View Full Version : Knights or Samurai?
Silverdragon
11-12-2005, 07:54 PM
I've recently been watching much of the "Crusades" series on the history channel as well as doing research on medieval ways of war. It seems that there is much debate on the topic of who would win a fight, knight or samurai? There are strengths as well as weaknesses on both sides but I cannot make up my mind which would acctually win a melee. I have taken into account that this is debated in places all over the net. But, I just wanted to know what the people here at NF think. Discuss.
Brant Kogasu
11-12-2005, 08:09 PM
hmm... Samurai for sure. I think that is going to be the general census in this forum. But there is a reason besides the fact that samurai are god no matter what you say. They make up for having light armor with great speed and presision. If it was a sword fight, the samurai would run circles around the knight because he would have both a heavy sword and heavy armor.
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 08:20 PM
I would have to vote Samurai as well. Not because I love Samurai like I do, but they are better equiped. Knights use the large full blades that, though are very damaging and useful, are slow. Knights are also used to fighting only others with the same weapons as them sword wise. For a samurai who uses a light weight weapon like a katana that can just equally as well if not to a degree better, it would give them a huge upper hand. Also, the thinness of the Katana would allow it to slid through all of the parts within the body that the armor does not cover, and can stab into the slits within the helmet at the head. Samurai armor (depending on the clan) is also more light weight to get around a Knights moves easier.
Also, if you fight one of the rare samurai which use both Katana and Wakazashi, the Knight won't have little hope unless they gain a lucky shot in with their blade. The Knights Full blade coulld however definatly help decide the fight if a powerful enough blow is landed. But through odds, Samurai would have a much better chance in winning. Also can't forget that most Samurai are trained to use a boy very well also, giving them ranged advantage.
Like, knights from which country? And which variations of knights?
Silverdragon
11-12-2005, 08:33 PM
hmm... Samurai for sure. I think that is going to be the general census in this forum. But there is a reason besides the fact that samurai are god no matter what you say. They make up for having light armor with great speed and presision. If it was a sword fight, the samurai would run circles around the knight because he would have both a heavy sword and heavy armor.
Katanas would most likely not be able to match a knights armor, at least from what I see. Knights have heavy swords because in my sense, (aside from a thrust) they are used like hammers to batter other knights armor rather than slice it; and a katana is a slicing sword..so im not sure how well it would stand up to plate armor. In a general history book I read while doing reaserch I found that european armor was used in isolated incidents by Japanese warlords...Maybe there is an advantage to them in that sort of situation? I'm not really looking for "oh a samurai because they are cool and they kill everything!" I just want to discuss facts.
I'm not really looking for "oh a samurai because they are cool and they kill everything!"
Same here.
I go for knights, mostly because they got horses and shit.
edit: if this actually is a fight, it belongs in the OB
monk3
11-12-2005, 08:37 PM
Knights because they have a variety of weaponry as well as training in different types of combat. They have war horses that can trample people. and overall i like them better
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 08:41 PM
Same here.
I go for knights, mostly because they got horses and shit.
Samurai were well known for riding horse back. Thanks to the japanese classes I am taking, we are just starting to learn on Samurai as I add it to knowledge I looked up on own free time. They are trained to be able to command a horse, and fight atop of it (normally with a bow and arrow while their katana is kept sheathed, but at their side if they are dismounted or in need to get off).
Also, though it may not be able to slice through a nights armor right away, the speeed at which as Samurai, who is well trained with their weapon could more ten likely move around a Knight with easy due to the heavy weaponry and armor a Knight has on. This gives them the ability to deliever more cuts and slashes then a knight would.
Though it does also depend on the Samurai and Samurai clan. Some clans used Kabuki like armor, having a demonic or artistic style mask to install fear into those they fought, giving them hesitation before striking. It was also used as a means so that the emotion of the Samurai could not be read to judge where they would be attacking. Though this is true for a knight with their helms, the slowness of their attack speed vs. a Samurai who is used to fighting with more quicker traveling blades should be able to second guess things easier (More so if they know the actual Battoujutsu style used by certain Samurai).
Final note for now, due to the light armor most Samurai where, they can tumble and roll out of the way of alot of attacks, or roll into them. That is somthing that a Knight would not be prepared for.
Edit: Also, to the recent comment, Samurai had war horses as well. The level of samurai normally depended on the horse, but more of the time they picked speed of equiping a horse with a load of Armor. Samurai also have a variety of training with various blades (Kodachi, Wakazashi, Tanto). This gives them the ability to judge just about any length of blade in the terms of how well they move, strike, and effect. A knights sword is also similar to a Zambatou, which was used to get horse riders off mostly. This gives them a realtivly good judgement on a Knights Blade in attack speed and strength right off the back.
