Japanese warrior.

Dude, Japan man + katana = WIN, no matter what the circumstances are. srsly samurai would kick the living shit out of a knight.

1200-1300 European knights had quite poorish armour compared to the samurai- chain mail and loose plate mail was the order of the day (think Normans). Full solid plate only came in in later centuries.chain maile is totally sufficient, the katana cannot cut through it and it allows mazimum maneuverability.

chain maile is totally sufficient, the katana cannot cut through it and it allows mazimum maneuverability.
Plate mail is even better. ;) It's what the creme de la creme of the Knights used.

Dude, Japan man + katana = WIN, no matter what the circumstances are. srsly samurai would kick the living shit out of a knight.
He's on a flipping horse. The samurai would be cut down from a good 4-5 feet away, or trampled on.

He's on a flipping horse. The samurai would be cut down from a good 4-5 feet away, or trampled on.
Samurai were also on horseback a lot of the time. I think it's being assumed that neither has a horse.

Too fucking easy.

Knight all the way.

First off. Everyone's touting the samurai's speed and agility. But, this would tire the samurai down. They don't go for the long fight my friends. They head for the short work. However the knight had to be in for the long fight. They trained, if I remember correctly and if I didn't don't get all snide about it, for roughly the same time.

The samurai were too obsessed with death to really be good warriors anyhows. The knights on the other hand, depending on what sort he was really, would be more open to I don't know.......surviving.

So here's the thing. I'm not incredibly well versed on Samurai weapons choices. But everyone keeps thinking the knight'd only use a sword. Now don't get me wrong knights loved their swords.

But those nice flail hooks, forgot what they're called so don't get snide, are designed to take down people with poky bits. Like ionno leather armor. Which the Samurai favored.

And if the knight's armor was from Milan. Pssh. End of match just stop rolling. Samurai's dead either way. Sure they look cool but they just aren't that great.

dude samurai wins. No questions asked.

he'll just convince the knight to become a samurai :D

Samurai were also on horseback a lot of the time. I think it's being assumed that neither has a horse.
Knights were elite because of their horses, not in spite of.

So here's the thing. I'm not incredibly well versed on Samurai weapons choices. But everyone keeps thinking the knight'd only use a sword. Now don't get me wrong knights loved their swords.

But those nice flail hooks, forgot what they're called so don't get snide, are designed to take down people with poky bits. Like ionno leather armor. Which the Samurai favored.

And if the knight's armor was from Milan. Pssh. End of match just stop rolling. Samurai's dead either way. Sure they look cool but they just aren't that great.
Precisely. The fact that the Samurai were not used to fighting different weapons and styles put them further at disadvantage. Flails were often used to disarm sword-users. Although the Samurai had great knowledge of fighting arts, they only refined them later into their present martial arts form, so back then they were cruder. Knights also had awesome fighting technique anyway.

chain maile is totally sufficient, the katana cannot cut through it and it allows mazimum maneuverability.

The hell it is! Chain mail stopped arrows mainly and took most of the force out of the blunt 'hacking' of the two-handed swords the European Knights used.

Samurai swords were slicing and cutting tools, not hacking.

Plate mail might have been harder to get through I admit, but knights relied on sheer strength and brute force of their weapons rather then any particular skill and mobility.

Soggy ground was also bad news for armoured knights on foot- you only have to look at Bannockburn or Agincourt to see that.

Knights were elite because of their horses, not in spite of.
Rubbish. They were well armoured, well trained and well armed.

Plate mail might have been harder to get through I admit, but knights relied on sheer strength and brute force of their weapons rather then any particular skill and mobility.

Knights had developed sophisticated fighting techniques with weapons, both in terms of dealing damage and blocking them. They were not just butchers with swords.

Rubbish. They were well armoured, well trained and well armed.
Any vulgar swordsman could have taken down a knight on the ground (enough of them anyway). Knights were so powerful because they were mounted and could cut swaths through the poor foot soldiers.

Any vulgar swordsman could have taken down a knight on the ground (enough of them anyway). Knights were so powerful because they were mounted and could cut swaths through the poor foot soldiers.
Not really. They actually practised off the horses as well. They refined their technique because they often had to get off the horses and participate in sieges and so on. Knights were anything but easy to take down. So yes, it would take many vulgar swordsmen to overwhelm a Knight.

Knights had developed sophisticated fighting techniques with weapons, both in terms of dealing damage and blocking them. They were not just butchers with swords.
We're talking Early Medieval Period here, not the 'Golden era' of jousting and Order of the Garter. Glorified butchers is all they were.

Not really. They actually practised off the horses as well. They refined their technique because they often had to get off the horses and participate in sieges and so on. Knights were anything but easy to take down. So yes, it would take many vulgar swordsmen to overwhelm a Knight.
Of course it would take many, but on foot they lost almost all of the advantages that they had on horseback. The knight was so powerful because of the horse, not because of training.

The hell it is! Chain mail stopped arrows mainly and took most of the force out of the blunt 'hacking' of the two-handed swords the European Knights used.

Samurai swords were slicing and cutting tools, not hacking.chain maile stops slicing, arrows are its demise.

We're talking Early Medieval Period here, not the 'Golden era' of jousting and Order of the Garter. Glorified butchers is all they were.
Teutonic Knights were refined even in these periods of time. They were the ultimate warriors of their day.

Keep in mind that in Japan the Samurai were not always as powerful as they became later. In the equivalent age of the Early Middle Ages they were not as refined as they later became. Even so, they had great difficulty in facing opponents from abroad because they had never fought against foreigners really. They had difficulty adapting their style.

Of course it would take many, but on foot they lost almost all of the advantages that they had on horseback. The knight was so powerful because of the horse, not because of training.
Because of both. They were more or less the equivalent of the Samurai. They were ferocious on foot, and even deadlier on horseback.

It would depend entirely on the skill of the indivdual warriors. Just like every other duel in history.

Because of both. They were more or less the equivalent of the Samurai. They were ferocious on foot, and even deadlier on horseback.
Which would make a knight on horseback the winner here.

Because of both. They were more or less the equivalent of the Samurai. They were ferocious on foot, and even deadlier on horseback.

Bannockburn, Agincourt, Sarajevo Bridge, Leignitz...not the finest moments for knights!

But, I think some parameters need to be set here- confusion is rampant as to the general era- samurai only really came into their being and their peak and the 15th and 16th centuries.

12th and 13th centuries, for European Knights; you are looking at the First Crusade and mabe the Second, and also the ass whupping the Mongols handed them.

Knights usually fought on horseback, samurai on foot.

It all depends on whether the samurai can bring down the knight from his horse. On the ground, samurai will win, mainly because the samurai were so focused on combat. But the knight can skewer the samurai with his lance.

So I call this one a toss-up. Both on foot, samurai wins. Both on horses, the knight will win.

The hell it is! Chain mail stopped arrows mainly and took most of the force out of the blunt 'hacking' of the two-handed swords the European Knights used.

Samurai swords were slicing and cutting tools, not hacking.

Plate mail might have been harder to get through I admit, but knights relied on sheer strength and brute force of their weapons rather then any particular skill and mobility.

Soggy ground was also bad news for armoured knights on foot- you only have to look at Bannockburn or Agincourt to see that.
Actually, chain stopped blades fairly well... the edge would start to bite into the rings and the rings could then roll and "deflect" the edge.

It didn't do so well with arrows tho, they would find the small openings in the chain and the gradual increasing of head size would force the rings open allowing the arrow to penetrate.
Plate was being implemented to protect from the advances in ballistic weaponry.

You say knights didn't rely on skill or mobility... you speak from experience?

Knights were well trained, they just didn't have the formalized training regimen that the West has mystified Japanese "martial arts" to be.

It would depend entirely on the skill of the indivdual warriors. Just like every other duel in history.right, pizarro wiped out the incas with a handfull of men and cortez the aztecs, because the mercs from the streets of sevilla were so infinetely more skillfull than the indians.

Which would make a knight on horseback the winner here.
Absolutely. Were the Knight not on horseback though, it would be an equal match.

Knights were well trained, they just didn't have the formalized training regimen that the West has mystified Japanese "martial arts" to be.
Neither did the Samurai. They were later developed into martial arts. Both Samurai and Knight had considerable fighting technique.

right, pizarro wiped out the incas with a handfull of men and cortez the aztecs, because the mercs from the streets of genoa were so infinetely more skillfull than the indians.

What happened with the Aztecs and Incas is entirely diffrent. Cortez harnessed the forces of the enemies of the Aztecs, had superiour weaponry, and, most importantly, disease.

That's a bad example, and an entirely different thing from a one-on-one duel between two individual warriors.

B
But, I think some parameters need to be set here- confusion is rampant as to the general era- samurai only really came into their being and their peak and the 15th and 16th centuries.
Many of the elite Knights also came to being in this time.

12th and 13th centuries, for European Knights; you are looking at the First Crusade and mabe the Second, and also the ass whupping the Mongols handed them.
The Mongols also caught the Samurai off guard when they invaded Japan. The Knights eventually adapted and evolved the styles. Japan never had a similar invasion again, causing it to be isolated.

Neither did the Samurai. They were later developed into martial arts. Both Samurai and Knight had considerable fighting technique.
Exactly my point... so many have answered (and I paraphrase here) "ooo teh samurai would pwn teh knight" and they are just caught up in the mythology of feudal Japan.

What happened with the Aztecs and Incas is entirely diffrent. Cortez harnessed the forces of the enemies of the Aztecs, had superiour weaponry, and, most importantly, disease.

That's a bad example, and an entirely different thing from a one-on-one duel between two individual warriors.you forget the most important thing: he had god on his side against the heathens.

It depends. A Knight wasn't always a heavily-armored horse-riding man who used a lance. A Knight was just an extremely accomplished European warrior, blessed by the Pope. Granted, many of them had horses, but this wasn't always the case.

Now, if we're talking about a tall, stout German weilding a very long Zweihander sword with just enough armor for adequate protection, he'll definitely beat the Samurai... If he's smart enough. Argue if you will, but nobody can withstand the sheer force from the wide swing of a 5'+ Zweihander. If one tried to block it with their sword, they would be knocked to the ground, where the attacker would have the opportunity to end the battle immediately thereafter.

Long as they are, Zweihanders were only about 10 pounds at the very most, counter-balanced by a heavy iron ball at the tip of the hilt. Long and heavy, yes, but very well-balanced. Katanas and No Dachi's are faster and more precise, but they're at a serious disadvantage in regards to range and sheer power.

The Samurai had a major flaw in their fighting style - they used their swords for slashing. This left them wide open to thrusting motions (oo-er!).
That's why when they did meet Europeans who were trained in fencing style, they got their arse kicked.

It depends. A Knight wasn't always a heavily-armored horse-riding man who used a lance. A Knight was just an extremely accomplished European warrior, blessed by the Pope. Granted, many of them had horses, but this wasn't always the case.

Now, if we're talking about a tall, stout German weilding a very long Zweihander sword with just enough armor for adequate protection, he'll definitely beat the Samurai... If he's smart enough. Argue if you will, but nobody can withstand the sheer force from the wide swing of a 5'+ Zweihander. If one tried to block it with their sword, they would be knocked to the ground, where the attacker would have the opportunity to end the battle immediately thereafter.

Long as they are, Zweihanders were only about 10 pounds at the very most, counter-balanced by a heavy iron ball at the tip of the hilt. Long and heavy, yes, but very well-balanced. Katanas and No Dachi's are faster and more precise, but they're at a serious disadvantage in regards to range and sheer power.

Believe it or not, there are counter-attacks that can be used against the Zweihandern even. The force the sword uses can be redirected and throw the Knight off balance. Yet, few Samurai were trained in deflection/ force redirection martial arts, and no such systems were highly sophisticated at the time. So essentially, I agree.

The Samurai had a major flaw in their fighting style - they used their swords for slashing. This left them wide open to thrusting motions (oo-er!).
That's why when they did meet Europeans who were trained in fencing style, they got their arse kicked.

And Europeans who were trained to thrust with their swords (the French) got the utter shit beaten out of them by the Germans with their immense swords.

Believe it or not, there are counter-attacks that can be used against the Zweihandern even. The force the sword uses can be redirected and throw the Knight off balance. Yet, few Samurai were trained in deflection/ force redirection martial arts, and no such systems were highly sophisticated at the time. So essentially, I agree.

Yes, very true. Even still, one can be trained to avoid such a situation. Yeah, I'm quite sure a 6'2" German soldier with a 6' Zweihander would be able to take on a 5'5" Japanese soldier armed with a 3' Katana.

Exactly my point... so many have answered (and I paraphrase here) "ooo teh samurai would pwn teh knight" and they are just caught up in the mythology of feudal Japan.
Yep. And when the Ninja came along with their sophisticated techniques, the Samurai quickly fell as the de facto elite warriors of Japan.

Many of the elite Knights also came to being in this time.
Well, you keep referring to the Teutonic Knights don't you? Weren't they Early Medieval- 12/13th C?


The Mongols also caught the Samurai off guard when they invaded Japan. Japan never had a similar invasion again, causing it to be isolated.
Only due to the kamikazi. Not either side being better or worse.


The Knights eventually adapted and evolved the styles.
The Knights never beat the Mongols.... ever.

It depends. A Knight wasn't always a heavily-armored horse-riding man who used a lance. A Knight was just an extremely accomplished European warrior, blessed by the Pope. Granted, many of them had horses, but this wasn't always the case.

Now, if we're talking about a tall, stout German weilding a very long Zweihander sword with just enough armor for adequate protection, he'll definitely beat the Samurai... If he's smart enough. Argue if you will, but nobody can withstand the sheer force from the wide swing of a 5'+ Zweihander. If one tried to block it with their sword, they would be knocked to the ground, where the attacker would have the opportunity to end the battle immediately thereafter.

Long as they are, Zweihanders were only about 10 pounds at the very most, counter-balanced by a heavy iron ball at the tip of the hilt. Long and heavy, yes, but very well-balanced. Katanas and No Dachi's are faster and more precise, but they're at a serious disadvantage in regards to range and sheer power.
And you are disregarding the tetsubo...
As for your zweihanders.... anything long and heavy like that... the more you balance them (with the heavy iron ball) the less power can be delivered.

Yes, very true. Even still, one can be trained to avoid such a situation. Yeah, I'm quite sure a 6'2" German soldier with a 6' Zweihander would be able to take on a 5'5" Japanese soldier armed with a 3' Katana.
Me too. If the Samurai were trained in redirection, he could have a reasonable chance of throwing the Knight off guard and delivering a fatal blow. Sadly for the Samurai, their techniques were not as sophisticated as modern martial arts.

