NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

And I've made this point a few times too.

The armour was of a comparable weight (maybe 10lbs heavier on average for the knight) but not giving either side a comfortable advantage over the other.

Both sets of armour would not hinder movement, the Knights (at the time setting of the OP) would be mostly Maille hauberk and coif, with a maybe a helm. Average weight would be around 40-50lb, and as it was made to fit, not much of a hinderence. The samurai's I couldn't say not enough of an expert, although speaking with people who have better knowledge than I, it was of comparable weight.

The swords would also be of a similar weight. Your average Kat weighs in around the 2 - 2 1/1 lb mark with an arming sword of the knight about the same.

The shield is not that heavy either.

So neither side gains any advantage of speed.

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? :))

About the same amount who can say they have worn a full harness and train regularly with weapons such as a hand and a half, pole axe, spear, dagger, quarter staff and sword and buckler! ;) :D

Samurai. The knight wouldnt even be able to move when wearing that tin can the people from medieval europe called armour...

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.

So many inaccuracies, so little time.

Samurai were most certainly contemorary to the time period listed in the OP. The Kamakura Shogunate, from the 12th century, is contemporanious with the OP's specified timeline.

Firearms were not introduced into Japan until 16th century, not the 15th. The Portugese did not introduce it into Japan until 1543.
The katana did appear after the specified period, but the period nihonto (the tachi) would be almost indistinguishable in both construction and usage from a katana, to the layman. Furthermore, it appeared about a century before you claim.


And from what seems to be one of the resources of choice for the poster's in the know on this thread, here is an excellent article on the Japanese sword:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/hype.htm

And I've made this point a few times too.

The armour was of a comparable weight (maybe 10lbs heavier on average for the knight) but not giving either side a comfortable advantage over the other.

Both sets of armour would not hinder movement, the Knights (at the time setting of the OP) would be mostly Maille hauberk and coif, with a maybe a helm. Average weight would be around 40-50lb, and as it was made to fit, not much of a hinderence. The samurai's I couldn't say not enough of an expert, although speaking with people who have better knowledge than I, it was of comparable weight.

The swords would also be of a similar weight. Your average Kat weighs in around the 2 - 2 1/1 lb mark with an arming sword of the knight about the same.

The shield is not that heavy either.

So neither side gains any advantage of speed.

well, we know the samurai didn't use bamboo armor.

lol, that post was hilarious (I forget who made it).

Samurai. The knight wouldnt even be able to move when wearing that tin can the people from medieval europe called armour...

Yes they would. That myth has been disproven in this thread more times than abortion has been discussed in NS General.





Ok, maybe an exaggeration but... :D

About the same amount who can say they have worn a full harness and train regularly with weapons such as a hand and a half, pole axe, spear, dagger, quarter staff and sword and buckler! ;) :D

:D I can't say I've ever trained with any highly historically accurate weapons styles. I have donned a replica harness. But there's no substitute for visiting a small museum in suburban Kyoto on a slow day, and encountering an exuberant museum fellow who insists on taking the suit out of it's case. :D

The US based SCA (which I was a member of at university) is not famous for it's compulsive accuracy - although some members do strive for and achieve a fairly high degree of accuracy. I did train for about a year with a rapier group led bty an olympic caliber fencer who taught using period manuals.

I would have to say the samurai would have a slight (ver very slight) advantage. I am surprised that with all the talk of katana vs greatswords (or whatever other name you wish to put to them) there is no talk of dai-tos, or nagi-natas. Both gave the samurai considerable reach, and (not to beat a dead horse, no pun intended) they were designed to stop horsemen. (I know many people have said no horses, but i just wanted to clarify that a knight on a horse wouldnt have that much of an advantage) Also, Katanas were not just slashing weapons. I have spent a few years training with them (somewhat informally, but from someone who was taught very formally for many years) and there are many stabbing strikes as well as slashing. Another thing, samurai were trained to attack vital areas eg neck, throat, knees, etc where a knights armor was generally weaker, since these areas were needed for manueverability (sp?) They were both well trained killing machines, and it would be an impressive fight either way it went.:cool:

Yes they would. That myth has been disproven in this thread more times than abortion has been discussed in NS General.





Ok, maybe an exaggeration but... :D

Some points have been made repeatedly on this thread and still get ignored. I say we suit up and get all medieval on their arses. ;)

Some points have been made repeatedly on this thread and still get ignored. I say we suit up and get all medieval on their arses. ;)

how bout we suit up and get asain on their arses?
NINJA!!!
:mp5:

I would have to say the samurai would have a slight (ver very slight) advantage. I am surprised that with all the talk of katana vs greatswords (or whatever other name you wish to put to them) there is no talk of dai-tos, or nagi-natas. Both gave the samurai considerable reach, and (not to beat a dead horse, no pun intended) they were designed to stop horsemen. (I know many people have said no horses, but i just wanted to clarify that a knight on a horse wouldnt have that much of an advantage) Also, Katanas were not just slashing weapons. I have spent a few years training with them (somewhat informally, but from someone who was taught very formally for many years) and there are many stabbing strikes as well as slashing. Another thing, samurai were trained to attack vital areas eg neck, throat, knees, etc where a knights armor was generally weaker, since these areas were needed for manueverability (sp?) They were both well trained killing machines, and it would be an impressive fight either way it went.:cool:

Heh. Go back through and read my posts from yesterday afternoon (my local time). I specifically talked about both nodachi, naginata (no hyphen), and nagimaki.

:D I can't say I've ever trained with any highly historically accurate weapons styles. I have donned a replica harness. But there's no substitute for visiting a small museum in suburban Kyoto on a slow day, and encountering an exuberant museum fellow who insists on taking the suit out of it's case. :D

The US based SCA (which I was a member of at university) is not famous for it's compulsive accuracy - although some members do strive for and achieve a fairly high degree of accuracy. I did train for about a year with a rapier group led bty an olympic caliber fencer who taught using period manuals.


Ah, the (in)famous SCA :D Agreed it varies a lot, from those who just want to bash to those who use it to practice the techniques that are allowed and study the others elsewhere.

Personally, I study the german art of fighting, and have so far had experience of dagger, sword and buckler and hand and half. Plus I have been lucky enough to try on a period harness.

Me thinks I'll have to plan taking a trip to Kyoto.

Some points have been made repeatedly on this thread and still get ignored. I say we suit up and get all medieval on their arses. ;)


Hehe, well in about 2 hours I will be doing just that. Its sparring night tonight at the club so fun awaits, and probably a few bruises too :D

how bout we suit up and get asain on their arses?
NINJA!!!
:mp5:

And there we have it. The "fighter" more mythologised about than eithger the knight or the samurai. Somebody had to bring up the ninja.

Kellarly, that was almost 20 years ago - way back in '88. I don't remember the name, but it was in Arashiyama. They had an awesome collection. My favorite was the full suit of armor and matching harquebuses made for Hideyoshi - all gold plated.

And there we have it. The "fighter" more mythologised about than eithger the knight or the samurai. Somebody had to bring up the ninja.

Now the end is nigh....

Kellarly, that was almost 20 years ago - way back in '88. I don't remember the name, but it was in Arashiyama. They had an awesome collection. My favorite was the full suit of armor and matching harquebuses made for Hideyoshi - all gold plated.

Gold plated?!?! :eek:

Talk about taste ;)

Sounds amazing though, i've been to many European museums and my personal favourite so far has been the Palace Armouries in Valetta, Malte, not for the number of things they have, but purely because you can get so close, as much is not behind glass, esp two hand and halfs (one spanish the other italian) of incredible workmanship.

Hehe, well in about 2 hours I will be doing just that. Its sparring night tonight at the club so fun awaits, and probably a few bruises too :D

Best weapons class I ever had was the naginata class I joined for just over a year when I lived in Niigata. Nine grannies and a middle aged high school teacher beat the crap out of me twice weekly. The best was when the teacher did kata using a live blade. I nearly shit myself the first time, because he didn't tell me - he just whipped it out, turned around, and went straight into the practice form. he had some of the most beautiful control I have ever seen.

Best weapons class I ever had was the naginata class I joined for just over a year when I lived in Niigata. Nine grannies and a middle aged high school teacher beat the crap out of me twice weekly. The best was when the teacher did kata using a live blade. I nearly shit myself the first time, because he didn't tell me - he just whipped it out, turned around, and went straight into the practice form. he had some of the most beautiful control I have ever seen.

Yeah, seeing a live sharp blade in use is something that is a sight to behold. You suddenly realise that you always have a long way to go before you can become something close to being good.

However, your naginata class sounds like my old Kendo class. My sensai hit 70 during the time whilst I was there and still beat the living crap out of anyone who came along. His movement and timing were unbelieveable. That said though, I didn't like the way it was taught in the end, i never ended up learning much and was used endlessly as a target for better fighters. I can understand using better fighters to challenge you, but a 7th Dan against someone who has done it for 3 weeks?

Never the less, I've moved on to something I can finally enjoy, although I still practice kendo every now and then with a couple of mates. Great fun.

Haven't read much replies, so sorry if someone's already made my point... The samurai would win, because of his speed handling the katana, something the knight wouldn't be able to match, specially with full armor... XD

Firstly I am amazed and aghast at the apparent bias of many but not all in favour of the idea of a Samurai supremacy. If one thing is sure it is that the element of precise circumstance is the key to the victory of one or the other combatant. It should be considered that in a fight between two of the creme-de-la-creme from each culture must surely not be an easy victory for either party. Whosoever were the victor, would pay the price in permanent injury to carry with him to the end of his days, should his health sustain him beyond the felling of his mark much at all.

Secondly, despite the certain dire straits for both parties, one and one only simply must emerge as champion as per the rules as set.

I say the European Knight is winner because he as a one-man-army is better suited in a duel to the death in the field and fully kitted up. The very nature of his role is more closely fit to the task of this scenario than the Japanese counterpart. Any mention of war-craft and clash-of-civilizations is completely and utterly irrelevent here (to consider such ideas a differing scenario might suffice).

Of course, the Samurai is not helpless should he by any manner of luck be mentally superior in some fashion, but a disparity is not suggested by the typical mental foundation of European or Japanese, their cultures being almost perfect mirror-image of one another.

BTW For the record, I do not reckon a typical European 'knight' to wield a two-hander though the option would be available to him he would more likely be equipped sword and shield with spear/lance and additional sidearms (perhaps morning star, warhammer, and so on) to the japanese equivalents minus shield. A two-hander sword I would like to say is suitable for a heavy man since he can counterbalance its weight to wield effectively: not a matter of 'muscular power' or 'height' certainly.

Fine, I'm going to have to put my 2 cents in.

Everyone in favor of the knights is saying that if they're both on horseback, the knight will win hands down. Why? Knights on horses were just walking tanks. Note the key word there. Walking A fully armored knight on horseback would be too slow to catch a samuai on his horse because the samurai weighs at least 100 pounds less I'm sure. I'm factoring the horses armor too in that equation by the way.

Now, what caused the initial death of the knights? Archers. Do the battles during the 100 years war ring any bells for you guys? The knights got slaughtered by archers. Now, what are samurai proficient in using on horseback? Bows. While it is true that samurai were unparalleled in their use of the sword, that's not the only thing they used. Nor did they only fight on foot. I hope to god you people aren't mixing up Samurai with Ninja.

Advantage on horseback: Samurai. Shoot and run tactic.

Now for on foot. On foot, things will probably be more even. Now, yes it's true that knights were proficient in combat with weapons other than their sword. The same can also be said for Samurai too. If the knight were to use a flail, the Samurai would simply use a yari, or a naginata and have a huge advantage from extra reach. It would take speed to get around the reach of the japanese spears, something that a knight on foot fully armored doesn't have. In fact, what the samurai would probably want to do it push the knight over with a spear, then go in with his sword and simply stick it in the joints. I'm trying to think of a way to counter that, but honestly? I can't think of one except to get on horseback, and we've already gone over how that wouldn't work.

And everyone? Please stop exagerating the Samurai's honor. If the Samurai has to restricted by his honor, the knight needs the same from his chivalry. So don't use that as a factor in the fights.

Well, by virture of the fact that the knight is typically impact cavalry, mounted on a horse, the knight wins. Swords don't do particularly well against impact cavalry. Pikes do decently, but still, impact cavalry wins.

I think that the samurai would win, not because of any "jingoistc dick-waving" as our poll author so excellently put it, but because of the logic presented below.

The combat strategy of the knight was one of attrition. In combat between two knights, the one whith the most stamina would win because the other would become too tired to defend himself.
However, the strategy of the samurai is much different. It would not be uncommon for one samurai to defeat another within a few minutes.
I have practiced, very informaly with a friend. During these practices, I have noticed that he fights more with fury than calculation, as I fight. He has never landed a blow on me, despite my weekness and his strength. I would postulate that he fights as a typical knight would and I fight with a similar mindset to that of the samurai. I can also extrapolate that with training in our respective ideological styles and a more open plain that I would eventually win.

The element of terrain in this battle favors the samurai. This is because not only does the samurai have plenty of space in which to exercise his manuverability, but the knight cannot simply overrun the samurai, an oft used tactic among knight's battles.