SSJLance
11-12-2005, 08:43 PM
Samurai used horses too. They have nodachi which were used to cut down horsemen. It depends though, if the samurai is able to cut through to a part where the armor isn't covering (joints or something) then the samurai could win, but a knight has larger swords wich would crush a samurai.
Even if they're on horseback, the arrows and whatnot prolly wouldn't pierce through that heavy of plate mail.
As for the demonic thing, take a typical Christian Fanatic Knight. I don't think he'll be hesitant to strike down a "servant of the devil"
Light armor...hmm, the knight could chase down the samurai horse to horse and jam him with a pole axe.
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 08:54 PM
It depends as Most Knights in the time were of Christian faith I believe It would more then likely startle them more then anything. Or it would cause them as you said to think to "strike down a servent of the devil" which if they are overly of chrisitan faith cause them to begin to have very rash judgement when it comes to things, and cause them to loose a sense of logic.
If you bring about the fact of the Lance against the samurai, it depends. Once more most Samurai Horses were not weighed down by armor and equipment as much, and the light weight samurai on his horse would stand a chance of outrunning while the samurai on horseback could use his katana to strike away the Lance. If it was a one on one fight, it would be even easier.
Also on the arrows. If archers that normally faced Knights had a chance of slaying them, so could a Samurai.
It depends as Most Knights in the time were of Christian faith I believe It would more then likely startle them more then anything. Or it would cause them as you said to think to "strike down a servent of the devil" which if they are overly of chrisitan faith cause them to begin to have very rash judgement when it comes to things, and cause them to loose a sense of logic.
Rash judgement? Wanting to kill something evil doesn't necesarily mean you'll go berserk.
If you bring about the fact of the Lance against the samurai, it depends. Once more most Samurai Horses were not weighed down by armor and equipment as much, and the light weight samurai on his horse would stand a chance of outrunning while the samurai on horseback could use his katana to strike away the Lance. If it was a one on one fight, it would be even easier.
He can't strike down the lance if the knight is charging.
Also on the arrows. If archers that normally faced Knights had a chance of slaying them, so could a Samurai.
Depends, did they use the same arrows?
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 09:05 PM
Rash judgement? Wanting to kill something evil doesn't necesarily mean you'll go berserk.
Yeah but you have to remember. Unlike now, people in that time were, depending on the group or ruler, taught to be very religious. They would at times be used to kill any person who spoke a bit against the bible. There for with that type of thought in mind, it could result in their judgement being altered. Maybe not alot, but enough.
He can't strike down the lance if the knight is charging.
I didn't mean strike down. I ment that if their horse was moving faster, they would be able to at least parry the large lance that is heaving towards them. Samurai were very skilled also in turning the katana when gripped with both hands to equal the power of a knights blade.
Depends, did they use the same arrows?
I believe so but for that much I cannot be quoted. The arrows themselves I believed were forged from he head to be thin but extremely sharp as to allow for a balance within their flight and not be weighed down.
Yeah but you have to remember. Unlike now, people in that time were, depending on the group or ruler, taught to be very religious. They would at times be used to kill any person who spoke a bit against the bible. There for with that type of thought in mind, it could result in their judgement being altered. Maybe not alot, but enough.
By judgement, it was actually who they were killing, not their tactics.
I didn't mean strike down. I ment that if their horse was moving faster, they would be able to at least parry the large lance that is heaving towards them. Samurai were very skilled also in turning the katana when gripped with both hands to equal the power of a knights blade.
Even if their horse was moving faster they wouldn't have the necesary force to hit something as heavily armed as a knight.
I believe so but for that much I cannot be quoted. The arrows themselves I believed were forged from he head to be thin but extremely sharp as to allow for a balance within their flight and not be weighed down.
What kind of bows were used, what material weret he arrows made of?
GayNinja
11-12-2005, 09:19 PM
Samurai would pretty much own. First of all, they train better in martial arts and their techniques are more advanced and verstile. The knights only focus on using their large swords and fighting other knights. Keep in mind that medieval Japan was far more advanced than medieval Europe as Europeans were quite backwards in that era, which pretty much means the Japanese techniques were far more refined. Secondly, samurai and knights both use horses and the fact that they do don't mean jack shit. Knights mounted on horses are cavalry fighters and cavalry is only advantageous when engaging light infantry, such as archers, bowman and other ranged fighters. If a cavalry unit were to charge at a heavy infantry unit, such as the basic swordsman, the heavy infantry would be at an advantage because he has better maneuverability and better control of his weapon, since he can use two hands while the cavalry unit must use one hand to control his horse. Thirdly, those heavy armor you see on TV were not the typical armor knights used during battle. Those were mainly used in ceremonial processions and jousting events. Real knights wore lighter armor usually consisting of hard leather with chain mail and occasionally a heavy steel chest plate. My conclusion is that since the samurai is better trained in hand-to-hand combat, is quicker and is more ferocious than knights (samurai are taught to seek death on the battlefield and never surrender) they definitely have an edge in combat.