The Knights never beat the Mongols.... ever.

That's true. However, we're talking about a hypothetical situation in which both warriors are on even ground, unmounted. Mongolian warriors were usually just trained to fire the bow.

Well, you keep referring to the Teutonic Knights don't you? Weren't they Early Medieval- 12/13th C?
They didn't disappear afterwards though.


Only due to the kamikazi. Not either side being better or worse.
The Samurai still had immense troubles fighting those whom they did. They had a problem adapting their styles.

The Knights never beat the Mongols.... ever.
I know.

That's true. However, we're talking about a hypothetical situation in which both warriors are on even ground, unmounted. Mongolian warriors were usually just trained to fire the bow.
and fire it fast, accurate, and at substantial speed...

And you are disregarding the tetsubo...
As for your zweihanders.... anything long and heavy like that... the more you balance them (with the heavy iron ball) the less power can be delivered.

Of course, but the heavy counterweight at the end of the hilt wasn't enough to take off a considerable amount of potential swing force. The sword was still quite difficult to swing for people with relatively weaker bodies.

and fire it fast, accurate, and at substantial speed...

Exactly. However, I seriously doubt a Mongolian warrior, trained in the way of the Bow, would be able to beat a sword-weilding foe if he, too, were weilding a sword.

That's true. However, we're talking about a hypothetical situation in which both warriors are on even ground, unmounted.

Ok. Unmounted.

Rain? Soggy ground?

and fire it fast, accurate, and at substantial speed...
Make another thread for a battle between archers. ;)

Ok. Unmounted.

Rain? Soggy ground?
no rain, even ground, an arena perhaps....

Ok. Unmounted.

Rain? Soggy ground?

I think this duel would have to be indoors on a flat surface, probably wood or concrete (possibly stone). It's only fair in such conditions.

Exactly. However, I seriously doubt a Mongolian warrior, trained in the way of the Bow, would be able to beat a sword-weilding foe if he, too, were weilding a sword.
The only way would be substantial unarmed martial art training, which none of these bowmen in question possessed.

The only way would be substantial unarmed martial art training, which none of these bowmen in question possessed.

*Huge Germanic guy stands still*

*small Mongolian guy runs at him*

*small Mongolian guy gets thrown into a wall*

The Knights never beat the Mongols.... ever.

That's because Mongols > all, except pirates.

*Huge Germanic guy stands still*

*small Mongolian guy runs at him*

*small Mongolian guy gets thrown into a wall*
*small Mongolian guy's 1000 friends swarm all over Huge Germanic guy*
(no one ever accused the Mongolians of playing fair)

*Huge Germanic guy stands still*

*small Mongolian guy runs at him*

*small Mongolian guy gets thrown into a wall*
Not so simple. Some martial arts would take advantage of his size, redirect his attacks and cause him to fail. None of these said martial arts were in existence at the time though. Thus, it's inconsequential.

I think this duel would have to be indoors on a flat surface, probably wood or concrete (possibly stone). It's only fair in such conditions.

Hmmmm.... still a toughie.
*strokes chin*
Not gonna call it.

Not so simple. Some martial arts would take advantage of his size, redirect his attacks and cause him to fail. None of these said martial arts were in existence at the time though. Thus, it's inconsequential.

Yep. I was just making a scenario for two warriors untrained in Martial Arts. It's fantasy, yes, but it's still funny when you think about it. :p

Yep. I was just making a scenario for two warriors untrained in Martial Arts. It's fantasy, yes, but it's still funny when you think about it. :p
Indeed. :) And at this time, not fantasy at all. ;)

Indeed. :) And at this time, not fantasy at all. ;)

True, that. Mongolia's not really known for its advanced Martial Arts these days. :p

why has nobody mentioned yet that Chuck Norris would crush both, knight and samurai?

why has nobody mentioned yet that Chuck Norris would crush both, knight and samurai?

Because that running joke is getting lame.

why has nobody mentioned yet that Chuck Norris would crush both, knight and samurai?

Who do you think taught the Mongols how to kick so much ass?

True, that. Mongolia's not really known for its advanced Martial Arts these days. :p
It wasn't known for that much else anyway :p

And Europeans who were trained to thrust with their swords (the French) got the utter shit beaten out of them by the Germans with their immense swords.
Which means:
Germys with big-ass swords > Frenchies with pointy swords > Jappies with slashy swords.
There. That's settled then.

Because that running joke is getting lame.
Agreed. A knight would t3h pwn him anyway.

It wasn't known for that much else anyway :p

Pretty sad, when you think about it. They had China under their control and lost it thanks to bad management (and a lot of pissed off Chinese).

But, I'm still siding with the German swordsman in this debate, no matter what might come up (even crazed Vikings).

Pretty sad, when you think about it. They had China under their control and lost it thanks to bad management (and a lot of pissed off Chinese).

But, I'm still siding with the German swordsman in this debate, no matter what might come up (even crazed Vikings).
Me too. :) I love Samurai, but adore Teutonic Knights.

Me too. :) I love Samurai, but adore Teutonic Knights.

The Teutonic Knight... A great swordsman, but he was a religious zealot. The Samurai had a strict code of honor that's admirable even to this day; something that can't be said for most Knights.

Bannockburn, Agincourt, Sarajevo Bridge, Leignitz...not the finest moments for knights!

The English Knights lost at Bannockburn because the Scots had disciplined pike formations, something the mounted Samurai wouldn't be able to break either. Agincort was because the French's horses were getting shot out from under them, the sucking muddy ground favored the English's wool footwear over the steel boots, and the overcrowding caused many French to trample over their own. Can't find anything about Sarajevo Bridge. And Leignitz...well, even the Samurai were scared shitless of the Mongols :D

One thing that I've seen gone unmentioned that gives a clear advantage to knight is a very simple thing...a shield.

The Teutonic Knight... A great swordsman, but he was a religious zealot. The Samurai had a strict code of honor that's admirable even to this day; something that can't be said for most Knights.
Yeah the Teutonic Knights were extremely devout. It was their code of honour I guess. The Bushido (they actually developed it after they were fighting between themselves and sort of retired) is quite impressive.

One thing that I've seen gone unmentioned that gives a clear advantage to knight is a very simple thing...a shield.

One of the many reasons Zweihanders were so big was because of shields. Soldiers armed with these great swords decimated lines of infantry armed with shorter swords and large shields.

One of the many reasons Zweihanders were so big was because of shields. Soldiers armed with these great swords decimated lines of infantry armed with shorter swords and large shields.
Which is true, but we're not re-enacting an entire battle, just a simple duel ;)

Which is true, but we're not re-enacting an entire battle, just a simple duel ;)

Yeah, but if some dimwit actually decided to take a short sword and a shield to a duel with a guy who uses a Zweihander, it's curtains for his sorry ass.

If you try to block a broad swing with your shield, one of these actions will occur:

1 - You will be knocked to the ground because of the kinetic energy transferred from the sword to your body, helped by the collapse of your elbow.

2 - Your elbow will be shattered, that is, if you're stupid enough to keep your elbow straight when the sword hits your shield.

3 - Your shield will break, leaving you virtually defenseless with your midget sword.

As I understand it, the typical European knight is buried inside his heavy shell of armor, and has a great big heavy sword that he waves around or jabs at his foe. He is most likely a devout christian, and noble, learned, and virtuous. The Oriental warrior, meanwhile, has far greater mobility and has trained with tremendous discipline to fight with lighter swords or other weapons.

The samurai wins. Easily.

And if the knight were on horseback, it's only fair to put the asian warrior on horseback, too. In which case, the asian warrior still wins. [See Three Kingdoms. Sir Launcelot vs. Zhao Yun? No contest.]

Yeah, but if some dimwit actually decided to take a short sword and a shield to a duel with a guy who uses a Zweihander, it's curtains for his sorry ass.
I wonder where they got the strength to wield the Zweihandern. I mean, they were rather big built, yet even so it's a massive sword.

As I understand it, the typical European knight is buried inside his heavy shell of armor, and has a great big heavy sword that he waves around or jabs at his foe. He is most likely a devout christian, and noble, learned, and virtuous. The Oriental warrior, meanwhile, has far greater mobility and has trained with tremendous discipline to fight with lighter swords or other weapons.
Both are tremendously disciplined. Teutonic Knights were extremely focused on their tasks, being Germans after all. The plate armour did not curtail mobility as much as people think it did. Furthermore, Samurai were not good at adapting their style. So it's not that clear-cut.

Yeah, but if some dimwit actually decided to take a short sword and a shield to a duel with a guy who uses a Zweihander, it's curtains for his sorry ass.

Good thing the Samurai doesn't have one, eh? :D

As I understand it, the typical European knight is buried inside his heavy shell of armor, and has a great big heavy sword that he waves around or jabs at his foe
Incorrect. A suit of armor weighed around 40-60lbs, correct, but that weight was evenly distributed across his body. There are reports of knights jumping from one horse to another, or doing cartwheels, in their full gear. Compared to the 100lbs+ of today's infantryman's gear, and that's all resting on his shoulders.

I'll admit I'm not a huge expert on European knights and am not exactly without prejudice in this matter...but without specifically referring to samurai, I've always considered Eastern swordsmanship more developed than Western swordsmanship...probably an opinion influenced by the media, but knights did have heavier swords, no?


Incorrect. A suit of armor weighed around 40-60lbs, correct, but that weight was evenly distributed across his body. There are reports of knights jumping from one horse to another, or doing cartwheels, in their full gear. Compared to the 100lbs+ of today's infantryman's gear, and that's all resting on his shoulders.


Oh. Well, thanks for correcting me :)

Incorrect. A suit of armor weighed around 40-60lbs, correct, but that weight was evenly distributed across his body. There are reports of knights jumping from one horse to another, or doing cartwheels, in their full gear. Compared to the 100lbs+ of today's infantryman's gear, and that's all resting on his shoulders.
Precisely. They were remarkably agile within the armour. Although it was still a pain to wear, it was flexible and adaptable. The only fault it had is that the Knight could get hot in it, yet in cold climates this was not much of an issue.

I'll admit I'm not a huge expert on European knights and am not exactly without prejudice in this matter...but without specifically referring to samurai, I've always considered Eastern swordsmanship more developed than Western swordsmanship...probably an opinion influenced by the media, but knights did have heavier swords, no?
Japanese swordsmanship was extremely good, but I would not say better. The Knights were experts in using swords, as were the French. It's not so much a question of being better, but different approaches. The Samurai only refined swordsmanship in the forms of Iaido (killing in one strike...although the opponent is unarmoured) after the Samurai were decomissioned. Kenjutsu as a martial art also developed afterwards to its refined form.

As I understand it, the typical European knight is buried inside his heavy shell of armor

Sometimes. Only the extremely wealthy Knights could afford such armor. Most of them wore chain mail covered with hides or clothing.

...has a great big heavy sword that he waves around or jabs at his foe.

Again, only rarely. Most Knights weilded the shorter Broad Sword, which was around 3' in overall length. It was a very well-balanced, fast weapon, with a double-edged blade to make it deceptively faster.

He is most likely a devout christian, and noble, learned, and virtuous.

He's a devout, noble, virtuous Christian, yes, but only the very wealthy Knights were actually educated. In fact, most of them weren't even literate.

The Oriental warrior, meanwhile, has far greater mobility and has trained with tremendous discipline to fight with lighter swords or other weapons.

The Samurai were more mobile on average. However, the training they received with their respective weapons was equal to that of the training given to European Knights and Swordsmen. The super warriors of Japan, just like the Musketeers, are mythology, plain and simple.

The samurai wins. Easily.

Only if you're pitting the super warriors of mythology against slow-witted, heavily-armored Knights, then yes. Otherwise, it's a pretty even match.

And if the knight were on horseback, it's only fair to put the asian warrior on horseback, too. In which case, the asian warrior still wins. [See Three Kingdoms. Sir Launcelot vs. Zhao Yun? No contest.]

I beg to differ. It all depends on who is facing whom.

Sometimes. Only the extremely wealthy Knights could afford such armor. Most of them wore chain mail covered with hides or clothing.
Plate mail was actually said to be more flexible and adaptable than chain mail. Odd, but true.

He's a devout, noble, virtuous Christian, yes, but only the very wealthy Knights were actually educated. In fact, most of them weren't even literate.
Yep. The elites though were truly the cream of the crop.

I say it would be an even match and to explain why I bow to one with more experiance than I.

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

Plate mail was actually said to be more flexible and adaptable than chain mail. Odd, but true.


Yep. The elites though were truly the cream of the crop.

1: That's my point. The plate armor would actually give an advantage to the Knight in that respect, though in this case, it would be very rare to encounter one of them. That's why I'm giving the Knight a disadvantage here.

2: Fact.

I'll admit I'm not a huge expert on European knights and am not exactly without prejudice in this matter...but without specifically referring to samurai, I've always considered Eastern swordsmanship more developed than Western swordsmanship...probably an opinion influenced by the media, but knights did have heavier swords, no?
Yup, when in doubt, blame Hollywood :D

The average European sword weighed around 4-6lbs, and that was considered heavy. The thing about Japanese swords is, yes they were good, but that's because they had to be. Japan was lacking in sword-making material, so for those who could afford swords, it damn well better be of good quality.

Europe had good quality swords too; Toledo steel was considered the finest in the world. The thing is, they could afford to produce lots of cheap crapy swords too.

Also, the Katana was not some magical Lightsaber - to put it bluntly, it's an overgrown razor. Good for cutting through the unarmored peastants, but there's a reason the light armor of the Samurai was good enough to stop their katanas, while Europeans had to develop specialized weapons and tactics to get through their armor.

1: That's my point. The plate armor would actually give an advantage to the Knight in that respect, though in this case, it would be very rare to encounter one of them. That's why I'm giving the Knight a disadvantage here.
And even so, it's not a big disadvantage for an experienced Knight.

It’s not a very good comparison. The Samurai really hit their prime, in the 1500’s. By then European battles were being decided by muskets and pikes. A Richter would have pulled out his pistol and shot the Samurai down. The Europeans are metal rich compared to Japan so a different style of fighting was allowed to develop. The Arabs had a similar problem with slashing swords that didn’t do much to well armoured opponents.