With regards to armor, the knight certainly has better armor durability, but the samurai does retain more of his manuverability underneath his own. Should both opponents not wear armor, the fight would be relativly even with regards to manuverability, but the the samurai is better trained under these circumstances and would therefore have the advantage.
I would like to note that plate armor, weighing in at 45 pounds minimum, is exceedingly restrictive. A knight could not lift his arm very much over his head, could not take large stides, and could not spin quickly while keeping a good balance, all large disadvantages for the knight.

With regards to weaponry, let us not forget that Samurai often fought with a pair of swords (daisho). The addition of the wakizashi to the katana essentially means that the wakizashi provides a better ability to defend than a shield (due to manuverability) and allows the samurai to create situations that are highly disadvantageous to the knight (such as thrusting low with both weapons).
Note also that the naginata may be used to slash as well as peirce, as opposed to the pike, which may only peirce. It has often been noted historicly that slashing weapons have an advantage over an equal-length peircing weapon.

Furthermore, with regards to a samurai's supposed rules of engagement Wikipedia states:
Today, many people uphold the belief that the samurai fought nobly; for instance, many would consider it unlikely that a samurai would strike an opponent from behind, or fight in a manner normally attributed to the Ninja. However, from studies of Kobudo and Samurai Budo it is widely considered that the samurai were as practical on the battlefield as any European knight.

I will not mention cavalry at all, as they cannot be described adequatly as a weapon, armor, specific time period, type of terrain or weather variation, and therefore have no mention in the topic.

I will not mention any ranged weapons of any sort, as some have previously done in blatant misreading of the topic.

Everyone in favor of the knights is saying that if they're both on horseback, the knight will win hands down. Why? Knights on horses were just walking tanks. Note the key word there. Walking A fully armored knight on horseback would be too slow to catch a samuai on his horse because the samurai weighs at least 100 pounds less I'm sure. I'm factoring the horses armor too in that equation by the way.

Horses' armour: fine. But did you even stop to think about breeding?

I reckon the knight would win.

Reason 1. Short sword + shield. A reliably deadly combination over the years. The Romans used it to take over Europe. Why? Because their disciplined soldiers could beat the shit out of greatsword-wielding loonies.

A knight may not be faster but certainly fast enough to press the Samurai within slashing range. The Britons were very skilled with long slashing swords, able to parry thrown weapons and take a man's head off in a single swing. But the Romans pressed inside the swing (and used numbers to restrict the Briton's sweep) and stabbed him in the kidneys.

2. Combat styles. Samurai used elegant slashes, their swords were built for devastating strokes. A knight's blade was a thrusting weapon. Not perhaps as finely made as a katana but a lethally efficient killing device. Slashes tire a fighter far faster than thrusts. A knight could outwait the Samurai, keep the pressure up and wait for a slip.

3. I don't like samurai anyway. They were like knights but, if it's possible even worse.

the guy who brought a gun ;)

If we're going to make all these assumptions in how they would fight, either would win, depends on who is making the assumption. However, I would have to go in favor of the Samurai Warrior. Feudal knights are kickass, don't take me the wrong way here, it's just that when you hear the word "Knight", a general picture of a strong tall guy with tons of armor, long sword, and shield on horseback (or not) comes to mind. Basically, he would consist of having his plate armor over his chain mail (his back would be highly unprotected). Possibly another short blade on him in case he couldn't use his main blade.

When we think of a samurai we see a man covered in the Samurai armor with two katanas, a large katana for use in battle, and a smaller one which always stayed with him, for use in closer battles. The samurai armor would be LESS cumbersome than a knights' plate and chainmail armor, therefore creating the main difference. Knight-> Strength, Samurai-> Agility. It was also possible for a Samurai to be on horseback as well, most likely carrying a long ass spear, comparable to that of a lance. So, the Knight and the Samurai generally would consist of a similar arsenal, however a samurai weilding a shield is unlikely. Now then, under these circumstances it is to my knowledge that the following would take place.

Battlefield: European Highlands, or Japanese Flatlands. Both would have a similar effect over the battle. It would be in the afternoon on a clear day. No weather to worry about.
Round 1: Horseback. The Knight would most certainly have the upperhand, a strong defense and a powerful offense makes him unstoppable. The Samurai however has the agility here. Much less weighed down he could manuever untill the knight's horse ran out of steam. This would create a stalemate in the playing field rendering horseback fighting pointless. However, I will admit that if they started face to face on horseback a knight would most likely get the fatal hit in, because the Samurai would not.
Round 2: On foot. The Samurai is the warrior of the sword, a master swordsman who can perform amazing feats of skill. This means nothing if his skill is stopped by honour. His inability to use the Knight's unprotected backside gives him a great disadvantage. The Samurai would only fight face to face. The Knight, stirred on by chivalry would of course fight just as hard. He would rely less on parrys with his sword, but with blocking with his shield. He would definently become weak after a time in which the Samurai warrior could attack. However, the Knight's chainmail would block a lot of piercing/slashing attacks. The Samurai would need a clean cut the hurt the Knight. In this regard he would most likely win if the fight lasted long enough and in his favour. This is nearly a stalemate as well. It all depends if the knight can get a strong hit on the Samurai. They might as well be equals, since all of their tactics work in opposite of each other.
Round 3: Very Close quarters, on foot. (Indoors).
If they ever met in lets say, inside of a castle, the Samurai would dominate. With his shorted blade he could outmanuever the knight and have a clear victory over the burdened knight. This is one of the few playing fields where a Samurai would have a clear and true victory.

It is through these simulations that the Knight (Round 1 Winner) and the Samurai (Round 3 Winner) are very closely similar. Both are excellent warriors with completely different fighting styles.

Now, why limit this to just Knights and Samurais, what if a Roman Praetorian fought a Viking! :D

As it was said earlier, the fact that samurai only fought honourably (as in face-to-face only) is actually a myth. It'd be a close battle, but in the end the samurai would win.

As it was said earlier, the fact that samurai only fought honourably (as in face-to-face only) is actually a myth. It'd be a close battle, but in the end the samurai would win.

What makes you say that? I'd say it'd be a pretty even match, but if a rather large guy weilding a Zweihander is involved, I'm putting my money on him.

Hi, dumbass, I saw your country laying about. Nice to have you back.:fluffle:

Hi, dumbass, I saw your country laying about. Nice to have you back.:fluffle:

Hey, what I did was necessary. :p

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.
I think it has been said he never took baths because 1. He was totally devoted to his art. B. He REALLY believed in the maxium that it didn't really matter because as a samurai, he could die at any time.

(How many of you can say you've actually worn a museum piece suit of o-yoroi in Kyoto? :))
Um, well, I have worn bits and peices, never a full suit, and it wasn't in Kyoto, does that count? ;)

Fine, I'm going to have to put my 2 cents in.

Everyone in favor of the knights is saying that if they're both on horseback, the knight will win hands down. Why? Knights on horses were just walking tanks. Note the key word there. Walking A fully armored knight on horseback would be too slow to catch a samuai on his horse because the samurai weighs at least 100 pounds less I'm sure. I'm factoring the horses armor too in that equation by the way.

No, it didn't.

Armour weighed roughly the same.

Average suit of plate armour 50-70lb, maille suit was even lighter.

Knights did not only use lances and swords, but spears, flails, warhammers etc etc etc. (See Talhoffers fechtbuch of 1464 at www.thearma.org for proof of this).

A two-hander sword I would like to say is suitable for a heavy man since he can counterbalance its weight to wield effectively: not a matter of 'muscular power' or 'height' certainly.

Depending on what type of two handed sword you are on about, you don't need to be a heavy man.

An Oakeshott type XIIIa or type XIIa great sword did not weigh more than 4lbs at most (often around 3lb although some are towards 2 1/2lbs) and even the large zweihanders did not weigh more than between 6-8lbs.

I train with hand and a half and two handed swords twice a week, and believe me, they are light, quick and immensly flexible (boths in terms of use and their blade) weapons.

The combat strategy of the knight was one of attrition. In combat between two knights, the one whith the most stamina would win because the other would become too tired to defend himself.
However, the strategy of the samurai is much different. It would not be uncommon for one samurai to defeat another within a few minutes.
I have practiced, very informaly with a friend. During these practices, I have noticed that he fights more with fury than calculation, as I fight. He has never landed a blow on me, despite my weekness and his strength. I would postulate that he fights as a typical knight would and I fight with a similar mindset to that of the samurai. I can also extrapolate that with training in our respective ideological styles and a more open plain that I would eventually win.

Absolute bollocks.

Knights were trained in both armoured and unarmoured warfare, and skillfully trained in such, just as were Samurai. It was not just a matter of stamina, but of skill, confidence and as with any martial art, that little bit of luck.

Calling a Knight nothing more than an idiot brute who uses nothing but anger and strength to win is a complete and utter disservice.

The element of terrain in this battle favors the samurai. This is because not only does the samurai have plenty of space in which to exercise his manuverability, but the knight cannot simply overrun the samurai, an oft used tactic among knight's battles.

Hmmm, no. Considering manouverability would be about the same the point is invalid.

With regards to armor, the knight certainly has better armor durability, but the samurai does retain more of his manuverability underneath his own. Should both opponents not wear armor, the fight would be relativly even with regards to manuverability, but the the samurai is better trained under these circumstances and would therefore have the advantage.
I would like to note that plate armor, weighing in at 45 pounds minimum, is exceedingly restrictive. A knight could not lift his arm very much over his head, could not take large stides, and could not spin quickly while keeping a good balance, all large disadvantages for the knight.

WTF? Have you worn a full harness? It doesn't restrict movement very much at all. 45lbs of fitted armour, which is hinged and jointed is not heavy. Your average soldier today carries nearly double that on his back in his backpack. Go try some on under combat conditions before making such ludicrous statements.

As for samurai being better trained out of armour, you seem to have missed the fact that unarmoured duelling in Europe was prevelent right through the middle ages, so knights were trained for this as well. The hundreds of medieval texts that describe the martial arts of medieval europe often do not have armour in them, so how you can say a Samurai is better trained is beyond me.

With regards to weaponry, let us not forget that Samurai often fought with a pair of swords (daisho). The addition of the wakizashi to the katana essentially means that the wakizashi provides a better ability to defend than a shield (due to manuverability) and allows the samurai to create situations that are highly disadvantageous to the knight (such as thrusting low with both weapons).
Note also that the naginata may be used to slash as well as peirce, as opposed to the pike, which may only peirce. It has often been noted historicly that slashing weapons have an advantage over an equal-length peircing weapon.

The knights of europe also had a vast armoury to choose from, not just a sword. Your situation for the knight shows very little understanding of sword combat, as does your apparent claim the a wakisashi is better than a shield for defending. Plus your last point about slashing and piercing weapons.

Also, you ever hear of either a bill or a poleaxe? Both were the equivelent of a naginata, as they could both cut and thrust.

Each weapon/type of armour of both the Samurai and the Knight was built to take on multiple types of weapons whilst relying on its owners skill of avoidence and martial aptitude.

Well, by virture of the fact that the knight is typically impact cavalry, mounted on a horse, the knight wins. Swords don't do particularly well against impact cavalry. Pikes do decently, but still, impact cavalry wins.

You tell that to the Landesknechte of southern germany and switzerland, cavalry simply could not break those formations as they could simply not reach the men behind the wall of pikes.

The knight would win. A knight's armour is designed to deflect sword blows & arrows. A Samurai depends on swords. Samurai armour is designed to deflect sword blows, but is next to useless against blunt weapons, such as flails & morning stars.
The weight is roughtly equivalent. Both severely restrict movement. Knights generally used very large shields in unmounted melee.

.. Actually, I'd say the unfortunate Samurai should feel extremely lucky to last more than thirty seconds. He'd have roughly an earthworm's chance against a bulldozer.

Training matters little here. Knights - at least in the latter periods - had every bit as much training as Samurais. If they were unarmoured & with identical weaponry, they'd probably be equals.

Novice']If we're going to make all these assumptions in how they would fight, either would win, depends on who is making the assumption. However, I would have to go in favor of the Samurai Warrior. Feudal knights are kickass, don't take me the wrong way here, it's just that when you hear the word "Knight", a general picture of a strong tall guy with tons of armor, long sword, and shield on horseback (or not) comes to mind. Basically, he would consist of having his plate armor over his chain mail (his back would be highly unprotected). Possibly another short blade on him in case he couldn't use his main blade.

His back would be unprotected? WTF? You think they only had armour on the front?

Please go to a museum or something and take a look at the armour they have there.

Novice']When we think of a samurai we see a man covered in the Samurai armor with two katanas, a large katana for use in battle, and a smaller one which always stayed with him, for use in closer battles. The samurai armor would be LESS cumbersome than a knights' plate and chainmail armor, therefore creating the main difference. Knight-> Strength, Samurai-> Agility. It was also possible for a Samurai to be on horseback as well, most likely carrying a long ass spear, comparable to that of a lance. So, the Knight and the Samurai generally would consist of a similar arsenal, however a samurai weilding a shield is unlikely. Now then, under these circumstances it is to my knowledge that the following would take place.