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 09:22 PM
By judgement, it was actually who they were killing, not their tactics.
It is still a factor that depending on the Knight could even if for a moment throw them off. And a moment of hesitation in battle can mean the end of it as Samuari are trained to take advantage of situations and environment with haste. Of course Knights can be said to do this too, but I am baseing my moment of hesistation for the very start of the fight they might have.
Even if their horse was moving faster they wouldn't have the necesary force to hit something as heavily armed as a knight.
Yes but for a Knight who is so heavily armed, if the Samurai managed to hit the largely extending Lance as the lance is to a degree farther away then the knight would be to react, striking the lance away could throw the knight off balance. And if not the Knight, the sudden weight shift even if the knight did not fall would cause the horse due to the heavy shifting to move in the said directly or fall over itself. It is a percent change, as most of this fight is based on percents.
What kind of bows were used, what material weret he arrows made of?
Mostly Bamboo, and it is common knowledge that Bamboo is extremely strong, allowing the arrow to be pulled back further.
Also on a side note, Knights depending on the time period were raised to believe that foriegn people are of much lower class then themselves. This causes their normal arrogant attitude to show that some knights possessed depending on their Ranking. This would also cause their judgement to falter. As a knight would have never seen a blade like a Katana really before or faced it in combat, their minds would quickly believe that such a thin blade could never stand to their larger weapon. In the time period it was definatly a common thought that bigger was better.
The Sheath of a Samurai being able to be used as a weapon as well also helps for striking the joints. Not alot, but everything helps. It is also easier for a Samurai to switch weaponry that they hold with them. Depending on the age of samurai and clan as well, some even carried small bombs with them into battle. So depending on the situation, yet another advantage they can have.
The knights only focus on using their large swords and fighting other knights.See "Crusades"
Keep in mind that medieval Japan was far more advanced than medieval Europe as Europeans were quite backwards in that era, which pretty much means the Japanese techniques were far more refined.
You're really giving the Knights less credit than they deserve.
Secondly, samurai and knights both use horses and the fact that they do don't mean jack shit. Knights mounted on horses are cavalry fighters and cavalry is only advantageous when engaging light infantry, such as archers, bowman and other ranged fighters.
False
Thirdly, those heavy armor you see on TV were not the typical armor knights used during battle. Those were mainly used in ceremonial processions and jousting events. Real knights wore lighter armor usually consisting of hard leather with chain mail and occasionally a heavy steel chest plate.
Ok, then that kills off the advantage in speed the Samurai had.
My conclusion is that since the samurai is better trained in hand-to-hand combat, is quicker and is more ferocious than knights (samurai are taught to seek death on the battlefield and never surrender) they definitely have an edge in combat.
The knights don't need to go hand to hand combat. Since they wear lighter armor, they can achieve greater speed, which merits higher momentum. They'll charge in faster and blow the Samurai off his horse.
It is still a factor that depending on the Knight could even if for a moment throw them off. And a moment of hesitation in battle can mean the end of it as Samuari are trained to take advantage of situations and environment with haste. Of course Knights can be said to do this too, but I am baseing my moment of hesistation for the very start of the fight they might have.
Samurai can't fly 10 meters in a second, sheesh. The moment of hesitation would end when the knight notices the samurai charging in.
Yes but for a Knight who is so heavily armed, if the Samurai managed to hit the largely extending Lance as the lance is to a degree farther away then the knight would be to react, striking the lance away could throw the knight off balance. And if not the Knight, the sudden weight shift even if the knight did not fall would cause the horse due to the heavy shifting to move in the said directly or fall over itself. It is a percent change, as most of this fight is based on percents.
Alright, I don't want to get into momentum and inertia because I suck at science, but if the knight is going in quickly, it would be difficult to stop the lance moving at high speeds.
Mostly Bamboo, and it is common knowledge that Bamboo is extremely strong, allowing the arrow to be pulled back further.
I've never known bamboo to pierce steel and iron.
Also on a side note, Knights depending on the time period were raised to believe that foriegn people are of much lower class then themselves. This causes their normal arrogant attitude to show that some knights possessed depending on their Ranking. This would also cause their judgement to falter. As a knight would have never seen a blade like a Katana really before or faced it in combat, their minds would quickly believe that such a thin blade could never stand to their larger weapon. In the time period it was definatly a common thought that bigger was better.
Since when was that? Or perhaps the Samurai would think so as well.
