Knight Vs Samurai

Who wins?

Find out in this overly long speculative article.

Some good readin'! I'm going with the Samurai, but only because I kick ass with Mitsurugi in Soul Calibur. Yes, I'd say I kick a plethora of ass.

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knight...

I think the pecking order is pirates > ninjas > samurai > knights

Well, to me if a Samurai is going up against a full plated Knight, the Samurai wins on sheer mobility. Really full plated Knights were propped up on horses and couldnt move much at all without assistance.

Another thing to consider is where is the origin of the Knight? I mean statistically speaking, a Scandanavian on average would outclass a Japanese man by a good margin in weight size and strength.

Of course they never consider that one of them might care to use a Halberd or Spear or Axe or Mace or Staff.

They did go into great detail about shield types though.

Isn''t the steel in a samurai sword ten times stronger than the swords made in Europe?

Pirates greater than ninjas? What, did you get a buy one get one free deal on the crack you''re smoking?

Pirates greater than ninjas? What, did you get a buy one get one free deal on the crack you''re smoking?

I think he was doing a progression and not a ""greater than"" scenario...I hope.

Well, Capt Jack Sparrow > the American Ninja or the Beverly Hills Ninja

"Rat Boy" wrote:

Isn''t the steel in a samurai sword ten times stronger than the swords made in Europe?

Well, yes. It'' been folded a 1000 times AND BENDS LIKE BAMBOO and is STONGER than THE FALLING RAINS OF THE HEAVENS. Or something.

I''ll take a good bowman over any of the above except perhaps the ninja.

Knights tended to fight more from horseback with a lance (because they were nobility and could afford horses). I think the proper term for an armored man would be a man-at-arms.

Really full plated Knights were propped up on horses and couldnt move much at all without assistance.

Actually that was just for jousting. In tournaments, it was just about un-horsing the other guy, not killing him, so armor tended to be really heavy (120 lbs or so) and required several men to help him get up on his horse.

The armor used in actual battles tended to weight less (usually around 60-65 lbs) and articulated enough to allow a good range of mobility. In this way, a fully armored knight could mount a horse in the heat of battle without the need of assistance if he was somehow thrown. He could also fight on foot if need be. On a special I saw on PBS a man managed a cartwheel in a full suit of authentic 16th Century armor with very little extra effort.

Bows and crossbows became less of a problem as better techniques were refined in armor making. It was the advent of gunpowder-powered weaponry that felled both the Samurai and Western Knight equally.

I have the sudden urge to reload Medieval: Total War and try to take over Europe with England.

I think we can safely conclude from our educated dissertations that Ninjas kick the most ass of all.

Another problem solved, by the merry GWJ band!

Clear evidence that shows pirates > ninjas:

http://www.threewisheslingerie.com/p...

EDIT: probably NSFW

Better put a not at work warning on that there, Strekos.

My personal SCA experience''s would suggest that a Knight is a tuff nut to crack with the sword and shield combo, it certainly can be done but if the to relative skill levels are the same the knight (whatever that really means) will have a couple of advantages. Japanese swords are beautiful and deadly things but they are not designed for hacking through metal armour, heavy armour gives you room to make mistakes (not many but it''s fudge room), the shield is a tool for creating distance and managing the fleet footed. Traditional Japanese armour is largly wood and brass fittings, it''s good stuff but not all that light either. You get hit with a heavy blade and you are dead, less of a wory for the knight against Kata/waktashi combo more an issue against Tachi (heavy blade).
Still given my own tast I would take the Japanease gear every time. I don''t like turtles and hiding behind a sheild just is not manly some how. At least I would die with stlye.

Of course a discussion like this is pointless without getting into the details of the materals used and from what time and origins. Well more so.

As taken from the end of the article.

""As can be seen, there are just far too many variables and unknowns to make a judgment either way for such a theoretical question as who could defeat whom between knights and samurai.""

Always FFWd to the moneyshot, Gentlemen.

Rumble if someone needs a warning to tell them that a link to ""threewisheslingerie.com"" might not be safe for work, then I doubt they have the sense to have a job in the first place

This is an interesting and heated debate to be sure. Interesting and heated by the lingerie that is, which I will need more of to fully comprehend the situation.