There are a lot of misconceptions about European medieval armour that I’m certain many people in this thread are prone to make. Armour was made to fight in. With the exception of special jousting armour for tournaments, armour had to be made to fight in, providing the wearer with full fighting mobility. Otherwise no one would wear the stuff. It’s also not as heavy to wear as it is in a box, because the weight is evenly distributed over the whole body. That heavy tournament armour we like to think of just isn’t used on the battlefield, except by the odd noble who has no plans of actually fighting but wants to be seen near the fighting.

Samurai blades aren’t designed for repeatedly striking people wearing armour made from quenched steel. The two fighting styles and armaments never came into contact and were never designed to deal with each other.

The Bruce

And even so, it's not a big disadvantage for an experienced Knight.

True, true. But that linked article's gotten me thinking...

...Would a European "Man-at-Arms", equipped with a Broadsword, be able to defeat an equally well-trained Japanese Samurai? It would definitely be an interesting experiment. Same goes for a Man-at-Arms equipped with a Zweihander against a Samurai.

Though I still say the Zweihander is a game-breaker. It's big enough so that only stronger swordsmen can weild it properly, and broad swings are unbelievably powerful.

True, true. But that linked article's gotten me thinking...

...Would a European "Man-at-Arms", equipped with a Broadsword, be able to defeat an equally well-trained Japanese Samurai? It would definitely be an interesting experiment. Same goes for a Man-at-Arms equipped with a Zweihander against a Samurai.

Though I still say the Zweihander is a game-breaker. It's big enough so that only stronger swordsmen can weild it properly, and broad swings are unbelievably powerful.
Agreed. I would go with it as well. So in my view, even though both are potential winners, I would go with the Teutonic Knight. Other Knights were also great warriors, yet few as good as the Teutonic ones, and even fewer against a Teutonic Knight with a Zweihander.

This thread reminds me that I wanted to reinstall Age of Empires II since everyone has it and I might be able to play some time.

Agreed. I would go with it as well. So in my view, even though both are potential winners, I would go with the Teutonic Knight. Other Knights were also great warriors, yet few as good as the Teutonic ones, and even fewer against a Teutonic Knight with a Zweihander.

I love the Zweihander. It's not just the potential power, it's the way it looks. I'm going to look into buying one when I get some spending money. I'd like to teach myself swordsmanship, too.

This thread reminds me that I wanted to reinstall Age of Empires II since everyone has it and I might be able to play some time.

Hell yeah. Elite Teutonic Knights are human wrecking balls in that game. :D

This thread reminds me that I wanted to reinstall Age of Empires II since everyone has it and I might be able to play some time.
Haha :p Yeah. Long time ago that I played that game. The sequel sucked by comparison.The thread's been making me want to play Siegfried in Soul Caliber 3, the Teutonic Knight. He is awesome. Not as fun as Ivy though :p

13th-14th Century period, a flat plain, clear weather & cool temperature, equipt with their choice of respective non-ranged weaponry and armor. Two representatives of their culture's military elite enter, only one may leave. Who is wins?
The end of the 14th century, armor which could not be pierced by swords existed in europe, that is why jousting was developed. A bamboo armored samuri would be no match for a knight in shining armor with a claymore, it would the standard 10 men per knight for the samuris to win

I love the Zweihander. It's not just the potential power, it's the way it looks. I'm going to look into buying one when I get some spending money. I'd like to teach myself swordsmanship, too.
Yeah, they do look absolutely awesome. As does the elite plate mail. I am planning on learning swordsmanship as well, once I've learnt an unarmed martial art or two.

Hell yeah. Elite Teutonic Knights are human wrecking balls in that game. :D
lol yep. Almost no one could take them down. If I remember correctly they cost a lot though.

Haha :p Yeah. Long time ago that I played that game. The sequel sucked by comparison.The thread's been making me want to play Siegfried in Soul Caliber 3, the Teutonic Knight. He is awesome. Not as fun as Ivy though :p

(I'm sure you mean Soul Calibur 2, though it technically is the third in the series: Soul Edge, Soul Calibur, and Soul Calibur 2)

Holy shit. You know how difficult it'd be to weild a sword like his? 17 pounds of steel... That's just overboard.

The knight wins handily. I assume training is equal in length.

Armour was 1/16 inch (1.6mm) steel against laminated wood, cloth and leather.

The knights swords could take more abuse. You can bend some of them into a U shape and they spring back. The Katana would snap.

The Katana couldnt stand up to being slammed into steel plate. The edge would chip off. It wouldnt cut the steel very effectively anyway.

The Samurais trained to inflict three main injuries. A cleaved skull(fatal) a deep slice to the chest(also fatal), or a severing of a limb(maiming). None man suffering these would ever fight again.

The knights armour countered each of these blows. Great helm reduces fatal skull cleaving to a cracked skull(possibly fatal, but not likely instant), Chest plate and Pauldon(severed aorta/heart/lungs), and gauntlets/bracers/greaves(maiming). A knight was more likely to become a veteran of battles.

In nature, you can see from insects that it is better to armour up than to develop speed. Less energy is required, and the protective effects are passive by nature. If knights armour was inferior to speed, it never would have been developed.

I havent managed to find what the samurai armour weighed in comparison the the knights, but I bet its similar.

(I'm sure you mean Soul Calibur 2, though it technically is the third in the series: Soul Edge, Soul Calibur, and Soul Calibur 2)

Holy shit. You know how difficult it'd be to weild a sword like his? 17 pounds of steel... That's just overboard.
Yeah, his is way over the top. And he is not very big built...I love Ivy's weapon though. The Valentine. His Zweihand is awesome, but her weapon is lethal.

It's called Soul Calibur 3 by the way. :p Check on Gamespot.

Yeah, they do look absolutely awesome. As does the elite plate mail. I am planning on learning swordsmanship as well, once I've learnt an unarmed martial art or two.


lol yep. Almost no one could take them down. If I remember correctly they cost a lot though.

Learning unarmed martial arts would be good. I'd like to do that as well.

Well, there were a few units that could stop them... The Persians' Elite War Elephant could take an Elite Teutonic Knight one-on-one, and nothing could stop massed Turkish Elite Janissaries (believe me, I did a lot of testing in custom scenarios).

*snip*
Agreed. I believe Samurai armour weighed less by the way. Plate mail usually weighed up to 60 lbs. Samurai armour was probably around 30 at the most. That is also why the Knights were so strong. They had to train to fight under that huge weight.

Yeah, his is way over the top. And he is not very big built...I love Ivy's weapon though. The Valentine. His Zweihand is awesome, but her weapon is lethal.

It's called Soul Calibur 3 by the way. :p Check on Gamespot.

I'm sure somebody just over 6' could weild a sword like his, though they'd have to be very strong.

And I totally forgot about SC3, considering it's a PS2 exclusive. :p

Learning unarmed martial arts would be good. I'd like to do that as well.

Well, there were a few units that could stop them... The Persians' Elite War Elephant could take an Elite Teutonic Knight one-on-one, and nothing could stop massed Turkish Elite Janissaries (believe me, I did a lot of testing in custom scenarios).
Indeed. Were the Janissaries the ones with the guns by the way?

My moneys on the knight.

I'm sure somebody just over 6' could weild a sword like his, though they'd have to be very strong.
He is around 5'6". The height isn't so much an issue as muscular strength. He is around 135 lbs. That said, he is still extremely strong, though a weapon of that size is beyond almost anyone's strength levels.

And I totally forgot about SC3, considering it's a PS2 exclusive. :p
Yep ^^

Indeed. Were the Janissaries the ones with the guns by the way?

Yep. 80 Elite Janissaries were unstoppable, no matter how many Champions, War Elephants, or Paladins your enemy could pump out in retaliation. If you wanted to defeat a group of them, you had to have a very good battle plan (Onagers!)... Which most players never have.

yep. Almost no one could take them down. If I remember correctly they cost a lot though.
Teutonic Knights are awesome, I always played the Teutons. However, when we played in school one guy always played the Persians. There is nothing you want to see less than 20 War Elephants making straight for your town flanked by a dozen casual militiamen.

He is around 5'6". The height isn't so much an issue as muscular strength. He is around 135 lbs. That said, he is still extremely strong, though a weapon of that size is beyond almost anyone's strength levels.

Yeah, most likely. Still, it's not quite as ridiculous as Cloud's "Buster Sword" on Final Fantasy VII... Sure, there's a reason why he can weild something so outrageous, but in real life, nobody could weild something that gigantic.

Yep. 80 Elite Janissaries were unstoppable, no matter how many Champions, War Elephants, or Paladins your enemy could pump out in retaliation. If you wanted to defeat a group of them, you had to have a very good battle plan (Onagers!)... Which most players never have.
Meh, it isn't fair :p Guns or huge elephants against the poor Knight. But yeah, it was a fun game.

Teutonic Knights are awesome, I always played the Teutons. However, when we played in school one guy always played the Persians. There is nothing you want to see less than 20 War Elephants making straight for your town flanked by a dozen casual militiamen.

If you're prepared, it's easy to stop the Persian flood. You just need a lot of Pikemen (or Halberdiers) and Hand Cannonneers... Two units which the Byzantines have in spades.

Oh, and Cataphracts wouldn't hurt. :D

Yeah, most likely. Still, it's not quite as ridiculous as Cloud's "Buster Sword" on Final Fantasy VII... Sure, there's a reason why he can weild something so outrageous, but in real life, nobody could weild something that gigantic.
Yeah. There would be no point to it anyway. It's so huge it's actually not practical. That said, Final Fantasy rarely makes sense. :p It's good fun though.

Teutonic Knights are awesome, I always played the Teutons. However, when we played in school one guy always played the Persians. There is nothing you want to see less than 20 War Elephants making straight for your town flanked by a dozen casual militiamen.
I also played them. ^^ They rocked.

Who do you think taught the Mongols how to kick so much ass?

Minamoto Yoshitsune, a samurai, who later became known as Chinggis Khan.
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2005041201

European armor was far superior to the samurai's, and if allowed to pick the best armor he would be practically impervious even to a Katana. As for weaponry the Katana was a superior cutting weapon, but it's only strong attack is a slash with the longer edge. European swords were heavier and even if they would not cut straight through Japanese armor, they would certainly cause some damage, European plate armor would diffuse the blow much better.

But the Europeans not only had swords, they had pikes, halberds, maces, axes, etc... I'm sure the japanese had developed weapons other than the Katana, but not nearly to the extent the Europeans had.

On horseback the European would win hands down, his lance would probably be longer than the samurai's, and many knights had their horses heavily armored. Once again the European's armor and shield would probably be able to resist the samurai's lance blows, but the Samurai's armor would not.

13th-14th Century period, a flat plain, clear weather & cool temperature, equipt with their choice of respective non-ranged weaponry and armor. Two representatives of their culture's military elite enter, only one may leave. Who is wins?

Toss up. One big factor is the choice of weapons and armor. If you had specified which nationality of knight, it might be a bit easier. As some have pointed out already, not all knights were equal.

Another big factor is whether they get a chance to see the other's style - were they in contact with each other's cultures beforehand.

Some things that have been forgotten or ignored:

[spelling nazi]Please note the correct spelling of "samurai". If you can be arsed not to misspell "knight", you can be arsed to spell samurai correctly And note that misspelling the subject of the debate indicates a lack of familiarity, and thus authoritative knowledge of the subject, weaking your statements. [/spelling nazi]

While some o-yoroi was made of bamboo, the good stuff was a mix of iron and leather lamellar, and chain. Other types of armor such as do-maru, laced iron plate, might even be a better choice. I have even seen suits of armor with full or laced iron do as seen here:
http://www.wakagashira.com/images/vertplatesm1.jpg

(For a good overview of Japanese armor styles, go here: http://www.wakagashira.com/history/index.htm

Both cultures had a variety of weapons other than the standard broadsword and katana. If the samurai chooses a naginata or no-dachi, the knights zweihander reach advantage gets countered by equal reach and greater speed.

I say it would be an even match and to explain why I bow to one with more experiance than I.

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

Excellent link. Thanks! That says alot of what I wanted to say, and does so more clearly and with better authority. :)

Toss up. One big factor is the choice of weapons and armor. If you had specified which nationality of knight, it might be a bit easier. As some have pointed out already, not all knights were equal.

Indeed. Teutonic Knights were mainly used as reference though, given that they were the ultimate Knights of their time.

European armor was far superior to the samurai's, and if allowed to pick the best armor he would be practically impervious even to a Katana. As for weaponry the Katana was a superior cutting weapon, but it's only strong attack is a slash with the longer edge. European swords were heavier and even if they would not cut straight through Japanese armor, they would certainly cause some damage, European plate armor would diffuse the blow much better.

Assuming the best plate, you are probably correct, although I'd say not quite impervious.

But the Europeans not only had swords, they had pikes, halberds, maces, axes, etc... I'm sure the japanese had developed weapons other than the Katana, but not nearly to the extent the Europeans had.

Pike's aren't quite a knightly weapon - more of an anti-knight weapon.
And yes, the Japanese had other weapons.

On horseback the European would win hands down, his lance would probably be longer than the samurai's, and many knights had their horses heavily armored. Once again the European's armor and shield would probably be able to resist the samurai's lance blows, but the Samurai's armor would not.


To me, that last bit says you know very little about Japanese mounted warfare. ;)

The Japanese never developed lances, and used totally different tactics.

If the battle is mounted, and the knight uses the lance, the battle will come down to two things: can the samurai avoid the lance and can the knight avoid the samurai's counter. Both hinge (as I pointed out above) on whether they have seen the other's style.

If the are unfamiliar, the first is how will the knight get the samurai to engage him. As the samurai used totally different tactics, our samurai in question is going to avoid closing with the knight in the same fashion that another knight would do almost automatically. As his horse is unarmored, he is at an advantage to decline the charge.

I'd say this is the most likely scenario. If the samurai knows of the knight's lance charge, I'd say it is almost assured he will successfully avoid it.

If the knight does manage to engage the samurai, the samurai, not having the momentum of the knight or the proper equipment to joust, will be at a disadvantage. However, I'd expect the samurai to at least have the sense to duck or dodge, where a knight would be expected to meet such a charge.

I put the initial charge at 50-50 if they are unfamiliar. If they are familiar, the samurai is most likely to decline the charge through manuver.