The Sheath of a Samurai being able to be used as a weapon as well also helps for striking the joints. Not alot, but everything helps. It is also easier for a Samurai to switch weaponry that they hold with them. Depending on the age of samurai and clan as well, some even carried small bombs with them into battle. So depending on the situation, yet another advantage they can have.
I think I made this pretty clear. The knight would be charging....you know the rest.
Edit: oh right, I give up. I'm terrible at long arguements with
Quote
Answer
Quote
Answer
So I'll concede the debate to you.
TheChoji
11-12-2005, 09:35 PM
The Japanese were the finest swordsmiths in the world in the Medival ages. They are faster in a fight, and also use fear in their tatics. A knight is proposed to have a horse at all times. Both can use spears and projectiles. This would be a hard one, but I think samarias have more of an advantage due to their training and discipline.
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 09:36 PM
Your changing things around a bit to much. What you need to do is state more on how the two are actually fighting. If pure horse back, or if on land. If a knight wears the chainmail which I must admit I forgot about, they are still placed at an advantage due to the weight that their blade is. It still decreases their rate of attack when fighting a Samurai on land. And with the heavier armor if you take that out, even easier for the Samurai to slice and or cut into the knight in question. This is more so if the knight is not wearing a helm. As Gay Ninja said, Samurai are given the seek out death in the battlefield and would waste no time to attack any visible weak spot. If the knight Missed with their large blade, and the Samurai being in close range, it would be over as the time it would take to recover from their slash, sideways or straight down (straight down making this statement even more true), the Samurai would have found their way to the knight for decapitation or a stab into the throat. Or any other given slash to the body.
You also have to take into account Disarming. It would be much easier for a Samurai to disarm a Knight with either their sheath or blade. If the Knight is Disarmed, it is more or less game over.
Oh, if it's straight land combat, then Samurai wins, definitely.
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 10:03 PM
Yeah, That was my major point on straight land combat.
Horse Back would be much more difficult as Knights from what I believe are trained heavily for horses. But Samurai have been as well, more so someone who would be considered their Lords Right Hand Man. So it depends.
Unless you have a Grand Theft Horse Samurai that decides to go Kamazaki and try to jump tackle the knight off his horse to MAKE IT a land combat. That would be interesting.
Unless you have a Grand Theft Horse Samurai that decides to go Kamazaki and try to jump tackle the knight off his horse to MAKE IT a land combat. That would be interesting.
Oh come on, the knight would either skewer the Samurai for an air frag or the Samurai would just tackle air.
ShadelessNyght
11-12-2005, 10:11 PM
I ment it as a Joke. I doubt any samurai would be that Stupid. Though I don't know about you but if I did see some foreign dude about to do that to me and I was a night, my mind would be going more "o_o wtf?" then it would "YAR! NOWS MY CHANCE!"
Wing-Zero
11-12-2005, 11:29 PM
samurais PWN cause they have katana's so yeah i would go for samurai
earthshine
11-12-2005, 11:31 PM
all depends on the person, i am sure there are knights that can easily take a samurai, and the other way around, all depends on the individuals skill
ichinii30
11-12-2005, 11:36 PM
knights had better armour, and one-handed swords, which allow for more speed. They are also more used to fighting horseback because of practice jousting etc. Samurais had lighter armor and longer swords, but IMO it's not enough to overthrow a heavily armoured knight. Samurai's are still cool though
Haruka
11-12-2005, 11:54 PM
Even though I'm super Biased for Samurai, i would have to say knights.
Because even though I would want the Samurai to win, there is no chance. 2 very different styles that use totaly different armor.
The steel armor of Crusaders would total knock off the samurai's slicing katana. The giant broadsword would just hack into the samurai's unprotective armor. Leaving the Knight to victory.
GayNinja
11-13-2005, 01:07 AM
Samurai would own. Period. Knights came from a land with backward thinking and crude combat techniques, while the samurai represented the epitome of the skilled combat warrior. The fact that the katana is a far more superior sword than, say, a claymore should give the samurai an edge. A samurai's quick sword could easilty disarm a knight's clumsy sword. A knight's armor does not cover his entire body, there are plenty of holes for a samurai to attack, and with the precise skill of the samurai, killing a knight would be no problem. And by the way Organizedcrime, try providing more evidence when refuting other people's comments instead of simply typing "false". That really isn't too convincing. Heavy infantry does have the upperhand against cavalry, and that is a fact.
BushidoPunk
11-13-2005, 01:11 AM
What kind of knight? A Black Knight? If we're talking about that kind of knight, then a Samurai wouldn't have a chance in hell. You could can cut off a black knight's limbs and he'll still come at you and taunt you by saying "Tis' but a scratch" and "Its just a flesh wound."
Yeah, Black Knight wins by default.