The Katana and the Wakisashi make up a Daisho. In other words, a longer curved sword and a shorter one.

The Samurai armour was NOT less cumbersome. Why is this myth so damn prevelant? The armour weighed about the same, the knights armour was jointed and articulated, so it did not hinder movement.



Novice']Battlefield: European Highlands, or Japanese Flatlands. Both would have a similar effect over the battle. It would be in the afternoon on a clear day. No weather to worry about.
Round 1: Horseback. The Knight would most certainly have the upperhand, a strong defense and a powerful offense makes him unstoppable. The Samurai however has the agility here. Much less weighed down he could manuever untill the knight's horse ran out of steam. This would create a stalemate in the playing field rendering horseback fighting pointless. However, I will admit that if they started face to face on horseback a knight would most likely get the fatal hit in, because the Samurai would not.

Point made above about manouverability. So disproven here.

Novice']Round 2: On foot. The Samurai is the warrior of the sword, a master swordsman who can perform amazing feats of skill. This means nothing if his skill is stopped by honour. His inability to use the Knight's unprotected backside gives him a great disadvantage. The Samurai would only fight face to face. The Knight, stirred on by chivalry would of course fight just as hard. He would rely less on parrys with his sword, but with blocking with his shield. He would definently become weak after a time in which the Samurai warrior could attack. However, the Knight's chainmail would block a lot of piercing/slashing attacks. The Samurai would need a clean cut the hurt the Knight. In this regard he would most likely win if the fight lasted long enough and in his favour. This is nearly a stalemate as well. It all depends if the knight can get a strong hit on the Samurai. They might as well be equals, since all of their tactics work in opposite of each other.

A Knight would not have an unprotected backside! Why the hell do you think this?

Both combatants would most likely be equally proficient in the use of various arms, so that point is also mute.

Your point about honour is laughable, a Samurai would kill a man from the front back or side.

Also, have you ever tried cutting though maille? No, I guess not, caus if you had you would know that as it was made from softer types of iron, it would not sheer from a cut, therefore a cutting blow would not make a damn bit of difference to the armour.

Novice']Round 3: Very Close quarters, on foot. (Indoors).
If they ever met in lets say, inside of a castle, the Samurai would dominate. With his shorted blade he could outmanuever the knight and have a clear victory over the burdened knight. This is one of the few playing fields where a Samurai would have a clear and true victory.

You think knights were not cut out for duelling? Oh dear.

Go to these places and learn:

www.swordforum.com

www.thearma.org

www.myarmoury.com

The knight would win. A knight's armour is designed to deflect sword blows & arrows. A Samurai depends on swords. Samurai armour is designed to deflect sword blows, but is next to useless against blunt weapons, such as flails & morning stars.
The weight is roughtly equivalent. Both severely restrict movement. Knights generally used very large shields in unmounted melee.

Plate or mail armour is also equally vulnerable to such weapons as warhammer, flails and morning stars. The sheer impact of such weapons would punch holes in the plate armour, as that is exactly what those weapons were designed to do.

Training matters little here. Knights - at least in the latter periods - had every bit as much training as Samurais. If they were unarmoured & with identical weaponry, they'd probably be equals.

Every boy of noble birth would have had training to become a squire/knight/man at arms throughout the whole of the middle ages, it was not just later on.

Mootness to the max. Who would win the fight depends on the circumstances surrounding the fight:

Who wants to win more?
Who has something to fight for?
Who is more skilled?
Who is more trained?
Who is tougher?

Armor and weapons, yes they make a difference but it really depends on the specific warrior you choose to battle.

Personally I think that wearing so much armor in combat is almost cowardly, but still incredibly effective. BTW chainmail and platemail is pretty damned heavy which is why they had servants help put in on the knight and to say that your movement is unhindered is laughable at best. Your putting at least 30 pounds of friggin metal on your body. The Samurai's armor also hindered them as well but it leads me to believe that it weighed less. However, the knight benifits infinately from so much protection. Yet, if the Samurai knew joint breaking techniques the knight would be in severe trouble.

Circumstancial, impossible to decide.

Mootness to the max. Who would win the fight depends on the circumstances surrounding the fight:

Who wants to win more?
Who has something to fight for?
Who is more skilled?
Who is more trained?
Who is tougher?

Armor and weapons, yes they make a difference but it really depends on the specific warrior you choose to battle.

Ok, it was going well up to here :D

Personally I think that wearing so much armor in combat is almost cowardly, but still incredibly effective. BTW chainmail and platemail is pretty damned heavy which is why they had servants help put in on the knight and to say that your movement is unhindered is laughable at best. Your putting at least 30 pounds of friggin metal on your body. The Samurai's armor also hindered them as well but it leads me to believe that it weighed less. However, the knight benifits infinately from so much protection. Yet, if the Samurai knew joint breaking techniques the knight would be in severe trouble.

You ever worn a full harness? No, otherwise you would know differently. 55lb (average ish weight of a full harness of plate armour) of metal is not much, esp when it is articulated and jointed. You can run, walk, hell even do rolls in it and still be able to fight no problem. As I have said before, your average modern day soldier carrys 48lbs ON HIS BACK According to U.S. Army Doctrine, FM 7-10, Chapter 8, why would 55lb of fitted armour weigh you down?

And as for knowing techniques about joint breaking, there are as many of them in a Knight's arsenal as in a Samurai's.

-snip

Actually I've literally worn 50lb shoudlerpads for football training and let me tell you, you slow down A LOT. Compared to wearing 20lb shoulderpads it's heavy as shit.

You also forget that a lot of US Army personel leave a lot of things when going out on a campaign for that exact reason.

Yes you can still move, run, and even roll. But you're still much much slower.

Actually I've literally worn 50lb shoudlerpads for football training and let me tell you, you slow down A LOT. Compared to wearing 20lb shoulderpads it's heavy as shit.

You also forget that a lot of US Army personel leave a lot of things when going out on a campaign for that exact reason.

Yes you can still move, run, and even roll. But you're still much much slower.

Yeah, and where is all the weight placed? On your shoulders, not all over your body. It makes one hell of a difference.

Unless you've actually worn a full harness of armour, you'll never know the actual manouverability that you can have. Of course you're slowed by a small percentage, but as long as the armour was fitted for you (as it was) then it would be a very small percentage lost.

Consider it to be like wearing those 50lb shoulder pads spread over your whole body, it won't be that restrictive. Besides, as the Samurai's armour was comparable in weight and manouverability, the whole point is mute.

Yeah, and where is all the weight placed? On your shoulders, not all over your body. It makes one hell of a difference.

Unless you've actually worn a full harness of armour, you'll never know the actual manouverability that you can have. Of course you're slowed by a small percentage, but as long as the armour was fitted for you (as it was) then it would be a very small percentage lost.

Consider it to be like wearing those 50lb shoulder pads spread over your whole body, it won't be that restrictive. Besides, as the Samurai's armour was comparable in weight and manouverability, the whole point is mute.

Aye, which is why I said Mootness the very first part of my post.

I'm curious as to how a samurai would penetrate the knight's armor with a katana though. Although if anyone had so much as a tac hammer the knight would be in trouble.

Aye, which is why I said Mootness the very first part of my post.

I'm curious as to how a samurai would penetrate the knight's armor with a katana though. Although if anyone had so much as a tac hammer the knight would be in trouble.

Well as Samurai, with a Yari (spear) or a naginata (hafted glaive type weapon) would stand a good chance, as thrusting at gaps in a knights armour would most likely be the best chance. However a blow from a naginata would most likely do damage to the Knight through sheer impact, but it would be unlikely to crack the armour.

The best move for both combatants (IMHO) would be to keep distance with longer range melee weapons (such as the quarter staff and spear for the knight, yari and naginata for the samurai), trying to get to openings in eithers armour until the oppertunity to close, then to close quickly and try and grapple the opponent to the floor before using a dagger/tanto to get through the armour.

I was training with rondel daggers earlier tonight (at the Leeds Royal Armouries in the UK) and they could be used highly effectively at close range for punching through armour, as they had stiff diamond cross section blades (even triangular cross sections blades) which could take the impact. Tanto's also had stiff blades, and although their cross section might not be as well suited as a Rondel dagger, at close range, they would be very useful.

I knew knights used a lot of weapons, and I know the armour is far more flexible than most think... but knights used quarterstaffs? In battle? That's pretty cool, the staff would give him an advantage against virtually anyone with a sword... though wouldn't he be at a disadvantage against another knight?

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)Whack your pretty katana on a bit of plate steel and see how it fares. Not so well. Katana are curved for slashing, not for armor penetration. Sure, they're hard. Thing is, they're also brittle compared to the flexible steel used in medieval era swords.

Fine, I'm going to have to put my 2 cents in.

Everyone in favor of the knights is saying that if they're both on horseback, the knight will win hands down. Why? Knights on horses were just walking tanks. Note the key word there. Walking A fully armored knight on horseback would be too slow to catch a samuai on his horse because the samurai weighs at least 100 pounds less I'm sure. I'm factoring the horses armor too in that equation by the way.

Now, what caused the initial death of the knights? Archers. Do the battles during the 100 years war ring any bells for you guys? The knights got slaughtered by archers. Now, what are samurai proficient in using on horseback? Bows. While it is true that samurai were unparalleled in their use of the sword, that's not the only thing they used. Nor did they only fight on foot. I hope to god you people aren't mixing up Samurai with Ninja.

Advantage on horseback: Samurai. Shoot and run tactic.

Now for on foot. On foot, things will probably be more even. Now, yes it's true that knights were proficient in combat with weapons other than their sword. The same can also be said for Samurai too. If the knight were to use a flail, the Samurai would simply use a yari, or a naginata and have a huge advantage from extra reach. It would take speed to get around the reach of the japanese spears, something that a knight on foot fully armored doesn't have. In fact, what the samurai would probably want to do it push the knight over with a spear, then go in with his sword and simply stick it in the joints. I'm trying to think of a way to counter that, but honestly? I can't think of one except to get on horseback, and we've already gone over how that wouldn't work.

And everyone? Please stop exagerating the Samurai's honor. If the Samurai has to restricted by his honor, the knight needs the same from his chivalry. So don't use that as a factor in the fights.

Sort of. It takes a shitload of pull to impart enough force on an arrow to pierce plate. As far as I know, only two kinds of bows had enough draw to drive an arrow through plate: Welsh yew longbows, and Mongolian recurved short bows. Neither of which were something your average samurai would have access to. So really, I think it's more or less a matter of running, seeing a few arrows skip off your opponent's plate, and then retreating again. The only way you're really going to win is if the knight is stupid enough to go without stopping and tire himself out.

Sort of. It takes a shitload of pull to impart enough force on an arrow to pierce plate. As far as I know, only two kinds of bows had enough draw to drive an arrow through plate: Welsh yew longbows, and Mongolian recurved short bows. Neither of which were something your average samurai would have access to. So really, I think it's more or less a matter of running, seeing a few arrows skip off your opponent's plate, and then retreating again. The only way you're really going to win is if the knight is stupid enough to go without stopping and tire himself out.

Well, bows are moot anyway, as specified in the OP.

However, I don't know of any tests of Japanese bows against European plate. But, I'm not very familiar with period archery, beyond the basics, so there may have been. Do you know of any? Does anyone else? If not, does anyone know the kinetic energy produced by both. I'd google it up, but I don't have enough time.

Let's keep this thread going, guys. It's really good stuff, and if it goes on long enough, it'll get archived.

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?

This is an extraordinarily stupid thread. First even if you were to combinde the time lines to get the two fighting styles to meet, you meet these fundemental problems. First they probaly would never have seen each other due to the incredible distance required to travel in order to cross the two cultures. secondly the katana is not the one handed hack and slash weapon that quinten terantino films make it look. and last Knights are not bound by the code of the bushido this poses a problem because it limits what a samuri can do agianst an apponent. Another interesting fact about Euro knights is that they could move amazingly fast for the amount of armor they had on. euroknights were not slowmoving tanks. they were highlymobile on both horse back and foot. the one handed broadsword and sheild was a deadly combination. having studied more european fighting styles than oriental I can only say that if the two were for some reason to fight it would come down to a matter of skill not weather east is better than west or the otherway around.

This popcorn is terrible aqnd the fight was much shorter and uninteresting than we were lead to believe. I demand my money back.

then go sue somone who cares

then go sue somone who cares

I know. I'm sueing you.

@Fallen Dead:

Indeed, I agree with most of your points as I've studied and even participated on the western styles of the knight... to a degree.

The blades the knight wields were not only of great quality, but the speed they were used with is devastating. Considering the armour as well, the katana would have a hard time piercing the steel. On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if a katana would snap under the force of the blade used by the knight.

Heaven forbid a broad or greatsword were used... damn katana wouldnt' have a chance. Japan's islands aren't exactly known for their massive warriors either... that's what happens when RICE is your primary food. Some good beef protein is quite necessary for good muscle development (on the other hand, the japanese warrior would live longer over all :P Just run away from the fight... bam, knight dies at 35 from a heart attack from high cholesterol foods).