As for the samurai's counter, assuming the samurai does not decline and the knight fails to land his thrust, the knight will be at a sever disadvantage. He has his hands full of lance and shield and he is facing an unfamiliar opponent's tactics. If they are unfamiliar, the samurai is likely to be armed with a katana. Then it comes down to the question of the katana versus European armor. I'd say even odds that the samurai will attack the horse or find a chink in the knights armor (we aren't talking about 15-16th century plate after all). If the samurai is familiar, or just lucky, and he chooses a more appropriate weapon (say a nagamaki - a short handled glaive), and it's better than even odds.

Toss up. At that time period however, samurai were mainly horse mounted archers, which means range and the ability to put an arrow through the chainmaile used by most knights of the time (ala the Mongols who did the same).

Again though, you end up it rather dependant upon who was actually doing the fighting.

The knight would win-all he would have to do is to learn the language of the samurai, and convince him that he has been defeated, and to do the honourable thing and hara kiri himself

The knight would win-all he would have to do is to learn the language of the samurai, and convince him that he has been defeated, and to do the honourable thing and hara kiri himself

While I know that was in jest, it's of interesting historical note that the idea of seppuku (proper term - "harakiri" is considered vulgar, as I understand it) didn't have as strong a hold on the bushi during the OP's time period. I can't find it at the moment, but I read a fascinating article on the subject several months ago that suggested, based on a survey of historical documents, that seppuku was actually practiced far less commonly than even modern Japanese history suggests. Anyhow, that's not going to work on our poor samurai. ;)

The Knight. He's got more armour, but he's slow. SO samurais more agile, and can keep attacking every second. But it's unlikely to penetrate the armour and his weak leather and metal armour is going to succumb to the two handed sword.

European Knight = Metal armor (sword no kutty-kutty)

Samurai = bamboo armor




This is a battle of a tank versus a jeep. Sure the jeep is more manuverable, but it can never really hurt the tank, at least not nearly as fast and easy as the tank can hurt the jeep.

The samurai wins by a large margin. No chance for the lame-ass knight.

Just look at it in details:

swords:
- Samurai: katana, the product of perfect smithing mastery
- Knight: blunt crap swords which rather bludgeon the enemy to death

armour:
- Samurai: flexible armour intent on allowing good movability
- Knight: bulky crap, weighing down the knight and greatly hindering his movability

techniques:
- Samurai: highly refined martial arts and sword skills, great fighter with and without sword:
- Knight: bludgeoning enemy with sheer force alone, helpless without sword

discipline:
- Samurai: very high discipline, strong honour codex
- Knight: can't even spell discipline, only intent on plundering and ravaging

Good lord, not the medieval scholars are we.

The pinaccle of European armour work of this period was immensely mobile, whilst the knights were not undisciplined, unskilled savages, they were consumate warriors adept at sword play, and, for the most part, restrained.

Personally, whilst the Samurai may well be adept at swordplay and well armed, I would contend that steel plate, and true European weaponry, would destroy the Samurai.

However, more fun would be a Samurai, upon an open field, against an English yeoman archer.:)

However, more fun would be a Samurai, upon an open field, against an English yeoman archer.:)


So.... an open field.... one guy with a LONGBOW, and the other guy with a sword.

That might be fun, if you enjoy watching some poor Japanese guy dieing.

So.... an open field.... one guy with a LONGBOW, and the other guy with a sword.

That might be fun, if you enjoy watching some poor Japanese guy dieing.

However, given the amount certain posters drool over the Samurai, watching them be massacred by vagabonds, peasents and acquited criminals withlong staves of wood would be hilarious.

*hums national anthem whilst making yeoman gesture to screen*

lol yep. Almost no one could take them down. If I remember correctly they cost a lot though.

Ha! My tricked-out Longbowmen owned all. Teutonic Knights, War Elephants, Beserkers, Samurai, cavalry... didn't matter, my Longbowmen obliterated everything. I had an interesting tactic with them, actually... but now you've made me want to play it too!!! I just wish I knew where it was...

Oh, and as for the subject: Pirates > Knights > Samurai. Considering the amount of detail already in the thread, anything I say to explain would be fairly redundant. And pirates are just the best at everything. EVER. Anyone who argues will be made to walk the plank.

13th-14th Century period, a flat plain, clear weather & cool temperature, equipt with their choice of respective non-ranged weaponry and armor. Two representatives of their culture's military elite enter, only one may leave. Who is wins?
The knight wins due to the advantage of metal armor. A katana is useless in hacking through steel. Meanwhile the knight's weapons made for bashing through plates of metal are still quite effective against the samurai's armor of silk and lacquer.

People who see katanas as perfect weapons with no disadvantages and the knights armour as 'clumsy' or 'immobile' obviously only get their facts from poorly researched Hollywood movies and samurai-glorifying Anime.

If you take the best equipped knight and put them agaisnt the best equipped samurai, the knight would have the decided advantage. The samurai had no shields and their weapons were not designed for use against armour as good as the knights. The knights armour was far from 'an old tin can' which made them 'immobile and easy to beat'. If plate armour was that crappy, why did people shell out fortunes for them? Even Samurai warlords knew how great European steel plate was and they tried to purchase them for use in battle. Western swords are in no way inferiour to katanas - they were just designed to do damage through armour more. A katana blade would go dull very fast against plate armour.

Add to that the Knights size and muscle advantage, and I think they had the upper hand - although it would be largely down to personal skill and luck. The arguments about samurai somehow being more skilled or disciplined because they are 'mystic and asian and use bushido and shit' just make me roll my eyes - as if knights just couln't be bothered putting in the effort when it came to training like their eastern counter parts.

The samurai wins by a large margin. No chance for the lame-ass knight.

Just look at it in details:

swords:
- Samurai: katana, the product of perfect smithing mastery
- Knight: blunt crap swords which rather bludgeon the enemy to death

armour:
- Samurai: flexible armour intent on allowing good movability
- Knight: bulky crap, weighing down the knight and greatly hindering his movability

techniques:
- Samurai: highly refined martial arts and sword skills, great fighter with and without sword:
- Knight: bludgeoning enemy with sheer force alone, helpless without sword

discipline:
- Samurai: very high discipline, strong honour codex
- Knight: can't even spell discipline, only intent on plundering and ravaging


An example of the type of person I was referring to - it is a pity that the media give people such stupid ideas about knights and samurai.

I'm pretty sure katanas aren't good against armour. I'm going for European Knight because I think the heavier armour and sword would be better.

OH YEAH GO SAMURAI!!!! They would whip a wimpy knight any day. HOORAY FOR THE HONORABLE SAMURAI, CHAMPION OF THE SHOGUN!!!!

The Knight has extremely cumbersome armour and his sword is also very heavy and inefficient.
The Samurai were the most efficient warriors of their time, their armour was designed for manouverability whilst still being protective, and their Samurai Swords (not Katanas, Samurai Swords are longer) are forged so they are less brittle, more aerodynamic and far, far more efficient. Samurai also possess knowledge of Chinese and Japanese Martial Arts, which around this time were far ahead of any rudimentary fist-fighting being used in Europe.

Samurai - Quick; agile; more effective; more efficient in both weaponry, how they weild the weapon and how they use the body.

Knight - Slow; cumbersome; giant Medieval sword which is extremely heavy and slow; possess little or no knowledge of fighting systems in relation to both the use of the sword and the use of the body (or little or no knowledge in comparison to the Samurai)

The Knight has extremely cumbersome armour and his sword is also very heavy and inefficient.
The Samurai were the most efficient warriors of their time, their armour was designed for manouverability whilst still being protective, and their Samurai Swords (not Katanas, Samurai Swords are longer) are forged so they are less brittle, more aerodynamic and far, far more efficient. Samurai also possess knowledge of Chinese and Japanese Martial Arts, which around this time were far ahead of any rudimentary fist-fighting being used in Europe.

Samurai - Quick; agile; more effective; more efficient in both weaponry, how they weild the weapon and how they use the body.

Knight - Slow; cumbersome; giant Medieval sword which is extremely heavy and slow; possess little or no knowledge of fighting systems in relation to both the use of the sword and the use of the body (or little or no knowledge in comparison to the Samurai)
Bullshit. A knight's armor was made to distribute the weight evenly and allow for a free range of motion. It wasn't cumbersome. It also was katana-proof. Hitting a knight with the blade of a katana would only ruin the fancy sword. A knight's weapons were made to hack, puncture or crush an armored foe. They would turn a samurai into hamburger meat. Samurai's fighting systems were OK, but knights trained regularly for more chaotic combat against similarly armored enemies. Once again, a samurai doesn't stand a chance. Ever see any demonstrations of medieval weapon styles? They're fast, dirty, effective and powerful.

The Knight has extremely cumbersome armour and his sword is also very heavy and inefficient.
The Samurai were the most efficient warriors of their time, their armour was designed for manouverability whilst still being protective, and their Samurai Swords (not Katanas, Samurai Swords are longer) are forged so they are less brittle, more aerodynamic and far, far more efficient. Samurai also possess knowledge of Chinese and Japanese Martial Arts, which around this time were far ahead of any rudimentary fist-fighting being used in Europe.

Samurai - Quick; agile; more effective; more efficient in both weaponry, how they weild the weapon and how they use the body.

Knight - Slow; cumbersome; giant Medieval sword which is extremely heavy and slow; possess little or no knowledge of fighting systems in relation to both the use of the sword and the use of the body (or little or no knowledge in comparison to the Samurai)


You're aware that a knight wearing platemail can turn somersaults, right? Not to mention their fighting styles were incredibly advanced, and the weapons were very sharp. Not to mention that "Martial arts" of the kind we know today weren't around then. And that "bulky" sword could go at quite a speed.

In close combat, speed isn't this awesome armour people think it is. Especially when you're exhausted after the first few minutes of combat. Besides, the samurais armour hardly weighs nothing. He's not unencumbered hisself.

coin flip really the samurai wouldn't be equipped to take on a medieval tank but if the knight falls over he can't get up and so if vulnerable to a quick stab through the eye hole (which was used to great affect in Europe) of course this relies on the samurai knowing this and that the samurai can actually get close enough to push the knight over

coin flip really the samurai wouldn't be equipped to take on a medieval tank but if the knight falls over he can't get up and so if vulnerable to a quick stab through the eye hole (which was used to great affect in Europe) of course this relies on the samurai knowing this and that the samurai can actually get close enough to push the knight over

You don't think that with a weak spot like that, knights wouldn't last a moment in combat? as soon as they closed, some punk peasant would trip him and he'd be dead. You sure you aren't just thinking about muddy, swampy agincourt?

coin flip really the samurai wouldn't be equipped to take on a medieval tank but if the knight falls over he can't get up and so if vulnerable to a quick stab through the eye hole (which was used to great affect in Europe) of course this relies on the samurai knowing this and that the samurai can actually get close enough to push the knight over
What makes you think that a knight can't get up if he falls? About the only things a knight in full armor couldn't do are swim, fuck, or take a dump without soiling himself. He could otherwise execute just about any movement or maneuver that an unarmored person could.

You don't think that with a weak spot like that, knights wouldn't last a moment in combat? as soon as they closed, some punk peasant would trip him and he'd be dead. You sure you aren't just thinking about muddy, swampy agincourt?

knights tend to be on horses and have the knack of killing you before you even get close there also the fact that getting someone to fall on there back is tricky even when there not trying to kill you

Very few people for either side have even the slightest inkling of what the hell they are talking about.

Those pro-samurai know very little about the medieval knight, as honestly do the people who are pro-knight. This is seen in various statements about platemail, from both parties.

Those who are pro-knight know jack squat about the samurai, as seen in the repeated overuse of the word katana, like there were no other Japanese weapons.

The Knight has extremely cumbersome armour and his sword is also very heavy and inefficient.
The Samurai were the most efficient warriors of their time, their armour was designed for manouverability whilst still being protective, and their Samurai Swords (not Katanas, Samurai Swords are longer) are forged so they are less brittle, more aerodynamic and far, far more efficient. Samurai also possess knowledge of Chinese and Japanese Martial Arts, which around this time were far ahead of any rudimentary fist-fighting being used in Europe.

Samurai - Quick; agile; more effective; more efficient in both weaponry, how they weild the weapon and how they use the body.

Knight - Slow; cumbersome; giant Medieval sword which is extremely heavy and slow; possess little or no knowledge of fighting systems in relation to both the use of the sword and the use of the body (or little or no knowledge in comparison to the Samurai)

there armour is designed to make up for there general lack of avalible steel. it's not made to be the best in the world, just the best from the avaliable material, the little steel they had went to weapons cause weapons don't require nearly the amount of material... and europeans had martial arts other then boxing, just for whatever reason boxing is the only one that is commonly known. There are various forms of fencing though for armed martial arts that european. and neither samuri nor knights were the all defeating heros, pike and spear could deal with either if there mounted and bows or ninja's could take out either if there on foot. Furthermore, both samuri and knights used a much wider range of weapons then just long swords and katana's, I think that the samuri was more ept with ranged weapons, but that was the one prohibition in the thread starter.... but yea, a knight would probably win, but it'd be a fight....

it'd be like a brown bear going up against a bengal tiger... the knight would be the bear, the samurai would be the tiger.

the knight's advantages would be:
armor
size/strength
weapon size (those big swords were heavy!)

the samurai's advantages would be:
speed
quickness
overall athleticism (all of the above three due to less armor, lighter weapon)
weapon size (lighter)


This says nothing of training/tactics (etc.) ... if we call that a wash, then this'd be a pretty even match-up, with the Samurai leaping around trying to find an angle (tiger) and the knight trying to land that one heavy blow (bear).

What makes you think that a knight can't get up if he falls? About the only things a knight in full armor couldn't do are swim, fuck, or take a dump without soiling himself. He could otherwise execute just about any movement or maneuver that an unarmored person could.

No. A full plate armour covering the knight from heel to nose doesn't allow the user even walk easily. The main effect that longbowmen had on French knights was the killing of horses that made those knights completely useless. Their own unmounted knights used much lighter armour, closer to that of samurai.

I think the knight would win this fight if they had to just beat eachother from close distance. That, however, removes the advantages samurai has as a over all fighter. He is trained in using bow, he is trained in tactics, in using obstacles of the battlefield to his advantage, and even to use powder weapons! However, as the rules of the poll excluded such measures, the knight would overcome. That doesn't however make him a better figter - this battle is just planned for him.

knights adopted firearms when they came out too.... I'm pretty sure the era is being set to prior to firearms...

No. A full plate armour covering the knight from heel to nose can't even walk easily. The main effect that longbowmen had on French knights was the killing of horses that made those knights completely useless. Their own unmounted knights used much lighter armour, closer to that of samurai.