Haruka
11-13-2005, 01:14 AM
Samurai would own. Period. Knights came from a land with backward thinking and crude combat techniques, while the samurai represented the epitome of the skilled combat warrior. The fact that the katana is a far more superior sword than, say, a claymore should give the samurai an edge. A samurai's quick sword could easilty disarm a knight's clumsy sword. A knight's armor does not cover his entire body, there are plenty of holes for a samurai to attack, and with the precise skill of the samurai, killing a knight would be no problem. And by the way Organizedcrime, try providing more evidence when refuting other people's comments instead of simply typing "false". That really isn't too convincing. Heavy infantry does have the upperhand against cavalry, and that is a fact.
Wow man, your post is so biased I can't even take it anymore.
You haven't even listed off the cons of the Samurai.
TheChoji
11-13-2005, 01:15 AM
knights had better armour, and one-handed swords, which allow for more speed. They are also more used to fighting horseback because of practice jousting etc. Samurais had lighter armor and longer swords, but IMO it's not enough to overthrow a heavily armoured knight. Samurai's are still cool though
They can use other weapons though. The samaria isn't comfined to the katana and wazatashi (....:S ). I'm pretty sure they can use bows and spears, too. Katanas are cooler though :cool .
ShangDOh
11-13-2005, 01:47 AM
Depends on how wealthy the Knight or Samurai was, contrary to popular belief, most Knights and Samurai were not equipped with the fanciest weapons and best armor, but I would have to give this to the knights, in general they had much heavier armor that even the best katana would have trouble penetrating.
earthshine
11-13-2005, 01:55 AM
this dont matter, as anybody with a modern gun>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a samurai and a knight at the same time
DragonHeart52
11-13-2005, 02:43 AM
Heavier armour would slow movement. The knights didn't ride feisty race horses. Their horses were closer to today's draft horses in order to support the weight of the knight and his armour. There are numerous joints in that heavy armour, all open to attack. Plus, as was already pointed out, samurai could use small bombs. Gunpowder was known in the Orient before it made it's way to the West.
I don't believe the knight's training was as rigorous as that of the Samurai. The cultural views on the value of life and one's duty are enough to psychologically tip the scales in favor of the Samurai and psychology is as much a part of any battle as any other weapon.
I fail to see why a knight charging with heavier armour on a larger slower moving horse would present a danger to a mounted Samurai. How many of you have actually ridden a horse regularly and not in something like a ring competition? The larger horse might have an advantage if one was cornered by it, but not necessarily otherwise. A smaller horse or one of equal size would be more manueverable.
In all this discussion, why isn't the issue of just shooting the horse out from under the knight addressed? If you can't kill the man, kill his advantage. Put the arrow through the horse. Then take him in a land fight. It's not that hard, guys, and I'm surprised you overlooked that possibility.
Samurai for the win.
neko-sennin
11-13-2005, 03:29 AM
In most eras, I'd say samurai. Based on what I have read, their training involved more precision and agility than most heavy-armored folk. And that plate armor might not be as much of an advantage as some think. The Japanese *invented* tungsten-carbide steel, and I've heard of the *good* katana blades taking the barrel off a water-cooled machine-gun in a demonstration. I wouldn't be surprised if a descent katana could cleave a typical broad-sword. Then the guy's head with the next swing. End of battle.
At least that's my take on it.
NOTE: When I first saw this thread, I thought it was going to be debate about Western chivalry vs Bushido code, but this is cool.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg
evil_kenshin
11-13-2005, 03:33 AM
a samurai most likely considering the weight of armour knights used
The Space Cowboy
11-13-2005, 03:55 AM
Are we talking single knight and single samurai?
Then I give it to the knight.
Why you ask?
1) Most knights were very big, well nourished people. I'm 6'1, 175 lbs, and a dwarf next to Henry the 8th's armor (He was chunky but also pretty dang big). Anyone who tells you size doesn't matter in non-firearm combat is lying.
2) They weren't as slow as you'd think. Full plate only weighed about 60 lbs. That could be considered heavy, but we're talking about someone who is capable of practically living a normal life while wearing it. The weight is also distributed over the entire body--like a lead tracksuit. After a while you'd get used to it. Modern soldiers carry more.
3) Armorwise the knights have an -undeniable- advantage.
Compared to a European broadsword, a katana is a very light weapon. Yes you can strike quickly, but it's lower mass means the penetrating power is greatly reduced--and the concussive force of the blow is less due to the blade having less inertia. European knights went to using warhammers and maces because improvements in armor rendered the cutting and stabbing movements of the sword pretty ineffective against armored opponents.
Later European plate armor was also effective to a great extent against the earlier firearms, and bows
To present the opposite side: The Segmented armor worn by Samurai probably would confer a speed and mobility advantage over the armor worn by the knight, except that against a war-hammer or mace, it'd be pretty useless.