Either way, the Japanese weren't very big on the armour thing either. Yes, it would suffice... but the great speed and power of a knight would break through the armour easily.

What's this? No one has anything to argue about why I think the knight would win, other than semantics?

Samurai wins. Why? They have bows. Swords. Horses.

Knight's got a horse. Sword. Clunky armor

Samurai wins. Why? They have bows. Swords. Horses.

Knight's got a horse. Sword. Clunky armor

But the OP specified no ranged weapons. So no bows.

Plus read the previous posts about why 'clunky armour' is a complete myth.

and last Knights are not bound by the code of the bushido this poses a problem because it limits what a samuri can do agianst an apponent.

And they would be?

I think this is another myth of the Samurai, if you have any sense you would kill a man given the chance, not have to do it in some way. The Samurai would not be that stupid, you claim victory when the chance is presented to you.

The blades the knight wields were not only of great quality.

The a great generalisation, the german (Solingen), italian (Milan) and spanish (Toledo) centres of sword making produced very high quality blades. The medieval sabres of switzerland and the balkan countries plus poland, were of exceptionally high quality due to the smithing skills required.

On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if a katana would snap under the force of the blade used by the knight.

A Katana is not that brittle. Its cutting edge is very hard of course, and would sustain damage, but so will every sword made from steel. Katanas are pretty flexible due to the softer steel back of the sword, hence they can flex pretty well, although deflection rather than a straight block would be used by both warriors, no hollywood blocking here.

Heaven forbid a broad or greatsword were used... damn katana wouldnt' have a chance. Japan's islands aren't exactly known for their massive warriors either... that's what happens when RICE is your primary food. Some good beef protein is quite necessary for good muscle development (on the other hand, the japanese warrior would live longer over all :P Just run away from the fight... bam, knight dies at 35 from a heart attack from high cholesterol foods).

LOL, medieval diets weren't that bad, it was disease that killed you, not your food. *Imagines Knight feasting of a Big Mac*

Either way, the Japanese weren't very big on the armour thing either. Yes, it would suffice... but the great speed and power of a knight would break through the armour easily.

Maybe, but Japanese armour was designed to deflect blows, not take on direct hits (except the breast plate and helmet). If you look at the pics a few pages back, you can see how this is done with the use of a combination of leather and steel protection on the arms and legs.

But the OP specified no ranged weapons. So no bows.

Plus read the previous posts about why 'clunky armour' is a complete myth.
This is the second time I haven't read anything and just posted blindly in a thread. Gotta stop that.

Well, anyhow, now that the bow is out of the question its rather simple.

Its even, which fighter can keep their cool longer and unltimately triumph.

Well, bows are moot anyway, as specified in the OP.

However, I don't know of any tests of Japanese bows against European plate. But, I'm not very familiar with period archery, beyond the basics, so there may have been. Do you know of any? Does anyone else? If not, does anyone know the kinetic energy produced by both. I'd google it up, but I don't have enough time.

Well Welsh and English (my home county of Cheshire also produced exceptional longbow men just like Wales) Longbows could do it.

I would have to say though that I think Japanese bows could probably do it. There are a few discussions on other forums talking about it.

Never the less, at close range, I would take a nice cross bow, point and shoot, would go through a brest plate no worries. I say at close range as a crossbow's bolt is not as flight worthy as a longbow arrow so at long range it would be screwed. That said, I had the priviledge to be at a test to see a crossbows range, and one modern replica, made with the same materials etc as a medieval one, had a range close to have a kilometre.

That said, a longbow (with a flight arrow) could travel well over 1000 yards, so well over a kilometer. That said with a normal arrow, it would be a bit shorter range.

As for mongolian short bows, I won't speculate as I am unsure about them.

The blades the knight wields were not only of great quality, but the speed they were used with is devastating. Considering the armour as well, the katana would have a hard time piercing the steel. On top of that, I wouldn't be surprised if a katana would snap under the force of the blade used by the knight.

Not all samurai have to use katanas, in fact it was brought up earlier that a Tanto could pierce platemail with enough force.

Katanas are some of the finest swords ever produced, with the exception of the roman gladius imo, but I remember seeing a video of a katana cutting six .50 cal bullets in half before breaking, and an entire clip of glock rounds without breaking.

Roman Legioniarre could take them both :D

What's this? No one has anything to argue about why I think the knight would win, other than semantics?

If you ask, thou shall recieve.

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.

A Naginata for use at range would be a threat to the knight and a tanto at close range would be very useful for getting through gaps in armour. Therefore, the knight would always have to be wary. As well as this, the ubiquitous Yari (spear) would also be a threat to the knight with its point, and ability to be used as a staff weapon (which everyone ALWAYS underestimates).

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

Agreed.

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.

If you'd ever worn full harness, you would know that this isn't true. Of course the helmet (dependent on the type, is a bit of a pain, but its not uncomfortable, you can sit, stand walk etc etc quite easily. Neither armour would be perfect for around the house (as it were) but never the less, knights frequently lived in their armour on campaign.

Not all samurai have to use katanas, in fact it was brought up earlier that a Tanto could pierce platemail with enough force.

Katanas are some of the finest swords ever produced, with the exception of the roman gladius imo, but I remember seeing a video of a katana cutting six .50 cal bullets in half before breaking, and an entire clip of glock rounds without breaking.

Roman Legioniarre could take them both :D

Yup, that video has been around enough times.

But I would point out that medieval swords have stood up to similar abuse with the same effects. One maker called Gus Trim regularly tests his swords to death on a steel drum to see if they will lose their edge. Steel is steel, no matter what you do with it, it'll break if you do stupid things like shoot it.

Gladius are cool swords granted, but those from the time were sometimes hit and miss in their constuction, as it was dependent on the supply of iron that made them with the imperfections that it had in it.

EDIT: Sorry for the technicality, but its NOT platemail. Its either plate or maille.

I would have to say though that I think Japanese bows could probably do it. There are a few discussions on other forums talking about it.
From what I have seen (and note, I have NOT seen a side by side comparison) I'd say the Japanese bows would do the same damage as a longbow. The arrowheads I posted had some points that are equivlent to the armor percing ones used by the English to such great effect on the fully plated French knights.

And yes, samurai had to worry about arrows as well, so obviously they did some damage.

Never the less, at close range, I would take a nice cross bow, point and shoot, would go through a brest plate no worries. I say at close range as a crossbow's bolt is not as flight worthy as a longbow arrow so at long range it would be screwed. That said, I had the priviledge to be at a test to see a crossbows range, and one modern replica, made with the same materials etc as a medieval one, had a range close to have a kilometre.
The problem with crossbows, as powerful as they are, they're a bloody pain in the but to load. They really are one shot wonders till you find a handy winch (or a wench with a winch) to get that bowstring back into place. Quickloading they ain't. ;)

As for mongolian short bows, I won't speculate as I am unsure about them.
They went through mail. That's why the knights of Europe were decimated by the Mongols when they came. The only thing that saved Europe from the same fate as Russia, China, and the Middle East was the Khan falling off his horse and dying, causing them to go back home.

Actually I saw an interesting program that said that the knight's mail was part of the problem. It didn't stop the arrows from the bows, and it actually hindered trying to get the damn arrow out. The Mongol armor (And Japanese under kimono) that had silk layers were great for this as the silk would twist around the arrow, helping to stop it, soaking up the blood as a bandage, and make it much easier to remove the head.

EDIT: Sorry for the technicality, but its NOT platemail. Its either plate or maille.

I just use platemaile just to generalize the combination of plate armor and chain armor underneath.

The Samurai would easily defeat a 14th century Teutonic Knight with no range weapons.

The First and foremost is the weapon advantage.

The Katana is design to pierce armor---I have stabbed straight throw 1/8" sheet metal like butter--not as if I was fighting for my life, and not as if I am a master swordsmen---I mean with very little effort.

The Katana is also lighter and more easily used.

The folded steel techniques of the sword making in Japan versus the European way also mean the lighter Katana is actually stronger.

The armor.
Advantage Samurai--
Lighter faster, designed to allow the wearing to dodge and move against a faster moving sword--and to mount and dismount without aid, to weild spear, bow, and sword.

A European Knight with no ranged weapons would not just loose, he would be butchered.

With ranged weapons the initial advantage would go to the European--the Japanese Bow of the period had no where the range or power of the Long bow---of course Knights didnt USE long bows because of that clunky Armor--so Advantage Samurai.

A Japanese Samurai could loose 5-6 arrows from horseback for every 1 loosed by a Long Bowman(or Cross Bowman)---and as many as 10 if he was on the ground like the European archer---but that would again require the Samurai to close range under fire--advantage European Archer.


I am not a fan of Japan--I am a fan of Military prowess, in this specific head to head we find the Chivalry is left wanting when compared to Bushido.


Samurai kills Europeans---why do think we didnt crack Japan until after the advent of firearms?

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. ;)

That's only legend. The fact is Miyamoto was accepted into the houses of nobles who wouldn't of allowed a filthy bastard come within 100 feet on their household. It wasn't Europe, you couldn't get away with smelling like a stable if you wanted to be accepted into the houses of nobles.

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)

The armour difference would be negligable, at the time both relied on maile or lamellar, mostly. The knight might be larger, but not by much, samurai were pretty well off and could afford to feed themselves, they might of even stood head and shoulders over their peasants, much like knights.

And, a tachi typically weighs more then an arming sword, by roughly 200-500 grams. The knight's sword is lighter, but by a small fraction. The knight would also likely carry a longsword/bastard sword able to be used in one or two hands, this would likely weigh a slight bit more then the tachi, but again, not by a huge margin.

On foot a knight and a samurai of the 1400s were both well-armoured men with hand and a half swords and a dagger.

Whoever is best trained and most practised wins, the other one dies gloriously.

The Samurai would easily defeat a 14th century Teutonic Knight with no range weapons.

Wrong, and I will illustrate why:

The First and foremost is the weapon advantage.

The Katana is design to pierce armor---I have stabbed straight throw 1/8" sheet metal like butter--not as if I was fighting for my life, and not as if I am a master swordsmen---I mean with very little effort.

As was a knight's arming sword, and longsword.

The Katana is also lighter and more easily used.

Wrong, while slashing is more natural then stabbing (making the katana arguably easier to use) stabbing is quicker, you present less of yourself as a target and telegraph your attack less. I've addressed the weight issue many times, but katanas are well within the weight of knightly swords.

The folded steel techniques of the sword making in Japan versus the European way also mean the lighter Katana is actually stronger.

Europeans had different methods for ensuring there was nice steel along the edges and softer iron in the middle, different methods, similar results.


A European Knight with no ranged weapons would not just loose, he would be butchered.

OP set this up as a duel, not a melee.


A Japanese Samurai could loose 5-6 arrows from horseback for every 1 loosed by a Long Bowman(or Cross Bowman)---and as many as 10 if he was on the ground like the European archer---but that would again require the Samurai to close range under fire--advantage European Archer.

A longbowman can loose 10 arrows for everyone one a crossbowman can, the samurai and the longbowman would have roughly equal rates of fire, but this is absolutely irrelavant to this post.[/quote]


Samurai kills Europeans---why do think we didnt crack Japan until after the advent of firearms?

Might of had something to do with never going there until after the advent of firearms... ;)

How well each warrior is conditioned? Are the feeling ill the day of the fight? What is their personality? What is their motivation to kill the other? What condition is their equipment in? How much training has each other had? What weapons wre they using?

There are just too many factors to consider. It would be fun to watch though.

Sadly for the Samurai, their techniques were not as sophisticated as modern martial arts.

Do you have any evidence for this? I'm really quite sure this is not the case. If anything, the arts as practised by the Samurai were far superior to much of the martial arts practised today which have changed into a form of sport-combat.

A 'proper' samurai warrior, if you could bring him forward in time, would rip the head off of a 'sophisticated modern martial artist' in about two seconds flat

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.


The Mongols who conquered much of the world wear far more than warriors 'usually just trained to fire the bow'.

They were extremely skilled an brave horseman. They were fanatastically well trained and disciplined warriors.

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'm sorry to have to use such strong language, but that's complete bollocks.

Sophisticated martial arts systems have been in existence for thousands of years, probably right since the existence of mankind.

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.


Nobody would try to block a sword, either Zweihander or katana. There's just two much energy in the blow. You either duck or step aside


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

Your elbow would indeed be shattered, but you wouldn't be stupid enough to try and block it straight on. You'd move aside and use the sword/shield to deflect, not block, the blow

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

Shield will break probably. Virtually defenseless with a midget sword? No. In Japanese Martial arts, the best defence against a spear is a Wakizashi - a short sword. The reason is that once the attacking motion has been made then, compared to a Wak, the weapon is relatively clumsy. What you do is wait for the attack, step aside, deflect spear with wakizashi and then run in toward your opponent and open him up with your sword.

It's a similar technique against a Zweihander too.

Teuton points sword straight at you, so you keep your distance (the right hand side is 'down' and left is 'up'):

O--- -o


Teuton swings heavy powerful blow from right to left with big sword but opponent steps back so Teuton misses. Energy in the powerful blow swings through and leaves Teuton wide open



/
O -o


Opponent steps forward and uses his own blade defensively to stop Teuton swinging back (from left to right)


/ \
O o

Opponent steps in and kills Teuton


/
O-0



On a one to one duel it's just not the case that the warrior with the biggest heaviest sword and best armour will win. It's all about skill, timing and tactics.