I think the knight would win this fight if they had to just beat eachother from close distance. That, however, removes the advantages samurai has as a over all fighter. He is trained in using bow, he is trained in tactics, in using obstacles of the battlefield to his advantage, and even to use powder weapons! However, as the rules of the poll excluded such measures, the knight would overcome. That doesn't however make him a better figter - this battle is just planned for him.
I've seen guys in armor on the discovery channel demonstrating that a man in plate armor could move quite well.

Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move.

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

About the only things a knight in full armor couldn't do are swim, fuck, or take a dump without soiling himself.

That's it. I'm citing you in an essay. A line like that is too cool not to include.

A typical English Knight would carry three weapons into battle. A longsword, a broadsword and a mace. He would be highly proficient with all three and trained to fight both in a melee against multiple opponents and a duel against a single foe of equal proficiency to himself. His armour would most likely be plate mail, giving him adequate and effective manoeuvrability combined with excellent defence against slashing attacks. He would also have trained with a variety of pole-arms, most likely a halberd - as a knight often faced knights, a weapon so perfectly designed to defeat an armoured opponent was not ignored.

English Knights would definitely have been extremely effective on foot. In almost every major battle (usually against the French) dismounted Knights proved themselves more versatile and effective.

Also, if he was aware that he was going to be going up against an unblessed pagan, the Knight would have delighted in using a weapons banned for use against anyone other than infidels - a pistol crossbow. Richard the Lionheart LOVED this weapon and used it on his Crusades to notable effect.

Battle starts - *THUNK* - Battle Ends.

...Samurai also possess knowledge of Chinese and Japanese Martial Arts, which around this time were far ahead of any rudimentary fist-fighting being used in Europe...

People pointed out the mistakes about arms and armor, I wanted to also add that European unarmed martial arts favored grappling over pugilism. They didn't train in "rudimentary fist-fighting", they trained in takedowns and joint breaking.

Hey now, I actually read the whole topic before voting:eek:

Didn't see it all, but there was once this thing on Brainiacs: Science Abuse where a guy had to wear a full suit of plate armour, and go jogging and stuff. Seemed to work out rather well. I also tried a chain-mail shirt, once, and it didn't seem that heavy.

Also, since someone mentioned learning swordplay, I'd much rather have a thin stabby-thing (epee?) than a big broadsword, lacking heavily armoured enemies to slaughter.

The Japanese islands aren't a huge landmass. They didn't support the same population as Europe. They weren't invaded often. They didn't do too much invading themselves.

European knights fought knights from far away parts of Europe, fought invading Muslims and invaded Muslim lands.

The constant contact with other warriors, other weapons, and other styles of fighting would, IMHO, make the knights better all-around fighters capable of adapting to different styles and weapons better than the isolated samurai. Also the knights would probably have had more than a few tricks up their sleeves that the samurai wouldn't expect.

I still say it all depends on the skill of the fighters. It's too hard to say who would win if you just pick any Samurai and any knight out of a hat. Individual warriors are too random for something like that. If you pit someone like, say, Miyamoto Musashi, against someone like Richard the Lionhearted or Robert the Bruce, then things might get interesting.

Warriors in single combat use something called stratagy, you know. It doesn't just depend on who had the best weapons or shapest sword or heavier armor. Musashi could take down any average knight with a wooden sword, which he often used in duels instead of Katanas. As someone brought up before, Richard the Lionheart liked to use a Pistol-Crossbow in battle. It's not the weapon that counts, but the way you use it.

I still say it all depends on the skill of the fighters. It's too hard to say who would win if you just pick any Samurai and any knight out of a hat. Individual warriors are too random for something like that. If you pit someone like, say, Miyamoto Musashi, against someone like Richard the Lionhearted or Robert the Bruce, then things might get interesting.

Warriors in single combat use something called stratagy, you know. It doesn't just depend on who had the best weapons or shapest sword or heavier armor. Musashi could take down any average knight with a wooden sword, which he often used in duels instead of Katanas. As someone brought up before, Richard the Lionheart liked to use a Pistol-Crossbow in battle. It's not the weapon that counts, but the way you use it.
You know what's nice about a nice, hefty piece of wood? Sharp edged weapons can get stuck in it. Musashi wasn't an idiot carelessly risking his life.

I think a battle of this nature would be down to the individual Knight/Samurai taking part. The skills and training each recieved were on par with each other, though vastly different in style. The waepons they used were reletively comparable; a samurai's swords (katana and wakasashi) were his primary weapons, though not his only ones, but they were light and easy to handle. The disadvantages they had when fighting an armored knight would have been; no true stabbing point narrow enough to get through plate armor, and they were single edged makeing the samurai rely overmuch on intricate technique. The advantages he would enjoy would likely be in the diversity of his options, however. A samurai had various ways to attack, up to and including "battle fans", yes something normally used to wave cool air on one's face doctored up to be used in combat, now that's sly.

The knight's main disadventage; his helmet, the armor would have been well made and easy for him to move in, but the helmet would not have provided good visibility if it was designed to protect the way most were. His weapons were similar, but with a different approach. A knights swords were double edged, allowing for a back slash, they also tapered to a sharp point in order to pierce the armor of an opposing knight. A mace was also often employed, what better way to best an opponent than to bash his brain in? And if the opponent were wearing armor a mace was just as effective. But the knight's first weapon was always the lance. An armored knight on the back of a charging horse with a leveled lance was the medival equivalent to WMDs.

Iam not sure who would really win it all depends on the circumstances at the time and the richness of the said fighters to what weapons and armour they carried onto the field, also they could be both a bit of bastard to lower classes and sometimes looks the other way when their codes where being broken, so they might both cheat in a duel but in the end you would probably get some small weak daimyo hiring some Landless European Knights and Euro Mercs so he could have edge and make himself Shogun.

knights adopted firearms when they came out too.... I'm pretty sure the era is being set to prior to firearms...

One thing I haven't seen mentioned here (there are a lot of posts, I could have missed it) is that knights and Samurai weren't contemporary. It's like comparing European cavemen to American police officers. Japanese Samurai were contemporary to European musketeers. By the 15th century firearms had become the weapon of war in Japan (then they were gradually outlawed). It it was already happening in the 14th century in which this fight was to take place. A Samurai against a 14th century European knight would be more likely to shoot him. And the Katana as we know it today didn't even exist yet. It was more of a 16th and 17th century arrival. And a gradual one at that.

We're talking Early Medieval Period here, not the 'Golden era' of jousting and Order of the Garter. Glorified butchers is all they were.

What a big pile o' rubbish that is.

Medieval fight books, like I.33, Lichtenauer etc (all from early 1300's) demonstrate that western swordsmen/women had complex, yet brutally efficient methods of swordsmanship. This involved two handed swords, sword and buckler, and both armoured and unarmoured.

www.myArmoury.com

http://www.thearma.org/

www.swordforum.com

They WERE efficient fighters, with quality weapons and armour.

Yeah, but if some dimwit actually decided to take a short sword and a shield to a duel with a guy who uses a Zweihander, it's curtains for his sorry ass.

If you try to block a broad swing with your shield, one of these actions will occur:

1 - You will be knocked to the ground because of the kinetic energy transferred from the sword to your body, helped by the collapse of your elbow.

2 - Your elbow will be shattered, that is, if you're stupid enough to keep your elbow straight when the sword hits your shield.

3 - Your shield will break, leaving you virtually defenseless with your midget sword.


Grrrrr.

Stop with the uber-zweihander bull crap.

The first rule of swordsmanship defence is not to be there in the first place so your '3 out comes' are rubbish.

So the out come could as easily be,

Swords man dadges the zweihander blow (or a simple slight deflection) and then gets close to the zweihander swordsman and cuts him down.

Besides, zweihanders were used for breaking pike formations in the late 14th and 15th century. They were not usually used in staright sword on sword combat (although doubtless this happened).

I'd like to teach myself swordsmanship, too.

You can't teach yourself swordsmanship!!! :rolleyes:

If you want to learn (something about) western swordsmanship and where to learn, go to the links in the posts above.

Agreed. I believe Samurai armour weighed less by the way. Plate mail usually weighed up to 60 lbs. Samurai armour was probably around 30 at the most. That is also why the Knights were so strong. They had to train to fight under that huge weight.


THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PLATE MAIL!!!!

Its either

Plate

http://www.mardinus.c2000.pl/oferta/img/zbroje/img_01s.jpg

or Maille

http://www.arador.com/gallery/maille.jpg

The samurai wins by a large margin. No chance for the lame-ass knight.

Just look at it in details:

swords:
- Samurai: katana, the product of perfect smithing mastery
- Knight: blunt crap swords which rather bludgeon the enemy to death

armour:
- Samurai: flexible armour intent on allowing good movability
- Knight: bulky crap, weighing down the knight and greatly hindering his movability

techniques:
- Samurai: highly refined martial arts and sword skills, great fighter with and without sword:
- Knight: bludgeoning enemy with sheer force alone, helpless without sword

discipline:
- Samurai: very high discipline, strong honour codex
- Knight: can't even spell discipline, only intent on plundering and ravaging

:rolleyes: Oh dear, when will people learn that Knights armour wasn't heavy (weighed on average 10lbs more than a Samurai's, with an average of 50-70lbs), that their swords were sharp (in fact the great variety of types of swords would also make a difference - see here. (http://www.algonet.se/%7Eenda/oakeshott_eng.htm)), that they were disciplined and well schooled in tactics and warfare and that both the samurai and knight could be as brutal and bloody as each other. Code of honour bollocks, both slaughtered civilians and each other on numerous occasions.

What makes you think that a knight can't get up if he falls? About the only things a knight in full armor couldn't do are swim, fuck, or take a dump without soiling himself. He could otherwise execute just about any movement or maneuver that an unarmored person could.

Actually, and this is rather amusing, there are some suits of armour that have hinges and flaps for relieving oneself at a certain moment (usually when facing up to an opponents charge). :D

Actually, and this is rather amusing, there are some suits of armour that have hinges and flaps for relieving oneself at a certain moment (usually when facing up to an opponents charge). :D
Man, they thought of everything.

Man, they thought of everything.

Yeah, as long as your leather straps didn't get stuck then was all ok...

Although both of the men's armour would be maneuverable (contrary to popular belief, medieval European armour was very flexible, and no, they did not require a crane to get on their horse), I would put my money on the Samurai.

Both of them would also have extensive weapons and deulling training, but the Japanese guy would, I think, have a more fanatical bushido obsessed edge over the Christian.

Although both of the men's armour would be maneuverable (contrary to popular belief, medieval European armour was very flexible, and no, they did not require a crane to get on their horse), I would put my money on the Samurai.

Both of them would also have extensive weapons and deulling training, but the Japanese guy would, I think, have a more fanatical bushido obsessed edge over the Christian.
Why is that? Knights didn't spend their days picking posies. They went to war and killed the shit out of other knights, ordinary soldiers, and civilians.

I dont know. Its just a hunch I've got. Basically the two of them are the same, but I just see the Japanese guy with the sword that was turned over 32 times, as opposed to a European one that was turned perhaps 4-6 times, winning in the end. Anyways, I've got work.

I dont know. Its just a hunch I've got. Basically the two of them are the same, but I just see the Japanese guy with the sword that was turned over 32 times, as opposed to a European one that was turned perhaps 4-6 times, winning in the end. Anyways, I've got work.

Japanese swords were not turned that many times.

When folding steel, to get the high numbers of layers you only need to fold a sword a few times.

2 layers folded would be 4 layers.

4 layers folded would be 8 layers.

8 layers folded would be 16 layers etc etc

You would only need 8 or so folds to have over 16,000 layers.

European swords were not folded.

Viking swords were pattern welded (various types of iron forged together), but most of the time (but not all), single source iron was used to make steel that was used in Euro swords.

Why is that? Knights didn't spend their days picking posies. They went to war and killed the shit out of other knights, ordinary soldiers, and civilians.
But the knight would realise that he would be worth a fortune to his potential victor in ransom, so might not be expecting to be killed outright. Whereas the samurai would think exactly the opposite and expect to be killed and would be horrified by the thought of being taken prisoner. Might give the samurai an edge.

But the knight would realise that he would be worth a fortune to his potential victor in ransom, so might not be expecting to be killed outright. Whereas the samurai would think exactly the opposite and expect to be killed and would be horrified by the thought of being taken prisoner. Might give the samurai an edge.


Thats possible, but in a duel, I think the knight would more than likely understand the rules and not expect any quarter to be given.

Thats possible, but in a duel, I think the knight would more than likely understand the rules and not expect any quarter to be given.
Point taken.

The samurai wins by a large margin. No chance for the lame-ass knight.

Just look at it in details:

swords:
- Samurai: katana, the product of perfect smithing mastery
- Knight: blunt crap swords which rather bludgeon the enemy to death

armour:
- Samurai: flexible armour intent on allowing good movability
- Knight: bulky crap, weighing down the knight and greatly hindering his movability

techniques:
- Samurai: highly refined martial arts and sword skills, great fighter with and without sword:
- Knight: bludgeoning enemy with sheer force alone, helpless without sword

discipline:
- Samurai: very high discipline, strong honour codex
- Knight: can't even spell discipline, only intent on plundering and ravaging
Pure mythologically driven crap.

Viking swords were pattern welded (various types of iron forged together), but most of the time (but not all), single source iron was used to make steel that was used in Euro swords.
The Zweihandern used by the Teutonic Knights were, nevertheless, powerful blades, unparalleled in their potential destructive capacity. Difficult to wield, yes. Awesome. Definitely.

I am surprised this thread has gone on so long.

Pure mythologically driven crap.
Agreed.

The armor worn by the medieval knight would have been impervious to most weapons the samurai carried (naginata, katana/tachi, yari, &c.) while the samurai's armor was designed to protect from things that samurai typically wielded, but knights typically didn't carry (maces, war hammers, clubs, rocks, &c.). Therefore, a knight in platemail would bash the skull of the samurai open.

The knight and samurai were equal in nearly every other aspect: manueverability, agility, skill, discipline, war crime record, and so forth.

The single most major advantage the samurai would have had over the knight: o-yoroi, full Japanese armor, is much, much more comfortable than plate mail! Japanese samurai (and bandits) would wear the stuff day in and day out while in the field. They never had to remove it until they got home. The knight, on the other hand, would have had to remove his armor after battle and replace it before battle.