After the Mongols, I believe the Samurai went to sword and spear in much the same way the Europeans went to pikes and Arquebusiers.
So now you have Light Calvary/Light Infantry vs. heavy cavalry/heavy infantry. Give him a bow if you want. I still don't think it'll tip the scales in favor of the Samurai.
And yes. Either party can plausibly win. I just find the knight more likely to walk away from this one alive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor#Plate_armour
neko-sennin
11-13-2005, 04:07 AM
I'm not saying the knight *couldn't* win, only that I *believe* the samurai would win.
By the way, if even a very strong man misses with a battle-axe or a war hammer, he's wide open.
There should have been a poll for this.
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/scoot_the_koan/osaka_power_v2_01.jpg
Chamcham Trigger
11-13-2005, 05:17 AM
Is anyone considering strategy in this battle between knights and samurai? I think that the samurai had a slight upper hand in that area since japan imported ideas from china's book "the art of war" one of the greatest strategy books of all time.
Kateryu
11-13-2005, 07:55 AM
What kind of knight? A Black Knight? If we're talking about that kind of knight, then a Samurai wouldn't have a chance in hell. You could can cut off a black knight's limbs and he'll still come at you and taunt you by saying "Tis' but a scratch" and "Its just a flesh wound."
Yeah, Black Knight wins by default.
lol, that's great! I think this needed that.
Earlier it was pointed out that knights didn't really wear the full plate armor often, and I don't think that fact was given enough credit. It's true- full plate armor was very expensive, even for knights, and it wasn't entirely practical. It was also used more during the renessaince (sorry for sp).
I'd also hae to agree with Kickero in the size of knights and their strength. They were much bigger than the Samurai, and could take more hits and such. The Japanese were, and still are, much smaller than Europians. Not to mention, though the Samurai trained more than most knights (I would say there are still exceptions to that, like the Gremanic mercinary knights), the knights were used to more actual labor. Though both were nobility, the Samurai were wealthier than most of the knights, and so the samurai had one job- to protect their lord. Most knights still had to work their own farms to some extent.
Now, don't get me wrong, I still love Samurai, and I think that their techneque is something to remember. In fact, I think on the ground, one on one, Samurai would probably still win. But give them horses, or in the terms of an actual strategic battle, I think the the knights would own. They had better battle tech.
AssFace
11-13-2005, 08:29 AM
Knights have more brute power, but I think samurai's have better techniques and speed back then. On horse knights would win because of the lenght and power advantage, on feet i think speed and technique can overcome the knights brute strenght.
But in the end it won't matter because a ninja would just pop out of nowhere, flips out and kills both of them for being such retards.
Kateryu
11-13-2005, 08:35 AM
Knights have more brute power, but I think samurai's have better techniques and speed back then. On horse knights would win because of the lenght and power advantage, on feet i think speed and technique can overcome the knights brute strenght.
But in the end it won't matter because a ninja would just pop out of nowhere, flips out and kills both of them for being such retards.
lol. Then maybe a wizard shows up and frys them all... and takes over the world!!! Muahahahaa!!!!!
HollowDreamer
11-13-2005, 08:58 AM
I would have to go with Samurai with there variety of weapons such as the long bow the naginata the spear and there two handed sword combat with the katana and wakizashi if thats how you spell it Samurai had the upper hand with there light armor and there speed and superior tactics and the dicipline of there weapons while the Knights just try to swing a sword around to hit you Knights had a variety of weapons the mace the one or three balled spiked flail a crossbow and another variety even though the Knight would have such a variety in weapons it would make no difference against a Samurai and his tactics.
And by the way Organizedcrime, try providing more evidence when refuting other people's comments instead of simply typing "false". That really isn't too convincing. Heavy infantry does have the upperhand against cavalry, and that is a fact.
Where did I type "false" and besides, I don't recall saying that cavalry has an upper hand, unless it was a mistake, or I was in a drunken stupor. If that was the case, then I retract that statement.
I would have to go with Samurai with there variety of weapons such as the long bow the naginata the spear and there two handed sword combat with the katana and wakizashi if thats how you spell it Samurai had the upper hand with there light armor and there speed and superior tactics and the dicipline of there weapons while the Knights just try to swing a sword around to hit you Knights had a variety of weapons the mace the one or three balled spiked flail a crossbow and another variety even though the Knight would have such a variety in weapons it would make no difference against a Samurai and his tactics.
Yeesh, don't say that. You said the Samurai has a variety of weapons and so does a Knight, but the Samurai would win because of tactics. Knights weren't dumbasses, you know.
lol. Then maybe a wizard shows up and frys them all... and takes over the world!!! Muahahahaa!!!!!