Personally, I think a duel between the best type of European Knight and the best type of Japanese Samurai is just too close to call. It would depend largely on the attributes of each individual warrior.

Now, a modern British infantryman armed with an SA80 would pwn either Knight or Samurai, whether or not they're on horseback!

-snip-

About the duel with a shield: That's my point. You have to be an idiot to bring a shield to a duel. However, a shield wouldn't have too much trouble blocking a Katana, seeing that it's pretty much just a huge razor. A block would be pretty lucky, though...

About the Zweihander: That's assuming the German decides to perform a broad swing at that moment. He'll most likely use it as a parrying weapon at that point, not at all different from a pike. The great sword is very versatile, fast, and well-balanced. If he's far too aggressive, only then would he take the broad swing. If he's lucky, it's curtains for his opponent... If not, well, there's not really much to say about what could happen to him in such a position.

...Which brings me back to my point. It would be a very even fight. Intense and exciting.

The Mongols who conquered much of the world wear far more than warriors 'usually just trained to fire the bow'.

They were extremely skilled an brave horseman. They were fanatastically well trained and disciplined warriors.

Yes, they were the best horsemen in the world. But, they were horsemen, not swordsmen.

Yes, they were trained from a very early age, but this was mainly with the bow fired on horseback. They had little training with melee weapons in comparison to other cultures.

That's only legend. The fact is Miyamoto was accepted into the houses of nobles who wouldn't of allowed a filthy bastard come within 100 feet on their household. It wasn't Europe, you couldn't get away with smelling like a stable if you wanted to be accepted into the houses of nobles.
No, he really was that smelly. Towards the end of his life, when he was composing the Book of Five Rings, he lived in a cave and was that odious, there's a number of sources that mention this fact.

Shield will break probably. Virtually defenseless with a midget sword? No. In Japanese Martial arts, the best defence against a spear is a Wakizashi - a short sword. The reason is that once the attacking motion has been made then, compared to a Wak, the weapon is relatively clumsy. What you do is wait for the attack, step aside, deflect spear with wakizashi and then run in toward your opponent and open him up with your sword.

It's a similar technique against a Zweihander too.

Teuton points sword straight at you, so you keep your distance (the right hand side is 'down' and left is 'up'):

O--- -o


Teuton swings heavy powerful blow from right to left with big sword but opponent steps back so Teuton misses. Energy in the powerful blow swings through and leaves Teuton wide open



/
O -o


Opponent steps forward and uses his own blade defensively to stop Teuton swinging back (from left to right)


/ \
O o

Opponent steps in and kills Teuton


/
O-0


This technique would work both ways too, not just against a knight.

Kendo (although a martial sport still has a basis in martial technique) has katas with a wak and a kat where this takes place, as does the German and Italian schools of longsword, therefore its not just a onesided tactic.

Besides, this is a rather simplistic two time defence, a more advanced opponent would be able to conduct a single time defence (i.e. a block and strike in the same move). An example of this would be a Zwerchhau in German longsword.

Plus a zweihander is not that slow/heavy to make a knight indefensable after a single stroke. Besides, that attack is an awful one (its called an Unterhau in German longsword technique), the advice of masters such as lichtenauer is to fight from above (oberhau, zwerchhau, schielhau etc), more powerful and controlled strokes can be achieved that way.

About the duel with a shield: That's my point. You have to be an idiot to bring a shield to a duel. However, a shield wouldn't have too much trouble blocking a Katana, seeing that it's pretty much just a huge razor. A block would be pretty lucky, though...

You might not bring a full sized shield but you would definitely consider bringing a buckler (small shield, all steel, about 1 foot across). Very useful and versatile, both for attack and defence.

About the Zweihander: That's assuming the German decides to perform a broad swing at that moment. He'll most likely use it as a parrying weapon at that point, not at all different from a pike. The great sword is very versatile, fast, and well-balanced. If he's far too aggressive, only then would he take the broad swing. If he's lucky, it's curtains for his opponent... If not, well, there's not really much to say about what could happen to him in such a position.

That said, you would be a fool to bring a large zweihander to a duel, better to bring a great sword (Type XIIa and Type XIIIa) or maybe a hand and a half.

That said, the best thing to bring to a duel is a quarter staff, a weapon in which knights were trained in the use of, better range, can be switched to half staff or quarter staff, more versatile, and delivers a great attack.

...Which brings me back to my point. It would be a very even fight. Intense and exciting.

Exactly, and most likely it will nto be a long fight either.

I say simply that the better fighter will win. oh and about the flat, dry, and open terrain... wouldn't that be an advantage to the knight. isn't that where they're in their element?

Lacquer armor is not the equivalent of tempered steel plate.
However, the katana is far superior to the english longsword in speed, and sharpness.
However, the longsord is also far heavier, wich would chop through the far weaker Samurai armor, and probably breaking the more slender katana blade.

In the end....its the English knight that remains breathing.

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).

A viking would kick a German swordsmans ass. and then hand it to him. and then he would go rape/pillage the german swordsmans home and family.

A viking would kick a German swordsmans ass. and then hand it to him. and then he would go rape/pillage the german swordsmans home and family.

Would depend really. A viking raider without the longboats and the element of surprise might be a bit at the disadvantage facing a full plate armored German knight who knows he's coming. Or at least level the playing field

I would put all my money on the Samurai. The deciding factor is not the armor or the weapons, but the one thing isn't visible. The Samurai is the better inner warrior.

Lacquer armor is not the equivalent of tempered steel plate.
No, it isn't. However, a lacquered steel plate contructed the same way a katana blade is... well... that is a different story, and what samurai were wearing. The armor was about the same, the samurai just didn't bother with the whole head to toe, jointed armor as there just wasn't that much steel in Japan.

However, the longsord is also far heavier, wich would chop through the far weaker Samurai armor, and probably breaking the more slender katana blade.
Breaching the armor with a longsword would be hard. It wouldn't be able to cleave through the armor like you're suggesting, and it also would not be able to shatter the katana either, those damn things are surprisingly tough.

In the end....its the English knight that remains breathing.
I still say it is too close to call.

I would put all my money on the Samurai. The deciding factor is not the armor or the weapons, but the one thing isn't visible. The Samurai is the better inner warrior.Knights had at least as much training as Samirais. Unlike Samurais, Knights were trained to deal with strange opponents.

I'd say if it came down to pure training, the Samurai would be worse off.

Samurais fought with (lightweight) swords. Knights had vastly superiour armour, fought with shields & with a wide range of weaponry. Much of that weaponry was specifically designed to punch holes in other knights, and would have no problem crushing a Samurai in an instant. A good swing with a flail would do nicely.
The Samurai, on the other hand, would have to deal with a warrior trained to cope with unexpected fighting styles, an armour that is all but inpenetrable with his ill-suited weapons, and is every bit as fast & mobile as himself.

I'd say the Samurai would get squished 9/10.

how many people are ignoring that link that was posted a while back. the author of said document seems like he knows what he's talking about more than anyone else here. (IMHO) and i'd have to agree with him.

However, the katana is far superior to the english longsword in speed, and sharpness.
However, the longsord is also far heavier

Not true, their weights are pretty equal, so neither is quicker.

See here for Katana weight thread. (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=55950&highlight=Katana+weight)

Plus go to these websites for stats on modern reproductions of longswords and arming swords:

http://www.albion-swords.com/

http://www.angustrimdirect.com/

http://www.christianfletcher.com/


Also, sharpness is pretty equal too, however, a Kat will cut better as it is a curved sword.

Never the less, cutting against plate or maille will be ineffectual and the point of a Kat is not made for thrusting, although as a cutting point (due to the edge geometry) it is one of the best ever made.

kk im just gonna repeat what everyone has said but here we go

it would be so close
the kinghts armour was as gd as impenetrable, they did some tests on a knights armour in some documentary i saw, and nothing could get through it, they stabbed a sword in it, tbh it punctured a whole but the sword only went in three inches, therefore would have made it through the plate but the the chainmail underneath, and after that it took the man 10 minutes to pull his sword back out, in this time the knight would have whacked you with is sword a million times.

but the samurai has armour which is kinda more leathery which can be just as gd. plus the samurai has a super sharp blade which might be able to stab into the knight. the samurai also would be able to spot weak points in the knights amrour and using his better speed attack it. the samurai also has a greater vision than the knight in his helmet and so would be able to run round the knight easier. he could also knock him over using super kungfu and then force the knight to surrender.


but tbh it would be pretty close. if it was a fight which depended on coolness the samurai would win

how many people are ignoring that link that was posted a while back. the author of said document seems like he knows what he's talking about more than anyone else here. (IMHO) and i'd have to agree with him.

If thats this link:

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

You're right. This organisation are led by highly experience swordsmen of both eastern and western heritage, so that article is a pretty decent one.

Another one for your perusal:

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

We once did that discussion in Elvenjess, another odeleing forums, if anyone is from there what did you guys decide?

Would depend really. A viking raider without the longboats and the element of surprise might be a bit at the disadvantage facing a full plate armored German knight who knows he's coming. Or at least level the playing field
You need to look up the battle at Stamford Bridge. The last viking battle on English soil.

kk im just gonna repeat what everyone has said but here we go

it would be so close
the kinghts armour was as gd as impenetrable, they did some tests on a knights armour in some documentary i saw, and nothing could get through it, they stabbed a sword in it, tbh it punctured a whole but the sword only went in three inches, therefore would have made it through the plate but the the chainmail underneath, and after that it took the man 10 minutes to pull his sword back out, in this time the knight would have whacked you with is sword a million times.

but the samurai has armour which is kinda more leathery which can be just as gd. plus the samurai has a super sharp blade which might be able to stab into the knight. the samurai also would be able to spot weak points in the knights amrour and using his better speed attack it. the samurai also has a greater vision than the knight in his helmet and so would be able to run round the knight easier. he could also knock him over using super kungfu and then force the knight to surrender.


but tbh it would be pretty close. if it was a fight which depended on coolness the samurai would win


Go read the essay in the post above, it might prove interesting in disspelling some of the myths in your own post.

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.

I totally agree with this guy and the whatever bridge, where one English knight took on a whole army ,or something like that, of one-step above of hoodlum Vikigns, wow:rolleyes: , shok and awe :p .

You need to look up the battle at Stamford Bridge. The last viking battle on English soil.

Yup, a man armed with a two handed war axe on a bridge is a hardcore opponent.

Kellarly, I must commend you for your persistence in this thread at relieving the ignorance of some of the posters (there have been others through the course of the thread but Kellarly seems to be the most frequent). Good show old boy! I'm glad someone is debunking the mythos surrounding the Samurai and and plumping for the Knight. That is of course without taking anything away from the martial prowess of the Samurai, but they do like to exagerate the whole "exotic eastern warrior" deal.

I think the European Knight gets a bit of a bad press, being frequently portrayed as an uncooth brute clunking around commically in his suit or armour whilst bashing anything that moves with his club.

Anyway, I went for the jingiostic dick waving option (it sounds like fun) but honestly, I think it'd be a very close call. :D

Kellarly, I must commend you for your persistence in this thread at relieving the ignorance of some of the posters (there have been others through the course of the thread but Kellarly seems to be the most frequent). Good show old boy! I'm glad someone is debunking the mythos surrounding the Samurai and and plumping for the Knight. That is of course without taking anything away from the martial prowess of the Samurai, but they do like to exagerate the whole "exotic eastern warrior" deal.



I agree. I tried to summon up a little debate in terms of why a knight would use a quarterstaff in combat, but it was drowned in the whole samurai thing, somewhere.

Kellarly, I must commend you for your persistence in this thread at relieving the ignorance of some of the posters (there have been others through the course of the thread but Kellarly seems to be the most frequent). Good show old boy! I'm glad someone is debunking the mythos surrounding the Samurai and and plumping for the Knight. That is of course without taking anything away from the martial prowess of the Samurai, but they do like to exagerate the whole "exotic eastern warrior" deal.

I think the European Knight gets a bit of a bad press, being frequently portrayed as an uncooth brute clunking around commically in his suit or armour whilst bashing anything that moves with his club.

Anyway, I went for the jingiostic dick waving option (it sounds like fun) but honestly, I think it'd be a very close call. :D

Thanks!

I have to say though, people like Jordaxia, NERVUN, Daistallia 2104 etc have also been very good too.

I've studied both sides of the apparent martial divide, and it's vital to disprove the myths that have been around since Victorian times.

Websites like Swordforum, myArmoury and others are in the forefront of this, and I implore readers of this thread who wish to learn more to visit those sites which I have linked in this thread.

I agree. I tried to summon up a little debate in terms of why a knight would use a quarterstaff in combat, but it was drowned in the whole samurai thing, somewhere.

Yeah, and you had every right too.

The quarter staff is an excellent and versatile weapon. The author of English Martial Arts, Terry Brown, is a master at the use of the quarter staff, and I wish someday to be able to train/be at a seminar, led by him.