Ok, I''ve got some experience in historical combat, so I do know a littl something about this. Well, from the Western side anyway. Full armor is really not all that heavy once you''re wearing. The key is to get it made to fit you. If you buy ""off the rack"" it won''t fit right, and you won''t be able to move very well.
Combat in Medieval Europe, and even well into the 16th Century, was fairly brutal. I''m talking about actual combat, not tournaments. In an actual fight, there''s no such thing as fighting fair. Either you win or you die.
Maile was great for it''s time, but as weapons developed to defeat it (crossbows, spiked hammers, and other piercing weapons) people developed plate armor. Plate has the advantage of being impervious to most piercing attacks, as well as slashing attacks. However, it''s disadvantage was mobility. If you can dent your opponents armor at a joint, he can''t move, and you can kill him at your leisure. Once full plate was in use, you started seeing more hammers and heavy axes on the field. Swords weren''t generally sharpened by then, since as the author of the article points out, you''re more likely to chip or break the blade.
Of course, then we developed firearms to deal with heavy armor, but that''s a whole other subject.

Oh, and there''s no such things as plate-mail. Plate was sometimes worn with chain covering exposed joints, such as behind the knee, but if plate was worn over chain, as I''ve seen some fantasy book suggest, the wearer wouldn''t be able to move. Chain-mail is redundent. There''s no other kind of mail.
Armored men on foot were callen men at arms. On horseback, they were cavalry.

Oh, and there''s no such things as plate-mail.

Oh,I think 23,000 videogames would disagree! Haha, that''s funny, no platemail. What''s next,there was no magic in the middle ages? haha. Who let this guy in here anyway?

Clear evidence that shows pirates > ninjas:

This shows me that there is an open niche in the market. The world needs ninja lingerie.

"Mex" wrote:
Oh, and there''s no such things as plate-mail.

Oh,I think 23,000 videogames would disagree! Haha, that''s funny, no platemail. What''s next,there was no magic in the middle ages? haha. Who let this guy in here anyway? :D

Lol, no kidding! What''s he thinking, no plate mail?

No bone armor?

No dragon hide?

What about Elven mithril?

...you forgot to mention the Cloak of Righteous: +5 Good vs. Evil!

Like said above, Japanese samurai armor was constructed of laquered wood plates, fitted together by brass and leather. And it was heavy too, and mostly employed by horse-mounted warriors. Common pikemen were expendable and hardly wore any armor at all.

Further, Japanese katanas of old were designed to mostly hack at such armor, and by far were not suitable to be deployed against plate armor. They didn''t even work well against the mails worn by Mongolian invaders (much like all other Japanese warfare technology. Japan was only able to repel the Horde in a series of decisive naval battles). Characteristically, Japanese fencing styles are centered around delivering a quickest slash, ending the battle as soon as possible thus leaving as little as possible to luck in a prolonged fencing encounter.

Conversely, not only European armor was designed to withstand greater range of impact forces, their swords were heftier too, and European fencing culture actually made use of greater repertoir of stances and attacks. Wereas a Japanese samurai would typically be trained in just katana, bow, and spear or naginata, a European knight would be trained to wield different types of swords and axes, all with different techniques, as well as flail, mace, voulge etc.

Japanese generally resisted any innovation in styles and wartime technology throughout their history up until Meiji period (the onset of Western-style capitalism in 19th century). The bottomline is that Japanese only trained well to kill other similarly equipped Japanese. In contrast, European countries experienced a tremendous deal of cross-pollination of wartime technologies and varied, diversified training. A medieval knight meeting up a samurai would probably not only better equipped, he''d also be better all-around prepared for an encounter with such an unfamiliar adversary than the samurai would.

Just my two yen.

I seem to remember a documentary on various Secret Service type orginizations around the world. When it got to the part about the men who protect the Japanese Emprorer, they mentioned that to this day they still get training on figthing off sword-carrying attackers.

A bit more of the technicalities:

Now that I think of it, a samurai would indeed be ill prepared to square off with a knight.

Samurai never fought mounted. They used cavalry to run down the infrantry, but all they used were their katana swords, to hack down on people below. They never deployed spears from horsebacks (they used bows, though). The never fenced on the horsebacks. Meeting a mounted adversary (i.e. an equal in rank), they would both dismount, formally introduce themselves, and engage into 1-on-1 fight. Compare that to medieval melees with multiple simultaneous opponents. Since the katanas are intented for two-hand use, there''s a lot the Japanese missed out, such as shields and ambidextrous two-hand swordfighting, or sword+flail combinations.

In a samurai with katana vs a knight with a shield and akinak scenario, my money is on the latter.

EDIT. In conclusion: a knight would pwn a samurai hands down.

Ok, have you people NOT played Soul Calibur? All I''m asking for is a little research here!

What about the French Gayblade? The Fencer?

They would pwn all!!!

Nobody here has the guts to admit they''re involved with the Society for Creative Anachronism, eh? C''mon, I know there''s at least one on these boards.

I promise I won''t make fun of your garbage can lid shield. *snicker*

Dude we are all heavy into LARP.

LIGHTNING BOLT! LIGHTNING BOLT! ROOT!

Im downright lethal with a beanbag