Yeah, a scottish wizard that can summon fires :cool
Uhh, as how I see it, the only way a knight could win on foot is by gettting lucky with a flail. It either smashes the Samurai's head on a random swing, or it gets tangled up with the sword, they grapple, and the knight using brute force could win. But that is with really good luck. Like others said, there are a fair amount of joint that the Samurai could stab because of his speed. Now, however, if the Knight has even more armor and somehow gets the katana suck in there, he could somehow snap it, though that's very absurd.
AssFace
11-13-2005, 06:03 PM
^I think samurai's keep a variety of weapons on them since they use knives ,wazibusha or w/e, which is easily carried and samurai's has better techniques with these weapons. Some samurais even carry guns......so that's kind of hard to take despite thier armor.
Knights usually carry one main weapon with them. I mean medival weapons are heavy as hell, let's not forget some of them wear heavy armor too. Can you imagine a knight carrying a spear and a sword? That is crazy. Samurais carry like knives, katana's, shurikens and shit witht them.
Avenger2112
11-13-2005, 06:41 PM
if the knight had a balista he would win, if not the samuri would win.
^I think samurai's keep a variety of weapons on them since they use knives ,wazibusha or w/e, which is easily carried and samurai's has better techniques with these weapons. Some samurais even carry guns......so that's kind of hard to take despite thier armor.
If they can carry that many weapons, they must be light = they can't tear through plate mail.
Knights usually carry one main weapon with them. I mean medival weapons are heavy as hell, let's not forget some of them wear heavy armor too. Can you imagine a knight carrying a spear and a sword? That is crazy. Samurais carry like knives, katana's, shurikens and shit witht them.
One stroke from that one weapon is enough to slash through a Samurai's gear. Knights also have hammers, maces "and shit" and it's likely that one hit from any of those would take out a Samurai.
somnus nemoris
11-13-2005, 06:57 PM
Knights, i love knights. I honestly think a really skilled knight would take down a samurai, not with ease, but in the end knights would win. Pluss i have a grudge againsed samurais because everyone thinks that they are better than knights >_> lol. But in all seriousness, Knights for the win! :P
mflow
11-13-2005, 09:26 PM
I'd say a Spartan warrior would win over either of them.. You wouldn't want to mess with a Spartan..
I'd say a Spartan warrior would win over either of them.. You wouldn't want to mess with a Spartan..
Yeah because half naked > plate mail.
CrazyMoronX
11-14-2005, 04:04 PM
I don't see a video game titled "Knight Showdown"
Game over.
On a side note, I don't really know much about either, but I would side with the Knights. Bigger and stronger, better armor, and let's face it, white people are smarter than minorities. (don't take that seriously)
I think we need to time travel and put at least 10 skilled of each in a fight, to find the true answer.
The Space Cowboy
11-14-2005, 04:21 PM
I second crazymoronx's proposal. We can also have Monkey vs. Baby
BattousaiMS
11-14-2005, 04:38 PM
Both Knights and Samurai use horses so giving that advantage to knights is biased.
As for who would win in a fight mano to mano between the two? It depends, Knights are heavier equiped in armor but also much slower and are very limited to style and movements. While Samurai are light armored, much faster and use different styles of swordmanship.
In terms of weapons, knight swords and generally inferior to Samurai Katana unless they are the big broad swords like claymores which are regid enough to stand a hard blow from a katana and not break off.
It is true that Knights armor would leave them less attacking points opening, but given that the Samurais are more flexible it gives them more advantages.
So in the end the battle would be determinted by how much slower the Knight is to the Samurai, how much opening each leave themselve open, each others power and the quality of their weapons.
Over all, Samurai would be better suited for close combat or offensive unit while Knights would be better as cavalry men or a defensive unit.
NashNinja
11-14-2005, 08:16 PM
Ah yes, the age old question. Allow me to dispell some of the following myths.
-Knights had inferior training to samurai: 100% FALSE! Both knights and samurai had very similar training. Knights would begin their training in earnest as a young squire of around twelve years of age, but would have recieved minimal instruction (mostly on etiquette and disicpline) as early as age five. Knights were trained in use of several weapons, the wearing of armor, proper horsemanship, and even the European sort of martial arts, including Greco-Roman style grappling and how to disarm opponents. Also, like the Samurai code of Bushido, knights also ahered to the code of chivalry, which was intent on maintaining a knights discipline and moral values.
-Knights were much slower than samurai: Not entirely true. The idea that a typical medieval longsword was heavier than a katana is a fallacy, as both of them averaged around 3 pounds in weight. Also, while slightly heavier on average than samurai armor, a well made suit of full platemail was not as cumbersome as the Holywood stereotype, and could be moved around in with relative ease with proper training, which knights had.