Quarter staffing and half staffing are martial arts that every culture has, and I believe that we need to renew the ones that have been lost for the better part of 200 years in the west.

Yeah, and you had every right too.

The quarter staff is an excellent and versatile weapon. The author of English Martial Arts, Terry Brown, is a master at the use of the quarter staff, and I wish someday to be able to train/be at a seminar, led by him.

Quarter staffing and half staffing are martial arts that every culture has, and I believe that we need to renew the ones that have been lost for the better part of 200 years in the west.


I agree. like I said, I understand why the quarter staff would be powerful for a knight to use, especially against a peasant or someone with lesser armour. But with someone wearing plate, I don't see it being particularly effective. With maile, sure, but not plate. It doesn't have the cutting power of a sword, or the sheer penetrative power of a hammer or flail.

Actually, thinking on it further, the staff could be used to try and destroy any vulnerable limb joints, knees, elbows, maybe the neck, through plate. Am I close?

Thanks!

I have to say though, people like Jordaxia, NERVUN, Daistallia 2104 etc have also been very good too.

I've studied both sides of the apparent martial divide, and it's vital to disprove the myths that have been around since Victorian times.

Websites like Swordforum, myArmoury and others are in the forefront of this, and I implore readers of this thread who wish to learn more to visit those sites which I have linked in this thread.

Yes, apologies for not mentioned those other fine contributors to the thread. I have infact read the entire thread over the last couple of days inbetween work and whatnot.

I also read the arma thread about The Knight/Samurai and took a quick gander at one or two other articles. Interesting reads, thanks for sharing. I'll probably read the others (have a passing interest in all things oldy-worldly, mostly Classical Greece/Rome but also Medieval) but there's only so many hours in the day even one so lazy as I can manage to idle away.

Thanks!

I have to say though, people like Jordaxia, NERVUN, Daistallia 2104 etc have also been very good too.

I've studied both sides of the apparent martial divide, and it's vital to disprove the myths that have been around since Victorian times.

Websites like Swordforum, myArmoury and others are in the forefront of this, and I implore readers of this thread who wish to learn more to visit those sites which I have linked in this thread.

I tried too. :(

Yes, apologies for not mentioned those other fine contributors to the thread. I have infact read the entire thread over the last couple of days inbetween work and whatnot.

I also read the arma thread about The Knight/Samurai and took a quick gander at one or two other articles. Interesting reads, thanks for sharing. I'll probably read the others (have a passing interest in all things oldy-worldly, mostly Classical Greece/Rome but also Medieval) but there's only so many hours in the day even one so lazy as I can manage to idle away.


Hehe, well one of these discussions on a forum elsewhere started me on the path to discovering western martial arts, whilst I was studying Kendo. I immediately quit, mainly due to me moving to to another country for a year, but once I returned I wanted to start a martial art that was a lot closer to my own culture.

Since getting involved I have spent many many hours researching/practicing the German school (Kunst des Fechten or KDF for short) of swordsmanship, but also reading about the Italien school as well as 18/19th Century sabre fighting amongst others.

I've handled numerous swords, both reproductions and actual antiques (both western and eastern) and worn a few full harness' of armour.

The outcome of all this is that, IMHO, nearly all systems of defence are equally skilled in taking on the opponents that they were trained for, however in taking on opponents that it was not designed to fight against, it would be a question of the individual fighters ability to quickly adapt. The equipement has its advantages and disadvantages (although I find there is more variation in Europe and China than there is in Japan), but no real advantage over any other.

I'll stick with my art, because I have confidence in it and I am confortable with it. Others suit other people.

But to claim full superiority over another is a fallecy.

I tried too. :(

Bollocks, I knew i missed a few poeple!

Sorry mate, my fault.

Again, I'm sorry Soviet! :) I didn't mean to "leave anyone out". You all made some very lucid points and have constantly reiterated them in face of a tidal wave of nincumpoops who haven't read the thread and posted the same "samurai is fast knight is slow in tin armour lolz" drivel.

I salute you all!:cool:

Samurai if neither of them had no armor.

With armor, I don't know whether or not a Katana can peirce steel.

Samurai if neither of them had no armor.

Any particular reason for this?

With armor, I don't know whether or not a Katana can peirce steel.


Proper heat treated armour would pretty impervious to a cut by a Katana, and a thrust too.

Bollocks, I knew i missed a few poeple!

Sorry mate, my fault.

No problem, I'm just attention-whoring. :D

What confuses me is everyone focusing on the katana, which is 200 years later then the time period we've been discussing.

Knight vs samurai of 1550 is much different battle then of 1350.

That said, you would be a fool to bring a large zweihander to a duel, better to bring a great sword (Type XIIa and Type XIIIa) or maybe a hand and a half.

That said, the best thing to bring to a duel is a quarter staff, a weapon in which knights were trained in the use of, better range, can be switched to half staff or quarter staff, more versatile, and delivers a great attack.

1: Actually, not really. http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html explains this.

2: True. But, this is swords vs. swords. I'm explaining that a Zweihander against a Katana or a No Dachi isn't exactly a bad idea... Though the quarter staff is a very good weapon itself.

No problem, I'm just attention-whoring. :D

What confuses me is everyone focusing on the katana, which is 200 years later then the time period we've been discussing.

Knight vs samurai of 1550 is much different battle then of 1350.


I thought the development of the curved sword was around 900 A.D. and the Katana came into being during the 1190 to 1337 in the Kamakura period?

Screw knights and Samurai's (although I back knight in any circumstances).

All about the longbow.

1: Actually, not really. http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html explains this.

2: True. But, this is swords vs. swords. I'm explaining that a Zweihander against a Katana or a No Dachi isn't exactly a bad idea... Though the quarter staff is a very good weapon itself.


OP doesn't specify swords, just non-ranged weapons, so a quarter or half staff is valid.

The essay does say that:

While used similarly to longswords, and even employed in some duels, they were not identical in handling or performance. No major historical teachings detailing fencing with these specific weapons are known. These weapons were used primarily for fighting among pike-squares where they would hack paths through knocking aside poles, possibly even lobbing the ends off opposing halberds and pikes then slashing and stabbing among the ranks. emphasis my own

Only in some duels. This would be most likely agreed before hand. However, in historical manuals (Talhoffer 1467 for one), it is hand and a half or longswords shown. Besides, what I said was my own opinion, after using both weapons before. I believe that these swords would be more effective in a duel than a Zweihander.

OP doesn't specify swords, just non-ranged weapons, so a quarter or half staff is valid.

The essay does say that:

emphasis my own

Only in some duels. This would be most likely agreed before hand. However, in historical manuals (Talhoffer 1467 for one), it is hand and a half or longswords shown. Besides, what I said was my own opinion, after using both weapons before. I believe that these swords would be more effective in a duel than a Zweihander.

1: Correct you are... My mistake.

2: True. I'd still go with a Zweihander, myself. Anything that takes more skill than what my opponent's using --- plus, they're huge. :D

I thought the development of the curved sword was around 900 A.D. and the Katana came into being during the 1190 to 1337 in the Kamakura period?

It's just semantics, mostly, katana is used both as a generic term for all longsword sized curved Japanese swords and more specifically to refer to the style of blade that superceded the tachi, c. 1450.


Screw knights and Samurai's (although I back knight in any circumstances).

All about the longbow.

My Hungarian bow has triple the range of your longbow. ;)

1: Correct you are... My mistake.

2: True. I'd still go with a Zweihander, myself. Anything that takes more skill than what my opponent's using --- plus, they're huge. :D

1. Meh, i've made enough reading mistakes, tis cool.


2. You bring your zweihander, I'll bring my hand and a half :D To be honest its each to their own, although I would question the more skill. As the essay suggests, we have no real manuals on their use and until one appears, its speculation on how they were actually used. Never the less, half sword techniques, thrusts and large sweeping consecutive cuts would probably have been involved.

It's just semantics, mostly, katana is used both as a generic term for all longsword sized curved Japanese swords and more specifically to refer to the style of blade that superceded the tachi, c. 1450.

Fair enough. You learn something new every day :D


My Hungarian bow has triple the range of your longbow. ;)

They related to the mongolian bow?

What kinda range does it have?

1. Meh, i've made enough reading mistakes, tis cool.


2. You bring your zweihander, I'll bring my hand and a half :D To be honest its each to their own, although I would question the more skill. As the essay suggests, we have no real manuals on their use and until one appears, its speculation on how they were actually used. Never the less, half sword techniques, thrusts and large sweeping consecutive cuts would probably have been involved.

1: Same here. :p

2: Yeah, it's probably more about strength than overall skill in the use of the Zweihander (or Dopplehander, if you wanna get old-world technical). Though if used correctly, one could be extremely intimidating with such a weapon.

1: Same here. :p

2: Yeah, it's probably more about strength than overall skill in the use of the Zweihander (or Dopplehander, if you wanna get old-world technical). Though if used correctly, one could be extremely intimidating with such a weapon.

Yeah, nothing like needing a change of trousers when you see some one sweeping one of them about skilfully.

IMHO, i am more wary of halberds, bills and poleaxes, and the large double handed war axes, but still...you don't want to be on the wrong end of any of them.

Yeah, nothing like needing a change of trousers when you see some one sweeping one of them about skilfully.

IMHO, i am more wary of halberds, bills and poleaxes, and the large double handed war axes, but still...you don't want to be on the wrong end of any of them.

You don't wanna be at the wrong end of any weapon... Even a knife. :p

Fair enough. You learn something new every day :D

When you spend 6 hours a day reading wikipedia you wind up with hundreds of bits of useless information. :D

They related to the mongolian bow?

What kinda range does it have?

Both are variants of the Asiatic compound bow, so yes.

I've heard 400-800 meters quoted, but 800 sounds rather high.

Either way, that's versus 200 for a longbow and 50 for an arquebus, or a repeating crossbow.

You don't wanna be at the wrong end of any weapon... Even a knife. :p

Wiffle bat?

When you spend 6 hours a day reading wikipedia you wind up with hundreds of bits of useless information. :D



Both are variants of the Asiatic compound bow, so yes.

I've heard 400-800 meters quoted, but 800 sounds rather high.

Either way, that's versus 200 for a longbow and 50 for an arquebus, or a repeating crossbow.

A longbow can cover over 240 yards (Linky (http://www.linux.liv.ac.uk/~azaroth/university/longbow.html)), so thats not bad.

Another 100 yards for the mongolian according to here. (link (http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm))

I still wouldn't stand in front of a cross bow though. They are now making replicas of medieval ones that can cover 500m, although, they lose most of their power and accuracy at 150.

Any particular reason for this?

More or less, I think a Samurai has more discipline than a Knight. Yeah yeah, both of them were literally born for combat. but judging on both sword styles, it would seem that the Samurai requires more discipline.

A simple example would be the standard block. The knight would have to merely move his sword into place, and put enough force behind it to stop the blade from coming. However, blocks like that are not done with katanas. The standard block for the katana is sweeping, where you push most of the attack weight away.

Why do I say the samurai one would take more discipline and training? Because if a blade comes straight towards me, I'm as sure as hell that I'm using my sword and stopping it (instead of sweeping it away).

Furthermore, the blade itself takes some skill to use. For the most part, the samurai's sword is more bludgeoning than anything. I've also seen (on the discovery channel), the force it takes for a blade to go through a knights armor. Actually, weapons that could go through a knight's armor were not swords. Most of them were halbards (think a hybrid axe and pike). The weapons that did the most damage to a knight were weapons such as a mace, where you didn't hurt the armor, but you screwed up everything inside. Bladed weapons had to work themselves into the gaps in the armor before becoming lethal.

So I can basically assume that the sword took most of it's pride against lightly armed opponents. For knight on knight battles, the winner was probably the one carrying a mace or a polearm (poleaxe, whatever).

Because of the knight's armor, the sword style is pretty much hack and slash.

Samurai armor, however, was quite different. More or less, it prevented arrows rather than another Samurai. So a samurai and samurai battle required more skill. Unlike a knight vrs knight battle, one mistake would lead to a bleeding gash out of your leg. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Samurai's armor is primarily silk and laqure. Stops arrows, but not swords. A knight vrs knight battle was pretty long, and usually one of them got A. too tired to fight, or B. bludgeoned enough where he didn't want to fight. A samurai vrs samurai battle, both of them would cut each other up whether or not they had armor.

So that's why I think a Samurai required more skill. A knight's armor gave them more protection, which gave them a larger margin of error. A samurai? Tough luck. Therefore, a samurai would win without armor.

With armor? A knight would probably win because the Samurai doesn't have any specialized weapons for a knight. Like I stated before, weapons that usually defeated a knight included poleaxes, halbards, and maces. A knight sword is pretty much useless against a knight unless the weight is focused at the end. And even then, you're pretty much bludgeoning him. I guess the samurai can always run away and throw rocks at the knight. Heh.

A longbow can cover over 240 yards (Linky (http://www.linux.liv.ac.uk/~azaroth/university/longbow.html)), so thats not bad.