The Zweihandern used by the Teutonic Knights were, nevertheless, powerful blades, unparalleled in their potential destructive capacity. Difficult to wield, yes. Awesome. Definitely.

I am surprised this thread has gone on so long.

The Teutons were far two early for using what are termed 'Zweihander'. Proper zwei handers did not come into existence until the mid renaissance period.

If you look at this typology but Ewart Oakeshott (http://www.algonet.se/%7Eenda/oakeshott_eng.htm) the most likely swords that the Teutons would have used (esp. from horse back) would be the Type XIII. Single hand, broad bladed swords. On foot, maybe the Type XIIa and XIIIa, as they were proper 'Great Swords', but NOT Zweihanders. They came much later, and were designed to hack holes in pike formations.

The Teutons were far two early for using what are termed 'Zweihander'. Proper zwei handers did not come into existence until the mid renaissance period.

If you look at this typology but Ewart Oakeshott (http://www.algonet.se/%7Eenda/oakeshott_eng.htm) the most likely swords that the Teutons would have used (esp. from horse back) would be the Type XIII. Single hand, broad bladed swords. On foot, maybe the Type XIIa and XIIIa, as they were proper 'Great Swords', but NOT Zweihanders. They came much later, and were designed to hack holes in pike formations.
The Teutons existed as an order well into the 19th century.

The armor worn by the medieval knight would have been impervious to most weapons the samurai carried (naginata, katana/tachi, yari, &c.) while the samurai's armor was designed to protect from things that samurai typically wielded, but knights typically didn't carry (maces, war hammers, clubs, rocks, &c.). Therefore, a knight in platemail would bash the skull of the samurai open.

The knight and samurai were equal in nearly every other aspect: manueverability, agility, skill, discipline, war crime record, and so forth.

The single most major advantage the samurai would have had over the knight: o-yoroi, full Japanese armor, is much, much more comfortable than plate mail! Japanese samurai (and bandits) would wear the stuff day in and day out while in the field. They never had to remove it until they got home. The knight, on the other hand, would have had to remove his armor after battle and replace it before battle.


There is no such thing as plate mail!!!!!! :rolleyes:

It is either plate or maille. Plate being solid steel plates and maille being interlinking iron rings. You can wear a combination of both, but its NOT platemail.

There is no such thing as plate mail!!!!!! :rolleyes:

It is either plate or maille. Plate being solid steel plates and maille being interlinking iron rings. You can wear a combination of both, but its NOT platemail.
So then what would a combination be called?

The Teutons existed as an order well into the 19th century.

True, but as a military order of any significance, after 1410 and to a lesser extent 1454, they cannot be classed as having any exceptional weapons that they alone used. Indeed the Zweihander is much more of a Swiss states and southern German weapon (hence the reason and popularity of it in pike formations, of which the swiss and germans are famous - the Landesknechte). Not something the northern Teutons would have used, until maybe they moved to Wurttemburg after 1525.

Never-the-less, my point is that Zweihanders were not a Teuton exclusive weapon by any means.

True, but as a military order of any significance, after 1410 and to a lesser extent 1454, they cannot be classed as having any exceptional weapons that they alone used. Indeed the Zweihander is much more of a Swiss states and southern German weapon (hence the reason and popularity of it in pike formations, of which the swiss and germans are famous - the Landesknechte). Not something the northern Teutons would have used, until maybe they moved to Wurttemburg after 1525.

Never-the-less, my point is that Zweihanders were not a Teuton exclusive weapin by any means.
Of course they weren't. I know this. They are just the first image that comes to mind when one thinks of the type of sword. I think before using them it's their pure ferocity and discipline that got them their reputation.

So then what would a combination be called?

Basically, plate armour would incorporate areas of maille into its construction, at areas such as the armpits, inside the elbows, and behind the knee joints etc. Therefore when you say you are wearing a harness of plate (i.e. suit of armour) it is automatically assumed that the maille in these areas would be present. There is no need to say anything else.

But saying Platemail (or some other such variation) is technically a mistake.

Basically, plate armour would incorporate areas of maille into its construction, at areas such as the armpits, inside the elbows, and behind the knee joints etc. Therefore when you say you are wearing a harness of plate (i.e. suit of armour) it is automatically assumed that the maille in these areas would be present. There is no need to say anything else.

But saying Platemail (or some other such variation) is technically a mistake.
Ah yes, I have heard it being called a harness before. I suppose plate mail was a convenient abbreviation?

Of course they weren't. I know this. They are just the first image that comes to mind when one thinks of the type of sword.

Maybe, but its a false image, as you can't use one of those from horse back, and IIRC, the Teutons were famous for their cavalry and not for their infantry, which often just comprised of mercenaries.

However, I must admit, as I didn't put this sooner, the prevelence for the use of longer swords by the Teutons has been argued as a starting point for the development of the Zweihander, via the use of such sword types as I pointed out before. See here. (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_euroedge.html)

I think before using them it's their pure ferocity and discipline that got them their reputation.

Now that I can't disagree with :D To see a cavalry charge like that at Grunwald would certainly be a sight to behold.

Maybe, but its a false image, as you can't use one of those from horse back, and IIRC, the Teutons were famous for their cavalry and not for their infantry, which often just comprised of mercenaries.
Referring to the Knights off their horses of course. ;)

However, I must admit, as I didn't put this sooner, the prevelence for the use of longer swords by the Teutons has been argued as a starting point for the development of the Zweihander, via the use of such sword types as I pointed out before. See here.
Seems logical. They are beautiful weapons. I think the Teutons must have adopted them later in time.

Now that I can't disagree with :D To see a cavalry charge like that at Grunwald would certainly be a sight to behold.
Indeed. For some reason I admire Knights like them. I hate religious fanaticism, but in their case (and in the case of elite Knights in general) it's almost otherworldly.

Ah yes, I have heard it being called a harness before. I suppose plate mail was a convenient abbreviation?

Well the term plate mail was used initially by Victorian historians who didn't know any better, the same people who though your average knightly sword weighed 50lbs and was blunt. I.e. they knew sweet FA about the subject.

But when one refers to maille, it is usually a hauberk (the piece that protects your head) or a coat of maille, and not the pieces of a combined harness.

So many people do use it yeah, but it is wrong to do so.

Well the term plate mail was used initially by Victorian historians who didn't know any better, the same people who though your average knightly sword weighed 50lbs and was blunt. I.e. they knew sweet FA about the subject.

But when one refers to maille, it is usually a hauberk (the piece that protects your head) or a coat of maille, and not the pieces of a combined harness.

So many people do use it yeah, but it is wrong to do so.
Well now I know better. Funny how few do actually know its proper name though.

Referring to the Knights off their horses of course. ;)

Of course :D

Seems logical. They are beautiful weapons. I think the Teutons must have adopted them later in time.

Yup, I have handled a few copies and one actual Zweihander, made in the early 1500's. It weighed over 8lbs, but the balance on that thing was perfect. It took a bit of strength granted, but if you trained with the thing daily, you could use it like a hand and a half without a second thought.


Indeed. For some reason I admire Knights like them. I hate religious fanaticism, but in their case (and in the case of elite Knights in general) it's almost otherworldly.

Agreed, I know more about the Knights of St.John than the Teutons, but something about heavy knightly cavalry that is immensly cool.

Well now I know better. Funny how few do actually know its proper name though.

Well through modern media, Victorian concepts and stuff like roleplaying games (*punches Warhammer and Dungeons and Dragons*), the depth in detail and the specific names for things were lost. Have a good explore round the links I put in this thread and the martial arts one. Theres an old world to be rediscovered and not about time too.

Yup, I have handled a few copies and one actual Zweihander, made in the early 1500's. It weighed over 8lbs, but the balance on that thing was perfect. It took a bit of strength granted, but if you trained with the thing daily, you could use it like a hand and a half without a second thought.

Until it became second nature, yes. It would take considerable training I suppose.

Agreed, I know more about the Knights of St.John than the Teutons, but something about heavy knightly cavalry that is immensly cool.
Indeed. I am usually more of an unarmed martial artist kind of person, though elite knightly cavalry earns my respect and awe. Styles concerning dual wielding swords are also cool, but not as much as either of the aforementioned styles.

Well through modern media, Victorian concepts and stuff like roleplaying games (*punches Warhammer and Dungeons and Dragons*), the depth in detail and the specific names for things were lost. Have a good explore round the links I put in this thread and the martial arts one. Theres an old world to be rediscovered and not about time too.
Dungeons and Dragons gets a lot right, but it also makes many mistakes. I prefer Arcana Evolved. The author is the same as that of generic D&D, but it's done on a more intellectual basis.

I love exploring the old world. :)

There is one factor that a lot of people don't consider in a Knight vs. Samurai duel:

Knights were extremely arrogant, believed themselves to be the best-of-the-best, and thought they could easily defeat any enemy. Samurai could be described as arrogant, but as far as I know they never underestimated any enemy.

The Knight would see a man with lighter armour, (apparently) weaker weapons, and automatically assume that his already existant advantage (from his point of view) has just increased exponentially. The Samurai sees a heavily armoured and armed opponent, he would likely try and examine his foe and let him charge first, giving him a good chance at piercing the heavy armour and taking his enemy down. He would not underestimate his foe the way the Knight would.

One thing that the Samurai EXCELLED at beyond anything else was one-on-one combat. They were extremely skilled duelists, they knew exactly when and where to place their sword (even against heavy armour) to take an opponent down in one blow. In a one-on-one foot battle, the Samurai would win most of the time.

Now, if it was on horseback, things would probably be a different matter. Knights excelled at mounted combat, and while Samurai were excellent horsemen as well, much of their precious agility is lost while the Knight is fighting in a more favoured position. The result: The Knight's superior armour and horseback specialization allows him to overpower the Samurai. In most cases, the Knight would win.

My verdict:

Foot battle: Samurai win.
Cavalry battle: Knights win.


In a massive battle, things certainly get interesting. I think it would be more of a coin toss there. The knight's heavy armour better allows them to withstand blows they didn't see coming. The Samurai's superior agility and combat skill is effective, but no warrior has eyes in the back of their head. The battle could go either way, I believe that luck and the skill of either side's generals would prevail here.

Until it became second nature, yes. It would take considerable training I suppose.

Well, the soliders (esp mercs) who took on the role of zweihander fighters frequently got double pay over the rest of the soldiers, as they were in the front line and had the job of breaking enemy lines.


Indeed. I am usually more of an unarmed martial artist kind of person, though elite knightly cavalry earns my respect and awe. Styles concerning dual wielding swords are also cool, but not as much as either of the aforementioned styles.

Not many dual wielding around, although I do think stylisitcally they are very interesting. Although, give me a hand and a half any day :D

Dungeons and Dragons gets a lot right, but it also makes many mistakes. I prefer Arcana Evolved. The author is the same as that of generic D&D, but it's done on a more intellectual basis.

I love exploring the old world. :)

I'll have to keep an eye out for that one, not that I have much time these days.

Well, the soliders (esp mercs) who took on the role of zweihander fighters frequently got double pay over the rest of the soldiers, as they were in the front line and had the job of breaking enemy lines.
Naturally. They were the elite after all.

Not many dual wielding around, although I do think stylisitcally they are very interesting. Although, give me a hand and a half any day :D
It is stylistically awesome, but you pretty much have to be ambidextrous and really focused.

There is one factor that a lot of people don't consider in a Knight vs. Samurai duel:

Knights were extremely arrogant, believed themselves to be the best-of-the-best, and thought they could easily defeat any enemy. Samurai could be described as arrogant, but as far as I know they never underestimated any enemy.

The Knight would see a man with lighter armour, (apparently) weaker weapons, and automatically assume that his already existant advantage (from his point of view) has just increased exponentially. The Samurai sees a heavily armoured and armed opponent, he would likely try and examine his foe and let him charge first, giving him a good chance at piercing the heavy armour and taking his enemy down. He would not underestimate his foe the way the Knight would.

Wow, talk about generalisation. Not every Knight was trained the same and neither was every Samurai.

One thing that the Samurai EXCELLED at beyond anything else was one-on-one combat. They were extremely skilled duelists, they knew exactly when and where to place their sword (even against heavy armour) to take an opponent down in one blow. In a one-on-one foot battle, the Samurai would win most of the time.

If you consult a great many medieval manuals from the period (available here ---> www.thearma.org) you'll see that medieval swordsmen were trained in duelling as well (both in armour and without), and it was a very prevelent past time, so I sincerely doubt that either would be trained better than the other in this respect.

There is one factor that a lot of people don't consider in a Knight vs. Samurai duel:

Knights were extremely arrogant, believed themselves to be the best-of-the-best, and thought they could easily defeat any enemy. Samurai could be described as arrogant, but as far as I know they never underestimated any enemy.
Not true. Knights were the best of the best. Yet they still held God above themselves. Furthermore, they fought a much greater variety of enemies than the Samurai, making them more flexible.

The Knight would see a man with lighter armour, (apparently) weaker weapons, and automatically assume that his already existant advantage (from his point of view) has just increased exponentially. The Samurai sees a heavily armoured and armed opponent, he would likely try and examine his foe and let him charge first, giving him a good chance at piercing the heavy armour and taking his enemy down. He would not underestimate his foe the way the Knight would.

Samurai are hardly psychic. Knights are hardly idiots. They constantly fought against Knights and soldiers using entirely different weapons and techniques. They adapted frequently. The Samurai were not as focused and clued up as people think they were. This is a misconception that arises after they were decommissioned. Then it came to be true, but they were no longer warriors. Samurai are human, and just as prone to underestimating their foes, especially since they are not used to fighting foreigners.

One thing that the Samurai EXCELLED at beyond anything else was one-on-one combat. They were extremely skilled duelists, they knew exactly when and where to place their sword (even against heavy armour) to take an opponent down in one blow. In a one-on-one foot battle, the Samurai would win most of the time.
I doubt this. Knights were far more experienced in fighting against armoured opponents. The Samurai would prove a difficult fight, but the odds are even. Furthermore, the katana is not sufficient to cause heavy damage to the Knight.

It is stylistically awesome, but you pretty much have to be ambidextrous and really focused.


Yeah, I always foundit easier when using a sword and buckler (small round metal shield about a foot across) that it is easier to use one as offensive and one as defensive, so your mind has a set role allocated to either hand. Although when fighting with sword and rondel dagger (much fun :D ) the ability to have a second dedicated weapon (rather than a metal shield with which to punch with) is sometimes very useful, esp against would be armoured opponents, as there is nothing better than a stiff bladed dagger to get through the gaps in armour.