-Katana > Longsword: Bzz! Wrong answer! While the Katana is a popular style of sword, and revered for it's cutting power, it was created in seclusion, and is by no means the universal "ultimate sword" hyped by sword collectors and anime fanboys. First off, samurai could rely on their armor to stop a sword blow, which was inferior in protective power to European plate. Katanas were also prone to chipping, and even breaking during intensive use.
The typical longsword, however, having been worked upon in an age where rival nations struggled for dominance, was subjected to the benefits of competition. The longsword at it's peak was easily more durable, more effective in battle, and more versitile, in more situations than the katana during it's high point. An example of the longsword's versitality was a sword technique that used a swordsman's free hand to grasp the less sharp edges neat the hilt, creating fast and forceful, crushing blows, good for penetrating armor.
-Samurai were the better swordsmen: Actually, not on average. For a knight in training, the sword was a required weapon to learn, and so all knights leaned how to wield one effectively during their training. Samurai were not required to learn the use of a sword at all. While some samurai did specialize in swordplay, it wasn't even a popular weapon for samurai untill late in the lifespan of feudal Japan. Contrary to popular belief, the term Bushido literally means "Way of the Horse and Bow" now "Way of the Sword".
These are some of the more irksome myths I see people believe in. I may post more later, but I think I've settled my case for thinking that knights would royally own samurai on average.
DragonHeart52
11-14-2005, 09:48 PM
Ah yes, the age old question. Allow me to dispell some of the following myths.
-Knights had inferior training to samurai: 100% FALSE! Both knights and samurai had very similar training. Knights would begin their training in earnest as a young squire of around twelve years of age, but would have recieved minimal instruction (mostly on etiquette and disicpline) as early as age five. Knights were trained in use of several weapons, the wearing of armor, proper horsemanship, and even the European sort of martial arts, including Greco-Roman style grappling and how to disarm opponents. Also, like the Samurai code of Bushido, knights also ahered to the code of chivalry, which was intent on maintaining a knights discipline and moral values.
-Knights were much slower than samurai: Not entirely true. The idea that a typical medieval longsword was heavier than a katana is a fallacy, as both of them averaged around 3 pounds in weight. Also, while slightly heavier on average than samurai armor, a well made suit of full platemail was not as cumbersome as the Holywood stereotype, and could be moved around in with relative ease with proper training, which knights had.
-Katana > Longsword: Bzz! Wrong answer! While the Katana is a popular style of sword, and revered for it's cutting power, it was created in seclusion, and is by no means the universal "ultimate sword" hyped by sword collectors and anime fanboys. First off, samurai could rely on their armor to stop a sword blow, which was inferior in protective power to European plate. Katanas were also prone to chipping, and even breaking during intensive use.
The typical longsword, however, having been worked upon in an age where rival nations struggled for dominance, was subjected to the benefits of competition. The longsword at it's peak was easily more durable, more effective in battle, and more versitile, in more situations than the katana during it's high point. An example of the longsword's versitality was a sword technique that used a swordsman's free hand to grasp the less sharp edges neat the hilt, creating fast and forceful, crushing blows, good for penetrating armor.
-Samurai were the better swordsmen: Actually, not on average. For a knight in training, the sword was a required weapon to learn, and so all knights leaned how to wield one effectively during their training. Samurai were not required to learn the use of a sword at all. While some samurai did specialize in swordplay, it wasn't even a popular weapon for samurai untill late in the lifespan of feudal Japan. Contrary to popular belief, the term Bushido literally means "Way of the Horse and Bow" now "Way of the Sword".
These are some of the more irksome myths I see people believe in. I may post more later, but I think I've settled my case for thinking that knights would royally own samurai on average.
:amuse Looks like you found the same website I did and did a nice job of condensing the arguments. An interesting discussion and comparison with no clear winner. http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Wow, that article was worth reading.
NashNinja
11-15-2005, 04:17 PM
I did take from that article a bit, yes. However, the problem the author faced in determining a clear winner was that there were too many variables to properly claim that either knights or samurai would win every time. I first heard of this debate several months ago, and took a liking into studying the points people made. Generally, people overestimated samurai, and underestimated knights, and there was a lot of false statements made towards each group in general.
After as much research and comparisons as I've put into it, I would say that knights would probably be better suited for fighting their opponents than samurai on average. A knight in full platemail, having a shield, lance, and sword on hand would probably be best suited for taking down a samurai. A knight's specialization in mounted shock warfare could devastate the opponent early, and even if dismounted, knights were still capable footmen, and no samurai style of swordplay has proper techniques for fighting against someone with a shield, making it much harder for the samurai to fight, and that much easier for the knight.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.