Another 100 yards for the mongolian according to here. (link (http://www.coldsiberia.org/monbow.htm))

I still wouldn't stand in front of a cross bow though. They are now making replicas of medieval ones that can cover 500m, although, they lose most of their power and accuracy at 150.

Thanks for the links. ^.^

More or less, I think a Samurai has more discipline than a Knight. Yeah yeah, both of them were literally born for combat. but judging on both sword styles, it would seem that the Samurai requires more discipline.

A simple example would be the standard block. The knight would have to merely move his sword into place, and put enough force behind it to stop the blade from coming. However, blocks like that are not done with katanas. The standard block for the katana is sweeping, where you push most of the attack weight away.

Neither are they done like this with knightly swords. Displacement of a blade or a single time defence is far more likely to be used.

Both the German and Italian schools of swordsmanship teach this. Indeed the fechtbuch of Meyer (1570) states that the preference of defence should be as so:

1. Attack first
2. Void the strike by movement and strike at the same time
3. Counter attack in time, parrying and striking in one action (single time defence)
4. Deflect the attack and then attack (double time defence)
5. Static block then attack
6. Void the attack without counter attacking
7. Static block

Reference in an article in Spada, 2002 (The Art of Parrying by Gregory Mele)

This should show that static blocks were the last thing that you wanted to do. Also, it should not be assumed that due to the renaissance date of the fechtbuch that this had only been developed by then. Meyer was a student of the Lichtenauer school, which had been around for 200 years previously.

Why do I say the samurai one would take more discipline and training? Because if a blade comes straight towards me, I'm as sure as hell that I'm using my sword and stopping it (instead of sweeping it away).

Well the point above disproves that.

Furthermore, the blade itself takes some skill to use. For the most part, the samurai's sword is more bludgeoning than anything. I've also seen (on the discovery channel), the force it takes for a blade to go through a knights armor. Actually, weapons that could go through a knight's armor were not swords. Most of them were halbards (think a hybrid axe and pike). The weapons that did the most damage to a knight were weapons such as a mace, where you didn't hurt the armor, but you screwed up everything inside. Bladed weapons had to work themselves into the gaps in the armor before becoming lethal.

A samurai's sword is not bludgeoning! It's a draw cut weapon, which means that by the extension and then swift pulling back of the blade the fine sharp edge will cut. The curve of the blade only enhances this.

The other points you make on weapons are true, but weapons like the pole axe, halberd, bill and warhammer were capable of puncturing armour with the various points they carried but not with their cutting edges.

So I can basically assume that the sword took most of it's pride against lightly armed opponents. For knight on knight battles, the winner was probably the one carrying a mace or a polearm (poleaxe, whatever).

Because of the knight's armor, the sword style is pretty much hack and slash.

You're excluding the use of the technique of halfswording, which is grasping the blade with one hand, whilst keeping another on the handle. From here you can use the sword like a spear or like and axe by using the quillions or cross guard to puncture the armour. Like the example below taken from the 15th century Fechtbuch "Gladiatoria".

http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/2989/163ne.jpg

Samurai armor, however, was quite different. More or less, it prevented arrows rather than another Samurai. So a samurai and samurai battle required more skill. Unlike a knight vrs knight battle, one mistake would lead to a bleeding gash out of your leg. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Samurai's armor is primarily silk and laqure. Stops arrows, but not swords. A knight vrs knight battle was pretty long, and usually one of them got A. too tired to fight, or B. bludgeoned enough where he didn't want to fight. A samurai vrs samurai battle, both of them would cut each other up whether or not they had armor.


A knights battle was not like that! With techniques as the one mentioned above, as well as disarm techniques amongst others, a knights battle would be over as soon as succesful technique (or even partial technique) was applied.

So that's why I think a Samurai required more skill. A knight's armor gave them more protection, which gave them a larger margin of error. A samurai? Tough luck. Therefore, a samurai would win without armor.

The manuals linked below show that an unarmoured knight would have techniques that would be very suitable for an unarmoured duel. Larger margin of error? You never have that in any martial art. The first two are German, the third is English and the 4th is Italian.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/CodexW.htm

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/Goliath.htm

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Vadi.htm


With armor? A knight would probably win because the Samurai doesn't have any specialized weapons for a knight. Like I stated before, weapons that usually defeated a knight included poleaxes, halbards, and maces. A knight sword is pretty much useless against a knight unless the weight is focused at the end. And even then, you're pretty much bludgeoning him. I guess the samurai can always run away and throw rocks at the knight. Heh.

The samurai has the tanto (the short dagger with a stiff blade) and the naginata (a large pole axe/hafted glaive weapon), which could be used against armour.

Wiffle bat?
Oh hell no! Them things cause bruises like you wouldn't believe! :D

Wiffle bat?

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000BYRPR.01-A12J7Z25BKBAUQ._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

FEAR!

Many of the comments seem to assume a movie like sword vs sword duel. If the Knight has an axe, all betts are off. The lack of defence (other than brutal all out attacking) would play right into the Samurai (a mainly attack only art in its basic state).

Many of the comments seem to assume a movie like sword vs sword duel. If the Knight has an axe, all betts are off. The lack of defence (other than brutal all out attacking) would play right into the Samurai (a mainly attack only art in its basic state).

Depends, a single handed axe would be highly adept at defense, esp. at deflection. Besides as demonstrated above, to attack first or to avoid an attack is your best defence.

The double handed battle axe is virtually indefensible, but on the defence it is used like a spear. I've lost the link with the evidence for this, but i'll hunt it down.

Note this:

Both are seem stereotypically:
A knight can be seen as the extremely powerful and highly armoured and strong Teutonic Knights, or the usual Gaulic knights whom fight as seeming barbarians. The term for Knight is a fairly broad term, and knights are seen in real history as enforcers of the aristocracy and nobility, not by any means a heroic or valiant fighter. They were disciplined and had strong military strengths, but each knight were special to each of their own regions, such as the Knights Templar of hte crusades who declined in real battlefield prowess and became the first sense of a unified 'special forces' unit. Or perhaps the knights of the Holy Roman Empire, massive killing machines armed to a truncheon and would crush virtually any foe against them, a battlefield fighter.

The same can be said for the Samurai. Samurai are also designed to be enforcers and to protect their feudal Lords, hence training of Samurai are different to their own specific Lords, and their own required abilities. Lords who have little or weak influence over their people are usually pertaining to the more stereotypical samurai, used as a suppressive against a possibly uprising populace. However, higher up nobles may use Samurai for other purposes, leaving their exertion of power to a conventional force. Many Samurai could also go into other forms, such as Ninjutsu, hence 'Ninja'. As another note, Samurai are also trained to ride on horseback, and most of them actually do. Also other strains of the Samurai are trained to actually fight against soldiers on horseback, wielding large weapons made to chop the horse, forcing the rider to fight on foot.

This is a very general and broad question, and realitistically would not suit at all. Some kinds are better against others, and others are not.

Stereotypically, I'm saying the Samurai. It's the 14th-15th Century. Most of Europe's 'warfare' is slowly becoming less medieval, while Japan is still quite feudal.

A samurai would win a fight between a knight and a samurai, that is, if a knight actually survives several other fights against other Asian warriors (Arab, Turkish, Persian, Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, and sorts) :p

A samurai would win a fight between a knight and a samurai, that is, if a knight actually survives several other fights against other Asian warriors (Arab, Turkish, Persian, Indian, Mongolian, Chinese, and sorts) :p

Well, if you're including the Mongol Warriors, then the Knight will never get to the Samurai. Mongols were ruthless for breaking European armour and stone.

I'll solve this...

GOOGLEFIGHT!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Knight&word2=Samurai

I'll solve this...

GOOGLEFIGHT!

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Knight&word2=Samurai

Case closed. *Bangs Gavel*

Case closed. *Bangs Gavel*

I'm amazed no one thought of that earlier.

Oh, and for those of you who were too lazy to open the link, knights won :p

I'm amazed no one thought of that earlier.

Oh, and for those of you who were too lazy to open the link, knights won :p

That would be very sad...

Well, if you're including the Mongol Warriors, then the Knight will never get to the Samurai. Mongols were ruthless for breaking European armour and stone.
Definitely. The arrows of the Mongols could bring down armored knights before the knights could even reach the Mongols...because the Mongols advanced...and retreated...and advanced...and retreated...

This is supposed to be about duels, people, not battles.

We all know how supreme the Mongols were. Enough.

mmm ... popcorn

I have read too many long threads today (so apologies if this has already been suggested) but I will say this....A ninja would come along & kick the arse of the survivor.

No, it isn't. However, a lacquered steel plate contructed the same way a katana blade is... well... that is a different story, and what samurai were wearing. The armor was about the same, the samurai just didn't bother with the whole head to toe, jointed armor as there just wasn't that much steel in Japan.


Breaching the armor with a longsword would be hard. It wouldn't be able to cleave through the armor like you're suggesting, and it also would not be able to shatter the katana either, those damn things are surprisingly tough.


I still say it is too close to call.


Well, Im not a swordsman, but Ive seen and handled both types of swords.
Not the genuine articles, but battle-worthy replicas.
The English longswords was 15 pounds of steel, and rather heavy, but not as heavy as a broadsword, or Hand-and-a-half "Bastard sword".

The blade alone on the katana is probably under three pounds of steel.
While folded many many more times, its still much thinner than the longsword.
Metal resilience aside, i would think its a matter of weight.
15 pounds of edged steel, coming down upon a thinner, three or four pound edged blade, just seems to have "shattered katana" all over it.

Of course, it really depends on the kind of weapon used.
But for sake of arguement, lets assume Katana- vs- Longsword...

Cuz no matter what kind of armor youre wearing, one good solid smash from any kind of polearm weapon, and your chest is all nice and caved in.

I have read too many long threads today (so apologies if this has already been suggested) but I will say this....A ninja would come along & kick the arse of the survivor.


No..the ninja would be waiting in the survivors privvy for three days, lying in wait, neck deep in human shit, waiting for the owner to sit down, and then he would disembowel him.


Thats what assassins do.

Beautifully put <applauds>

Well, Im not a swordsman, but Ive seen and handled both types of swords.
Not the genuine articles, but battle-worthy replicas.
The English longswords was 15 pounds of steel, and rather heavy, but not as heavy as a broadsword, or Hand-and-a-half "Bastard sword".

15lbs??!

I don't know what kind of swords you have been handling mate, but you're totally out of the ball park with those kind of weights. Those "battle-worthy replicas" are nothing of the sort. My one as seen below (the bottom sword. It is a 15th Century Hand and a Half, the upper sword weighs 2lb 8oz.) weighs 3lbs 6oz.

http://img355.imageshack.us/img355/3209/dscf10973cw.jpg

As quoted in a book of mine by the late Ewart Oakeshott, a leading collector and academic in the field of arms and armour:

"Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half 'war' swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs. Such weights, to men who were trained to use the sword from the age of seven (and who had to be tough specimens to survive that age) , were by no means too great to be practical."(Oakeshott, Sword in Hand, p. 13).

For well made replicas, visit these sites for weights:

http://www.atrimasa.com/WesternSwords.html

http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/swords-albion-mark-nextgen.htm#Hand-and-a-half

http://www.armor.com/swords.html

Even a quick cursory glance at those will disprove that theory of 15lb swords.

As for the real things, even the large Zweihanders did not weigh that much as proven by a large selection weighed and measured in this article.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

As for shorter swords, their weights varied between 2lbs and 4lbs. Hell there is a single hand arming sword in the Wallace collection in London that weighs 1lb 8oz!! Below are a few swiss swords for example.

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/swiss-swords.html

Larger swords weighed around the 3-4lb mark as can be seen here:

http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxiii.html

A good essay on the subject is found here:

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

The blade alone on the katana is probably under three pounds of steel.
While folded many many more times, its still much thinner than the longsword.
Metal resilience aside, i would think its a matter of weight.
15 pounds of edged steel, coming down upon a thinner, three or four pound edged blade, just seems to have "shattered katana" all over it.

This is also untrue, a Katana will have a thicker blade cross section than a double edged longsword because it only has to have one blade edge.

¦ ¦
\/

will be thicker than a diamond shaped cross section.

/\
\/



It won't be a heavier blade simply because on average the blades were shorter, however, weights were comparable.

The English longswords was 15 pounds of steel, and rather heavy, but not as heavy as a broadsword, or Hand-and-a-half "Bastard sword".

Maybe if you tie 12 pounds of crack to it.

A broadsword is a refinement of the arming sword and weighs similar, roughly 2.5-3.5lbs.

A longsword or a hand and a half sword adds another pound or so.

A katana is a variety of longsword and falls well within that weight class.

Got it? :D

Well, Im not a swordsman, but Ive seen and handled both types of swords.
Not the genuine articles, but battle-worthy replicas.
The English longswords was 15 pounds of steel, and rather heavy, but not as heavy as a broadsword, or Hand-and-a-half "Bastard sword".

What the...?

A 171cm German Zweihander weighs 3.6kg. That's not even 8 pounds, and it's just over 6 feet in total length.

A katana wouldn't even be able to block a hit from a bastard sword.

And how good are katana's at cutting through metal?

A katana wouldn't even be able to block a hit from a bastard sword.