EDIT: Just reminded myself, the same could be said of the Japanese Tanto as they had stiff enough blades for punching through maille.

Yeah, I always foundit easier when using a sword and buckler (small round metal shield about a foot across) that it is easier to use one as offensive and one as defensive, so your mind has a set role allocated to either hand.
It makes more sense too, yet those who excel in dual wielding can use the one blade for defence and the other for offence, and then use both to attack. It's quite amazing. Still, not my favourite style.

I will never understand why people are always so quick to naysay an opinion. I gave an opinion, not an overall ruling of who will always win. Yeesh.

I will never understand why people are always so quick to naysay an opinion. I gave an opinion, not an overall ruling of who will always win. Yeesh.
Based on flawed logic. The opinion on who wins is yours indeed, the other parts were fallacious though. No problem if you think one or the other wins, yet I wanted to clear up the misconceptions.

I will never understand why people are always so quick to naysay an opinion. I gave an opinion, not an overall ruling of who will always win. Yeesh.

Its not that, just when a generalisation is made in an arguement where lets face it, the devil is in the details, it needs to be disproven.

Fair enough. I did make generalizations, and not all Knights were like that, neithere were all Samurai.

Let's face it, 'Samurai' and 'Knight' are really too general a term to use against one another.

Fair enough. I did make generalizations, and not all Knights were like that, neithere were all Samurai.

Let's face it, 'Samurai' and 'Knight' are really too general a term to use against one another.
Indeed, it is quite random. Yet assuming that both are elite, for instance a Teutonic Knight against an elite Samurai, one can speculate. It's still pretty unpredictable though.

Fair enough. I did make generalizations, and not all Knights were like that, neithere were all Samurai.

Let's face it, 'Samurai' and 'Knight' are really too general a term to use against one another.

:) Exactly, which is why if you go on certain sword websites and start a thread like this, the amount of times you will be told you are flogging a dead horse will be more than the amount of replies to the topic you want discussed.

I.E. we cannot know, we shall never know and unless we get a time machine and get two people from both cultures ready to fight in a stable environment with weapons of their choosing, its a pointless arguement.

:) Exactly, which is why if you go on certain sword websites and start a thread like this, the amount of times you will be told you are flogging a dead horse will be more than the amount of replies to the topic you want discussed.

I.E. we cannot know, we shall never know and unless we get a time machine and get two people from both cultures ready to fight in a stable environment with weapons of their choosing, its a pointless arguement.
Pretty much so. All else is speculation based on fact, which in essence, means not much. Sort of like counter-factual history.

Easy, the samurai would win. Their armour always stressed maneuverability and agility while still remaining amply protective - the Medieval Knight's armour would be bulky and hindering, and really give him a disadvantage.

Now, if the knight was on his horse... the Knight would definitely win.

Plate armour, like was worn by European knights was designed to maintain as much agility as possible, you can do somersaults and rolls in plate after you get used to wearing it.

Additionally alot of samurai adopted 'southern barbarian' armour, European cuirasses in place of their more common lamelar armour.

Pretty much so. All else is speculation based on fact, which in essence, means not much. Sort of like counter-factual history.

Yup and with that, I am off to bed as it is reaching the early hours of the morning here and I need at few hours sleep tonight. Night all :)

Plate armour, like was worn by European knights was designed to maintain as much agility as possible, you can do somersaults and rolls in plate after you get used to wearing it.

Additionally alot of samurai adopted 'southern barbarian' armour, European cuirasses in place of their more common lamelar armour.
Indeed. Plate armour was praised for its flexibility, as well as its high cost.


Yup and with that, I am off to bed as it is reaching the early hours of the morning here and I need at few hours sleep tonight. Night all :)
I shall be going soon as well. Night :)

I doubt this. Knights were far more experienced in fighting against armoured opponents. The Samurai would prove a difficult fight, but the odds are even. Furthermore, the katana is not sufficient to cause heavy damage to the Knight.
You know, you keep making the same mistakes about samurai that you accuse others of making about knights. Samurai carried and trained with more weapons than just the katana. They also had some huge assed two handed swords for armored opponets because they fought people in armor. Bamboo armor sounds funny till you see it and realize that it is interwoven with plates. A samurai would most likely use a heavy dagger ment for finding the chinks in armor in a duel, the same as a knight would.

Knightly calvery used lances, the samurai were horse mounted archers, with arrows that had heads simular to what the longbowmen used to go through plate. They also had access to spears close to the pike, which also desimates calvery.

Later on, samurai also used guns.

It becomes a toss up with it depending on the individual warrior, but stop with the suggestions that samurai armor is somehow weak or that they never fought armored opponets, or they only had a katana.

You know, you keep making the same mistakes about samurai that you accuse others of making about knights. Samurai carried and trained with more weapons than just the katana. They also had some huge assed two handed swords for armored opponets because they fought people in armor. Bamboo armor sounds funny till you see it and realize that it is interwoven with plates. A samurai would most likely use a heavy dagger ment for finding the chinks in armor in a duel, the same as a knight would.
Fighting armoured opponents was an infrequent occurence for them though, as opposed to Knights. And I am well aware that Samurai trained in a variety of weapons. Their primary weapon of choice though was in fact the katana.

Fighting armoured opponents was an infrequent occurence for them though, as opposed to Knights. And I am well aware that Samurai trained in a variety of weapons. Their primary weapon of choice though was in fact the katana.
And you accuse others of knowledge of samurai only through dramas.

No lad, samurai battles were mainly in armor. Only an idiot went into the field wearing only a kimono. I've gotten to see lots of illustrations of battles and they're all wearing armor. Also, katana were NOT the primary weapon of a samurai. The bow actually was. The katana as the soul of the samurai came about AFTER the Edo Period started (when you didn't have massive battles going on anyway, it was duling only).

If you're talking about samurai in the time period given, you're talking about a mounted, armored, horse archer, his weapon of choice would actually be a spear, not the sword until it came time to take heads.

And you accuse others of knowledge of samurai only through dramas.

No lad, samurai battles were mainly in armor. Only an idiot went into the field wearing only a kimono. I've gotten to see lots of illustrations of battles and they're all wearing armor. Also, katana were NOT the primary weapon of a samurai. The bow actually was. The katana as the soul of the samurai came about AFTER the Edo Period started (when you didn't have massive battles going on anyway, it was duling only).
Indeed. I never said they wore only kimonos. Yet were they experienced in fighting against those wearing very heavy armour?

If you're talking about samurai in the time period given, you're talking about a mounted, armored, horse archer, his weapon of choice would actually be a spear, not the sword until it came time to take heads.
Knights did not cease to be in existence in the equivalent time period when the Samurai adopted the sword, so I suppose it would be fair to assume a duel in this period, rather than one in an earlier period, when Samurai used different weapons altogether.

Indeed. I never said they wore only kimonos. Yet were they experienced in fighting against those wearing very heavy armour?
No, you said that they no experiance fighting people in armor. And what is your definition of very heavy armor, as you noted that plate would be about 10 pounds heavier than the full armor a samurai wore. AND samurai armor went head to foot as well. They knew how to tackle an armored foe, it wouldn't be the first time they would have seen one.

Knights did not cease to be in existence in the equivalent time period when the Samurai adopted the sword, so I suppose it would be fair to assume a duel in this period, rather than one in an earlier period, when Samurai used different weapons altogether.
*Sigh*
13th-14th Century period
That is the time period given by the OP. If you want to move knights to their best time period and samurai to theirs to give them the best option in weapons, then you'll have samurai armed with better guns than the Europeans who had dropped full armor as it made little difference to a bullet (of the time period).

No, you said that they no experiance fighting people in armor. And what is your definition of very heavy armor, as you noted that plate would be about 10 pounds heavier than the full armor a samurai wore. AND samurai armor went head to foot as well. They knew how to tackle an armored foe, it wouldn't be the first time they would have seen one.
I said little experience. What was the weight and composition of Samurai armour anyway?

That is the time period given by the OP. If you want to move knights to their best time period and samurai to theirs to give them the best option in weapons, then you'll have samurai armed with better guns than the Europeans who had dropped full armor as it made little difference to a bullet (of the time period).
Yet in the time period suggested by the OP would it even be sensible to assume they would be using a sword or close-ranged weapon that would be effective against a Knight? Ultimately, the kind of battle envisioned is a sword (or close encounter battle), not a ranged one. So the best period would be when they both used swords.

Well the term plate mail was used initially by Victorian historians who didn't know any better, the same people who though your average knightly sword weighed 50lbs and was blunt. I.e. they knew sweet FA about the subject.

But when one refers to maille, it is usually a hauberk (the piece that protects your head) or a coat of maille, and not the pieces of a combined harness.

So many people do use it yeah, but it is wrong to do so.
When one refers to maille, one should use the proper terms for the pieces.
The hauberk was the coat, or shirt of the rings. Usually knee length but sometimes just waist length. The coif was what covered the head.

The term plate mail has come to mean any of the transitional period armors that consisted of a combination of chain mail (sorry, american spelling) and plate. Basically anything from the early chain with simple plates over the more vital areas to something just prior, developmentally wise, to Maximillian or the height of the plate armor.

There is an amazing suit of plate in some museum somewhere... made for Henry VIII use in the lists.... there isn't any chain. Even the inside of the elbos and knees are covered by plates.

I said little experience. What was the weight and composition of Samurai armour anyway?
You said, "Fighting armoured opponents was an infrequent occurence for them though, as opposed to Knights." I noted that every samurai battle would have them in armor. The same as a knight.

14th century? Japan, Armor (Yoroi), early 14th century, Late Kamakura period, lacquered iron and leather, silk, stenciled leather, copper-gilt, height 37 1/2 inches (95.3 cm), weight 38 lb. 3 oz. (17.3 kg)
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/K.html#anchor4389825

Yet in the time period suggested by the OP would it even be sensible to assume they would be using a sword or close-ranged weapon that would be effective against a Knight? Ultimately, the kind of battle envisioned is a sword (or close encounter battle), not a ranged one. So the best period would be when they both used swords.
Oh, they did use swords, just not as a primary weapon. Also, samurai were given training in archery (and it's still practiced) through the Edo Period when the samurai, like their knightly counterparts, became mostly decorative.

But again, the OP gave the time period for this conflict, the excellent German knights in full plate are a century away. YOUR knight is a guy in full chain mail with maybe a breast plate. He carries a nice hand and a half sword, a mace or ax, and a small horse bow. The samurai is wearing iron plates, silk, and leather. He has a large bow, a spear, a dagger and what will, one day, be a katana (now it's a two handed long sword).

That's the fight, not the dramatical confrontation between the guy in full plate charging with lances set against a samurai with a beautiful katana.

I said little experience. What was the weight and composition of Samurai armour anyway?


Yet in the time period suggested by the OP would it even be sensible to assume they would be using a sword or close-ranged weapon that would be effective against a Knight? Ultimately, the kind of battle envisioned is a sword (or close encounter battle), not a ranged one. So the best period would be when they both used swords.
Samurai armor was usually a lamellar type, multitudes of small hard plates, heavy leather, boiled leather, or iron, sewn together in a way to maximize overlap while maintaining flexibility.

However, there are surviving examples of solid iron breastplates, albeit highly decorated ones that lead one to believe that those were not unheard of either. Plus the Japanese were very creative in their use of mail as well. I can't recall any examples of a typical european style of 4in1 mail that most people think of that weren't imports. Japanese mail was much more ornate and consisted of elaborate patterns, but were no less protective than their western counterpart.

it'd be like a brown bear going up against a bengal tiger... the knight would be the bear, the samurai would be the tiger.

the knight's advantages would be:
armor
size/strength
weapon size (those big swords were heavy!)

the samurai's advantages would be:
speed
quickness
overall athleticism (all of the above three due to less armor, lighter weapon)
weapon size (lighter)


This says nothing of training/tactics (etc.) ... if we call that a wash, then this'd be a pretty even match-up, with the Samurai leaping around trying to find an angle (tiger) and the knight trying to land that one heavy blow (bear).

I think I would argue it's closer to the samurai being a wolf, and the knight a tiger. Or a bear. Or a lion. Maybe a tiger with a mane.


Also, if he was aware that he was going to be going up against an unblessed pagan, the Knight would have delighted in using a weapons banned for use against anyone other than infidels - a pistol crossbow. Richard the Lionheart LOVED this weapon and used it on his Crusades to notable effect.

Battle starts - *THUNK* - Battle Ends.

That made my day. =)


Indeed. For some reason I admire Knights like them. I hate religious fanaticism, but in their case (and in the case of elite Knights in general) it's almost otherworldly.

I have to agree with you here, but whether that's due to interpretations and idealism, I can't say. I'm sure there was a variety of fanaticism and devotion in God, as there is in all things, but it doesn't seem impossible to imagine some honest and truly human depth to it.

You said, "Fighting armoured opponents was an infrequent occurence for them though, as opposed to Knights." I noted that every samurai battle would have them in armor. The same as a knight.

14th century? Japan, Armor (Yoroi), early 14th century, Late Kamakura period, lacquered iron and leather, silk, stenciled leather, copper-gilt, height 37 1/2 inches (95.3 cm), weight 38 lb. 3 oz. (17.3 kg)
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/K.html#anchor4389825
Thanks for the info. What about later centuries?

Oh, they did use swords, just not as a primary weapon. Also, samurai were given training in archery (and it's still practiced) through the Edo Period when the samurai, like their knightly counterparts, became mostly decorative.

But again, the OP gave the time period for this conflict, the excellent German knights in full plate are a century away. YOUR knight is a guy in full chain mail with maybe a breast plate. He carries a nice hand and a half sword, a mace or ax, and a small horse bow. The samurai is wearing iron plates, silk, and leather. He has a large bow, a spear, a dagger and what will, one day, be a katana (now it's a two handed long sword).

That's the fight, not the dramatical confrontation between the guy in full plate charging with lances set against a samurai with a beautiful katana.
In which case it would still be pretty much an even match. I went for the more dramatic confrontation because it represented both at the pinnacle of their power.

I have to agree with you here, but whether that's due to interpretations and idealism, I can't say. I'm sure there was a variety of fanaticism and devotion in God, as there is in all things, but it doesn't seem impossible to imagine some honest and truly human depth to it.
That is why I like them all the more.

Samurai armor was usually a lamellar type, multitudes of small hard plates, heavy leather, boiled leather, or iron, sewn together in a way to maximize overlap while maintaining flexibility.

However, there are surviving examples of solid iron breastplates, albeit highly decorated ones that lead one to believe that those were not unheard of either. Plus the Japanese were very creative in their use of mail as well. I can't recall any examples of a typical european style of 4in1 mail that most people think of that weren't imports. Japanese mail was much more ornate and consisted of elaborate patterns, but were no less protective than their western counterpart.
I was impressed by what Japanese armour I have seen through television and books. It is extremely beautiful. Some Western armour was gorgeous as well, though not with the same frequency as Japanese armour.

Not having looked over everything, I would say offhand that the European cataphract formation would win in close, but if the samurai kept their distance and worked with bows, they could win. I say this for two reasons. First, aside from some fights with English knights in the Scottish Highlands where the English got stuck in a pass and ambushed where they couldn't bring force to bear, European knights were well-nigh unbeatable, because they had heavier horses and better training at formation fighting than anyone else. The Mongols, the Arabs, and the Scots were all excellent warriors man-for-man, but they could only hold up against cataphracts by either surprising them or keeping their distance and whittling them down with bows. Ironically, the end of the age of the cataphract came about through the English using a combination of Welsh and Scottish tactics and weaponry.

Secondly, Europeans had vastly superior armor and weaponry than the samurai because they had better steel. The reason why the katana is made from layered and pounded steel is to compensate for the fact that their steel was lower-quality and easily shattered on the armor of the period. I would expect that this would hamper the samurai at all stages, but especially up close: it's not quite as bad to ruin an arrowhead as it is to see your spear tip shatter against your opponent's armor.

..I forgot to actually give my take on this.

I'd give a slight edge to the knight. Say.. 65 - 85% chance of him to win, at least without more knowledge. The thing is, there's a lot of variables here, and without them being known, it's really hard to say. While either would be well trained and at the top of their game, (..ideally), this particular set-up seems to be tilted in favor of the knight. The armor is a huge boon.

Of course, the main factor here is going to be experience, and skill. But if that's equal, it's a little iffy. Plate armor, if being used by the knight, should more or less give the samurai a hell of a time. Throw in a shield, and.. that's just mean. =P The idea of a hand crossbow makes me giggle, so if the knight had that, I'd tilt a little more toward him. Then again, a samurai could make use of a bow.. but in the context of a duel, it seems much harder to utilize than the hand crossbow.

The thing is, the knight is, or at least has the potential to be, far better suited for this sort of thing than the samurai. Different styles of combat evolved to fit the need. The sheer determination may help, but that brings into question.. who would you give it to? Both seem to have the potential for extreme dedication to a cause, and that would come down to individual talent.

I would place my vote on the knight. It isn't an impossible fight, but the samurai is a longshot. And, while that isn't a statement over the quality of either of them, the knight has a bit of a stacked hand as far as this situation is concerned.

Thanks for the info. What about later centuries?
Later on you would start seeing things such as full breast plates, mail and the like. When I get home, I have some pics of later period armor taken at a castle in the city next to me and at the Tokyo National Musem of Art. I'll get them up for you to see.

In which case it would still be pretty much an even match. I went for the more dramatic confrontation because it represented both at the pinnacle of their power.
Which was my point in the first place, this would depend a great deal on the abilities of the individual warrior. At the height of both, it would just be a bloody mess. I like the article posted eailer on this thread because that was the point being made, it's almost impossible to seperate just ONE knight and ONE samurai and arm them in standard gear, because that standard is all over the place.

It would be like asking who would win in a battle between the Sir Lancelot du Lake of romantic imagination and Miyamoto Musashi of Japanese legend.

2 words y'all

Seige Warfare.

The knights would round surround the citys and they would pull out catapults and other large big destory things.
:mp5:
:mp5:
:sniper:
:sniper:

Later on you would start seeing things such as full breast plates, mail and the like. When I get home, I have some pics of later period armor taken at a castle in the city next to me and at the Tokyo National Musem of Art. I'll get them up for you to see.
That would be much appreciated.


Which was my point in the first place, this would depend a great deal on the abilities of the individual warrior. At the height of both, it would just be a bloody mess. I like the article posted eailer on this thread because that was the point being made, it's almost impossible to seperate just ONE knight and ONE samurai and arm them in standard gear, because that standard is all over the place.

It would be like asking who would win in a battle between the Sir Lancelot du Lake of romantic imagination and Miyamoto Musashi of Japanese legend.
The ultimate embodiment of their respective disciplines.

That would be much appreciated.
http://www.umfa.utah.edu/index.php?id=MTc&media_id=256 From the Sengoku period (mid 16th-17th century). It was made to handle musket balls as guns were common then.

http://www.umfa.utah.edu/index.php?id=MTc&media_id=257 Going to war.
And here is a beautiful set from mid-Edo Period.
http://www.trocadero.com/MONTES/items/491311/en1store.html

I'll get my pics when I return home.

The ultimate embodiment of their respective disciplines.
Of course in THAT battle, I think it would come closer to comedy as Miyamoto Musashi was notorious for NOT bathing and I'm not sure Sir Lancelot would want to touch him, or even get close to him less he ends up downwind. ;)

http://www.umfa.utah.edu/index.php?id=MTc&media_id=256 From the Sengoku period (mid 16th-17th century). It was made to handle musket balls as guns were common then.

http://www.umfa.utah.edu/index.php?id=MTc&media_id=257 Going to war.
And here is a beautiful set from mid-Edo Period.
http://www.trocadero.com/MONTES/items/491311/en1store.html

I'll get my pics when I return home.
Thanks. I'll take a look at them now. :)


Of course in THAT battle, I think it would come closer to comedy as Miyamoto Musashi was notorious for NOT bathing and I'm not sure Sir Lancelot would want to touch him, or even get close to him less he ends up downwind. ;)
And who said Lancelot ever bathed? :eek: Lancelot was in heavy armour a lot of time, so he was likely to be malodorous as well. I have heard of Miyamoto though. Peculiar man to say the least.

Who was the most famous Teutonic Knight by the way? Despite all their ferocity and power, it's difficult to find who exemplified the Order. With other Orders, and indeed, Camelot, it's easy. With them for some reason little information is given.

And who said Lancelot ever bathed? :eek: Lancelot was in heavy armour a lot of time, so he was likely to be malodorous as well. I have heard of Miyamoto though. Peculiar man to say the least.
To say the very least, yes. :D

There's an old legend that says one day a group of rather disagreeable ronin came to an inn where they proceeded to get drunk and harass the staff. They noticed a samurai sitting a little away calmly eating a bowl of rice. The samurai was dressed in rags, his hair was a mess, his beard long and tangled. But at his side was two beautiful swords. The ronin decided to kill this samurai and take the obviously valuable swords and sell them. They started to make loud comments about the samurai's dress and smell hoping to get the samurai to attack. The samurai said nothing and calmly finished his rice. Then, without looking, his hand blured and he caught all of the flies buzzing around his head with his chopsticks and put them in a pile next to his bowl. He then paid his fee and went away.

The ronin did not attack, they reconized the samurai was Miyamoto.

Who was the most famous Teutonic Knight by the way? Despite all their ferocity and power, it's difficult to find who exemplified the Order. With other Orders, and indeed, Camelot, it's easy. With them for some reason little information is given.
Probably because it was the order itself that was famous, not the individual knights. They fought as an army usually. It would be like picking out a famous Mongol warrior. It was the Mongol army under its generals that was frighting.

To say the very least, yes. :D

There's an old legend that says one day a group of rather disagreeable ronin came to an inn where they proceeded to get drunk and harass the staff. They noticed a samurai sitting a little away calmly eating a bowl of rice. The samurai was dressed in rags, his hair was a mess, his beard long and tangled. But at his side was two beautiful swords. The ronin decided to kill this samurai and take the obviously valuable swords and sell them. They started to make loud comments about the samurai's dress and smell hoping to get the samurai to attack. The samurai said nothing and calmly finished his rice. Then, without looking, his hand blured and he caught all of the flies buzzing around his head with his chopsticks and put them in a pile next to his bowl. He then paid his fee and went away.

The ronin did not attack, they reconized the samurai was Miyamoto.

Yes! I have actually seen this on a Discovery Documentary. It made me laugh. One would think that as a Samurai he would maintain a high standard of cleanliness. What an odd thing to be famous for. :p And what a clever deterrent.



Probably because it was the order itself that was famous, not the individual knights. They fought as an army usually. It would be like picking out a famous Mongol warrior. It was the Mongol army under its generals that was frighting.
I will look deeper into it. There must've been some that were more renowned than others. I know they were disciplined and devoted to their causes, but I don't think they were selfless to the point of none ever rising to grandeur.

That is why I like them all the more.

Perhaps it has something to do with, it's a dedication to a cause, or an ideal, more than to a specific person? Regardless of if it's a flawed/invalid cause, that sort of dedication to trying to make the world a better place, that's something.

There just does seem to be a lot of real heart and compassion in the cause.. despite all the suffering it brings, it seems.. just an excellent example of humanity.

Then again, perhaps samurai life exemplifies that as well.. but I simply don't get that same feeling from it. Perhaps from some of those Zen monks.. but they're another level altogther. =)

Perhaps it has something to do with, it's a dedication to a cause, or an ideal, more than to a specific person? Regardless of if it's a flawed/invalid cause, that sort of dedication to trying to make the world a better place, that's something.

There just does seem to be a lot of real heart and compassion in the cause.. despite all the suffering it brings, it seems.. just an excellent example of humanity.
And the discipline involved and the focus it brings. It fascinates me.

Then again, perhaps samurai life exemplifies that as well.. but I simply don't get that same feeling from it. Perhaps from some of those Zen monks.. but they're another level altogther. =)
Neither do I, but I do acknowledge the focus and discipline that goes into this as well. The Samurai Bushido is somewhat similar to the credos and codes of honour that the Knights followed. Samurai and Knight, despite differences, also had much in common. I like both, yet for some reason I am drawn to the Teutonic Knights more than anything.

Hokay, here's what I promised. Arms and Armor for samurai. Sorry for all the pics.

Arms
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/P1000158.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/P1000153.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/P1000159.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/arrows1.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/DCP_1308.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/DCP_1307.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/DCP_1302.jpg

Armor
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/P1000157.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/P1000156.jpg
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a377/jusenkyoguide/DCP_1303.jpg

When one refers to maille, one should use the proper terms for the pieces.
The hauberk was the coat, or shirt of the rings. Usually knee length but sometimes just waist length. The coif was what covered the head.

The term plate mail has come to mean any of the transitional period armors that consisted of a combination of chain mail (sorry, american spelling) and plate. Basically anything from the early chain with simple plates over the more vital areas to something just prior, developmentally wise, to Maximillian or the height of the plate armor.

There is an amazing suit of plate in some museum somewhere... made for Henry VIII use in the lists.... there isn't any chain. Even the inside of the elbos and knees are covered by plates.

:( Whoops, yeah I knew that, sorry was a bit late last night. grrr.

However, the term is still a relatively modern invention.

As for the armour of Henry VIII have a look, the museum in Leeds (the Royal Armouries) is a place I visit regularly. The piece is from 1540.

http://tudorhistory.org/henry8/fatarmor.jpg

snip

Very nice!

I love the second pic of the pair of Tanto. Those were the weapons I referred to earlier about being used to punch through the gaps in armour.

They have similar properties to a single edge Rondel type dagger, which was used in a similar way.

The daisho in the first and third pics are very nice, esp. the first one. Although the double fluted fuller (I think its called Bo-Hi?) on the tanto of the second set is great.

The three sets of fire arms are very exquisite. Although the bronze locks were often the down fall of early japanese fire arms as the inherent weakness' in bronze for use in such a manner meant they were not that realiable. Later on, many firearms were simply imported.


As for the armour :D

European Knight = Metal armor (sword no kutty-kutty)

Samurai = bamboo armor




This is a battle of a tank versus a jeep. Sure the jeep is more manuverable, but it can never really hurt the tank, at least not nearly as fast and easy as the tank can hurt the jeep.

Please learn how to read posts before yours. 7 posts above this (#127) I specifically stated that Japanese armor is not bamboo, with references. A post like this simply makes you look stupid and unable to read.

So.... an open field.... one guy with a LONGBOW, and the other guy with a sword.

That might be fun, if you enjoy watching some poor Japanese guy dieing.

Another person who feels qualified to comment on something they know nothing about, while ignoring the stipulations of the OP. If the OP had allowed missile arms, the samurai would be at a serious advantage over a knight.

..I forgot to actually give my take on this.

I'd give a slight edge to the knight. Say.. 65 - 85% chance of him to win, at least without more knowledge. The thing is, there's a lot of variables here, and without them being known, it's really hard to say. While either would be well trained and at the top of their game, (..ideally), this particular set-up seems to be tilted in favor of the knight. The armor is a huge boon.

Of course, the main factor here is going to be experience, and skill. But if that's equal, it's a little iffy. Plate armor, if being used by the knight, should more or less give the samurai a hell of a time. Throw in a shield, and.. that's just mean. =P The idea of a hand crossbow makes me giggle, so if the knight had that, I'd tilt a little more toward him. Then again, a samurai could make use of a bow.. but in the context of a duel, it seems much harder to utilize than the hand crossbow.

The thing is, the knight is, or at least has the potential to be, far better suited for this sort of thing than the samurai. Different styles of combat evolved to fit the need. The sheer determination may help, but that brings into question.. who would you give it to? Both seem to have the potential for extreme dedication to a cause, and that would come down to individual talent.

I would place my vote on the knight. It isn't an impossible fight, but the samurai is a longshot. And, while that isn't a statement over the quality of either of them, the knight has a bit of a stacked hand as far as this situation is concerned.

i think i made the point in my last post, but i think it bears repeating again:

is all that armor, a big heavy shield and a gargantuan sword going to sap the strength/quickness of the knight?

the samurai is likely carrying a lighter load and should be quicker because of it.

Very few people for either side have even the slightest inkling of what the hell they are talking about.

Those pro-samurai know very little about the medieval knight, as honestly do the people who are pro-knight. This is seen in various statements about platemail, from both parties.

Those who are pro-knight know jack squat about the samurai, as seen in the repeated overuse of the word katana, like there were no other Japanese weapons.

Bingo. I will say straight up that I am by no means a historian of either Japanese or European arms and armor of the period. However, I know a fair bit, and that's more than most of the posters here. (How many of you can say you've actually worn a museum piece suit of o-yoroi in Kyoto? :))