And how good are katana's at cutting through metal?


But thats the whole point, you don't block (with either the knightly sword nor the Katana), you deflect and move, and a Katana is easily capable of deflecting a cut or a thrust. Besides, a Kat would be able to block a hit, no problem. Steel is steel and will flex and bend if treated properly. The whole shattered Kat myth is as daft as the 15lb broadsword myth.


As for the second question, I have no idea how good they are at cutting into tempered and hardend steel plate, however, tests against maille have shown that due to the draw cut technique that a Katana is primairily used with, that it does not cut through it, as would be expected.

Have a read through these threads for a little more info:

Sword Cutting - The Basics (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=49143&highlight=katana+cutting+iron)

A little thread about armour penetration and the myth of the longbow (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=27946&highlight=katana+cutting+iron)

And what a modern broadsword replica can do to a 55 gal. oil drum (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=37020&highlight=Atrim+drum)

As for the second question, I have no idea how good they are at cutting into tempered and hardend steel plate, however, tests against maille have shown that due to the draw cut technique that a Katana is primairily used with, that it does not cut through it, as would be expected.

Which is why no samurai in their right mind would use a katana against an armored foe. You used your tanto or spear or... etc. You used your katana to take your enemy's head AFTER you wounded him enough that he stopped fighting.

As we've both pointed out on this thread... how many times now?

BTW, the point of a katana is good enough to actually stab through plate, depending on the thickness, however, as you pointed out, that wasn't how it was actually used and doing so would be a dumb ass move.

They work really well on watermellons though. I've seen demonstrations of that and they cut watermellons like there's no tomorrow. :D

Which is why no samurai in their right mind would use a katana against an armored foe. You used your tanto or spear or... etc. You used your katana to take your enemy's head AFTER you wounded him enough that he stopped fighting.

BTW, the point of a katana is good enough to actually stab through plate, depending on the thickness, however, as you pointed out, that wasn't how it was actually used and doing so would be a dumb ass move.

Depends on the point according to a smith I've met, but yeah it can. Although I really wouldn't want to, as even polearms and axes struggle getting through 18 gauge plate.

But as you said, save it for the coupe de gras :D


As we've both pointed out on this thread... how many times now?

They work really well on watermellons though. I've seen demonstrations of that and they cut watermellons like there's no tomorrow. :D

Yeah, well some people like to live with the myths. And some people like us just have to keep going to get the truth heard.

It's just semantics, mostly, katana is used both as a generic term for all longsword sized curved Japanese swords and more specifically to refer to the style of blade that superceded the tachi, c. 1450.

actually a katana is an eastern longsword approximately 2 shaku in length (around 30") that is worn blade-up through a sash. if it doesn't meet any of these facters it's not a katana.

(Sorry for the recent non-participation, been busy).

Good question re the katana. (I think I made an aside re that in an earlier post, but am not sure.)

Just to add a bit to what some have said, and to clear up the odd ends:

Nihonto (Japanese swords) are classified by blade length tip to munemachi. If it's under 1 shaku (1 shaku=30.3 cm), it's a tanto, 1-2 and it's a shoto, and 2+ it's a daito. Daito include tachi, uchigatana, and katana. The tachi were longer and more curved. Tachi usually were around 75-80 cm and uchigatana and katana are around 10 cm shorter.

And just to bother Shattered Shield, what about the handachi (an uchigatana or katana blade worn in tachi mountings)? :p

Preliminary judgement:

Samurai - agility and speed afforded by lighter armor trumps the knight. The knight is too slow and burdened by his armor to deliver a fast enough swing to catch the samurai off-guard. Most importantly, however, the katana (Japanese sword for you uncultured folks) is so hardened (most folded sword in the word to date) that the knight's armor affords relatively little protection against a direct thrust. Ultimately, the knight's advantage becomes his disadvantage.

You guys are bloody idiots! anyone who says that the euro knight is slow and cumbersome has never worn a real suit of armor and is stupid and any one who says that you should thrust with a katana is even dumber then said idiot above. A katana is a cutting weapon. it is very sharp but that dosent mean you wanna go around hitting things with it. ever try to cut an aluminum plate with a scalpel? It dosen't work too well similarly if you strike a thick plate of metal with with a katana it dosent work too well. and another thing If a samuri brekes the code of bushido he would have to commit supoko. (A form of suicide.) this means no striking from the back.

Upon further examination of the presented evidence:

Knight defeats Samurai, unless Samurai gets a lucky shot. Learn something every day :)

You guys are bloody idiots! anyone who says that the euro knight is slow and cumbersome has never worn a real suit of armor and is stupid and any one who says that you should thrust with a katana is even dumber then said idiot above. A katana is a cutting weapon. it is very sharp but that dosent mean you wanna go around hitting things with it. ever try to cut an aluminum plate with a scalpel? It dosen't work too well similarly if you strike a thick plate of metal with with a katana it dosent work too well. and another thing If a samuri brekes the code of bushido he would have to commit supoko. (A form of suicide.) this means no striking from the back.

Right, for starters, quit with the generalisation about us all being idiots. Many of us here are trying to get the same message across, about the weight of European armour, the use of a Katana etc.

But, ffs, stop with the no hitting on back bushido crap. Any warrior worth his salt would use a weakness or lack of movement by his opponent to his advantage, samurai or knight no matter.

Yes, a truly honourable Samurai (and they were not all honourable, they were normal people same as everyone else) might seek out an opponent and attack from there, but in the midst of combat, you would take any chance offered.

The same with the 'always commit suicide if they lost, get captured' bla bla bla. It may be that it happened frequently, but still, even in japanese Samurai culture (see 'The Seven Samurai' by Kurosawa for example), there are Samurai who have survived battles by running or hiding.

You guys are bloody idiots! anyone who says that the euro knight is slow and cumbersome has never worn a real suit of armor and is stupid and any one who says that you should thrust with a katana is even dumber then said idiot above. A katana is a cutting weapon. it is very sharp but that dosent mean you wanna go around hitting things with it. ever try to cut an aluminum plate with a scalpel? It dosen't work too well similarly if you strike a thick plate of metal with with a katana it dosent work too well. and another thing If a samuri brekes the code of bushido he would have to commit supoko. (A form of suicide.) this means no striking from the back.
*twitch... twitch... twitch...*
Ignoring for a second that the whole bushido is more or less made up from the whole cloth (like knights and the knightly code of honor)...

They were samurai　侍　(さむらい), NOT samuri (though strangely enough, you came close to the Japanese word for cold, samui).

They (sometimes) commited seppuku　切腹　(せっぷく), NOT supoko (but you got it close to how spork is pronouced).

PLEASE at least spell them right!

actually a katana is an eastern longsword approximately 2 shaku in length (around 30") that is worn blade-up through a sash. if it doesn't meet any of these facters it's not a katana.

In common everyday English and Japanese usage however... ;)

In common everyday English and Japanese usage however... ;)

anyone who uses the term katana as a reference to any old eastern style sword is an idiot. (and there's a lot of em everywhere)

And just to bother Shattered Shield, what about the handachi (an uchigatana or katana blade worn in tachi mountings)?

as far as i know, they’re not technically katanas (it's suspended by cords, not placed in a sash)
if that’s what you were referring to

You guys are bloody idiots! anyone who says that the euro knight is slow and cumbersome has never worn a real suit of armor and is stupid and any one who says that you should thrust with a katana is even dumber then said idiot above. A katana is a cutting weapon. it is very sharp but that dosent mean you wanna go around hitting things with it. ever try to cut an aluminum plate with a scalpel? It dosen't work too well similarly if you strike a thick plate of metal with with a katana it dosent work too well. and another thing If a samuri brekes the code of bushido he would have to commit supoko. (A form of suicide.) this means no striking from the back.

Okay, not all knights are armoured and on horseback - most of them weren't, and appointed knights. 'Knight' is a title, not a real form of warrior on horseback in armour. Anybody can be a knight and not look like one, it's a title. It's simply that they are usually associated with the chivalry and bravery, hence the 'Knight'.

Secondly, the 'Katana' in the terms of what most people see, is possibly the strongest sword created known to date created without machinery, while the knights during the period on which they were their strongest still had to purchase most of their metalworks from the Islamic Empire.

Bushido is not the code of Samurai in battle - it's the code of social interaction. It truly simply is a set of laws that Samurai are to act around civilians, and prisoners of war, not actual enemy soldiers. A Samurai is actually allowed to use many tactics to stop their foe.

Seppuku is not the form of simply suicide. It is ritual cleansing of humiliation, meaning as by Samurai work on an honour system. When they are almost dvoid of honour (not when they simply lose), they are given the option to kill themselves in a certain ritual to avoid the shame of the loss of all honour. Simply losing a battle or relying on a cheap shot would not result in Seppuku.

Secondly, the 'Katana' in the terms of what most people see, is possibly the strongest sword created known to date created without machinery, while the knights during the period on which they were their strongest still had to purchase most of their metalworks from the Islamic Empire.

How do you define strongest?

It had a soft back and a hard cutting blade. It would bend and flex like any other sword.

Viking pattern welded swords used the same technology as a katana in terms of the steel, so could be argued as equally strong. As long as steel is well tempered and heat treated, it will be able to cope with flex and contact as well as any other, hence a Katana is no stronger nor less strong than any well tempered blade.

And as for your second idea, the export of swords frequently went in the other direction as hundreds of swords with european blades were sent to northern africa and the middle east. The Royal Armouries in Leeds, MyArmoury.com and other websites have many examples of such swords. Middle eastern swords were virtually never used in Europe as their curved style was of next to no use against western armour, however their export as treasures and gifts was not unknown. However, sabres in the Balkans and the middle east frequently over lapped in fields of influence.

anyone who uses the term katana as a reference to any old eastern style sword is an idiot. (and there's a lot of em everywhere)
Of course, technically, katana (刀) just means 'sword'. I understand the point you're making that calling individual styles of swords a katana is wrong, but that's what the word means.

Of course, technically, katana (刀) just means 'sword'. I understand the point you're making that calling individual styles of swords a katana is wrong, but that's what the word means.

I thought the Japanese for sword was 'to' as 'Nihon-to' means 'Japanese-sword'.

Either that or 'Ken', as 'Shinken' as it means 'Real(as in made in Japan)-sword'

EDIT: That said, i've just read this thread, which clears up the terminology somewhat.

LINK (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=60313&highlight=Katana+Meaning)

So many words. Wish the english language was capable of expressing them all.

I thought the Japanese for sword was 'to' as 'Nihon-to' means 'Japanese-sword'.
Ah, the joys of Japanese. In this case though, the kanji for katana 刀 IS 'sword' (or blade). 日本刀, or as you say it, Nihontou, uses the same kanji, but has a different pronunciation. Japanese does that, just to be annoying.

In any case, the difference would be the same between saying, for example, Sword vs English Sword vs Hand-and-a-half sword. Sword appears in all three cases, but one is the general overall catagory, one is a catagory for all blades made in England, and one is a specific type of blade. Japanese just has to make life difficult by changing the reading of the kanji used instead of just always saying sword.

Ah, the joys of Japanese. In this case though, the kanji for katana 刀 IS 'sword' (or blade). 日本刀, or as you say it, Nihontou, uses the same kanji, but has a different pronunciation. Japanese does that, just to be annoying.

In any case, the difference would be the same between saying, for example, Sword vs English Sword vs Hand-and-a-half sword. Sword appears in all three cases, but one is the general overall catagory, one is a catagory for all blades made in England, and one is a specific type of blade. Japanese just has to make life difficult by changing the reading of the kanji used instead of just always saying sword.

Fair enough :)

MWHAHAHA, the thread is back!

Now, i know other people have expressed their views on this, but i would like to share mine.
With Armour~
Knight would probably win in a straight sword fight. But if other weapons were brought into the equation (eg Naginata, spear, yari, glaive, etc) I believe it would be an even fight and rely on the individual's skill with their chosen weapon, since these weapons were not generally their first choice (and before anyone flames me about it, I know it was first choice for some, but i'm generalizing for entire community)

Without Armour~
Samurai would win in a straight sword fight. I believe the training of a samurai in an unarmoured situation would probably be better than a knights. (I know people have said that knights were trained in unarmoured as well, and i know this, I'm saying i believe Samurai would have been trained better) If other wewapons were brought into the equation, i think it would again be a pretty even fight.

Now, if it was a Hide and Seek affair, i believe the Samurai would have an advantage, if nothing else because his armour is not as loud, or bright as the knights.

And I'm glad someone finally brought up the Bushido is a social thing. Though it was used at the start of battles, during battle, all bets where off, and anything went.

Ah, the joys of Japanese. In this case though, the kanji for katana 刀 IS 'sword' (or blade). 日本刀, or as you say it, Nihontou, uses the same kanji, but has a different pronunciation. Japanese does that, just to be annoying.

I messed up the Quote thing ^^ NERVUN's^^

I am going to be learning Japanese in the near future. It has been somewaht of a dream for me to learn the language, because the nuances in it are much more precise than waht can be used in English.

All in all, i enjoy learning about Asian culture, and this thread is a very informed discussion! YAY for people that know waht they are talking about!:D