The Medival European Knight vs a Japanese Samurai

[maian]

Who would win? I actually really need to know. .

My vote gets the Knight. Better armor, possible horse, a shield which was unknown to the samuri and other things. Doesnt matter if the Samurai is faster when you cant get through the armor.

IVe found some websites on it. Just google Knight Vs Samurai.

The first link has lots of info but no real answer. In the end Im all for the Knight!

So, what do you think and why?

[Pruitt]

maian,

What stage of armor are you looking at for each? I doubt of the guys that rode up the hill for William the Bastard would not do well against 16th Century Japanese armored Samurai. Then again, those full suits of plate armor made for jousting or against firearms would be too bulky. I think the Mercenary Knights during the 100 Years War would have done well against Samurai.

Pruitt

[maian]

The best stage possible. Best stage for a knight, best for a Samurai.

Thats one the website I mentioned first brought up. Also is the knight on horse? A shield? A long sword? Some other weapon? A lance? So many things that could be considered. Just take the best avaliable to each. I have no books on knights that I can think of. Same goes for Samurai.

[Redwolf]

Where is the fight?

The European knight can just bulldoze the Samurai into the ground all right. In the unlikely case that the Samurai is not dead after the horse clash the heavier armor will prove to be a serious problem for the light Samurai sword.

But where is the fight?

You have to know that in Japan the climate and to a lesser degree the terrain play a big role.

Neither in the Japanese summer nor in the Japanese winter you can wear a European knight's armor for any useful amount of time. You need the gulf stream or the Mediterranean sea for that. The heavy knight's horse also won't be happy with some of Japan's terrain at all. These big European horse can be pretty dumb and clumsy even by horse's standards.

It is like asking whether heavy cavalry is better than mountain troops - depends on the surrounding. And resupply.

[Pergite]

I guess we just have to wait until they clone Medieval with Shogun in the TW series

[Colonel Sennef]

I'm not so sure about the outcome...
Unlike the knight, the samurai didn't think it was 'ungentlemanly' to use a bow in battle.
Such an encounter might have been more akin to what the knights experienced at the hands of the Mongols.
In a corridor the knight would win; but with room for manoeuvre, the samurai could keep his distance and continue to shoot arrows at the knight till the knight was unhorsed; then proceed from there as the situation presented itself.

[Engineer 1888]

If it was close combat I would go with the knight especially if he had a mace. The shield and armour would help him survive any blows given by the samurai and the mace would do a good deal of damage with each blow.

[maian]

I know this much and that is the Samurai is not having a bow, melee weapon only.

Why I think the knight can win is Knights have a wide variety of arms to go into combat with and one of them have to be good enough to kill a samuri.

By horse, with a shield, a mace, a great big sword. What would happen if a Knight with a sword and shield went chargeing at a Sam in an open hilly field? How about that for location?

[Rambow]

There were two different ways of tactics and, as a consequence, two ways of arms development. In the west evolution goes to defense - as a result the “chopping and crushing” weapon became more popular than “cutting”. Remember great variety of heavy halberds, pole-axes, war-hammers and maces in the late middle ages. Even medieval european swords were mostly needed to break throw the armor and were not so sharp as eastern ones. Samurais never used ramming impact with lances and their bludgeoning weapon was far lighter and rarer than European one.

A razor edge of Samurai sword could do nothing with European full plate mail as well as a knight weapon doubtfully could breach flexible japanese armor. IMO if that encounter took place the personal abilities of participants would be decisive. That would win who could change his usual tactics for new situation faster, who had more flexible mind and trained body.

I agree with Captainsennef: difference in the battle principle could be very surprising. For instance when light troops of the Golden Orda met heavy cavalry of Eastern Europe they usually avoided direct impact, mounted riders off with lasso or cutting horse’s hamstrings then attacked laying rival in a body, all against one. It was really 'ungentlemanly' but pretty effective.

[Salinator]

A razor edge of Samurai sword could do nothing with European full plate mail

I'm not convinced that European armor can withstand the Katana. It's ability in the hands of a master to slice through different materials is legendary.

[Rambow]

I'm not convinced that European armor can withstand the Katana. It's ability in the hands of a master to slice through different materials is legendary.

Perhaps, though I wouldn't rely on legends completely. People usually prone to exaggerate a bit.

Anyway - it confirms the main idea of my post: individual skills would be decisive.

[Salinator]

Perhaps, though I wouldn't rely on legends completely. People usually prone to exaggerate a bit.

Anyway - it confirms the main idea of my post: individual skills would be decisive.

Agreed. However, most legends can only survive if there was a bit of truth behind it.

You are correct that individual skills are decisive, especially in an era of hand to hand combat.

[Taylor Ahern]

East meets West!

I would have to say that in terms of ferocity, individual skill and finesse, agility, reflexes, split-second dexterity and speed when slashing and fighting with blade weapons, the Samurai gets my vote. For their lack of heavy body armor and that deeply held, sacred code of honor they always embraced, and which was fiercely bred into them---(and which compelled and inspired them to fight until the death if need be, with virtually little, if none, personal reflection of any kind!)---would undoubtedly give them the advantage over most any Western knight. Though the heavy body armor of the quintessential European knight would most likely prove to be impenetrable to the savage slashing and blinding, relentless and diagonal strokes of the Samurai blade, therefore---and only if he was able to catch his Japanese opponent off-guard at the exact, right moment---giving the knight this very brief opening to skillfully exploit. Of course, that's barring any super quick, reflexive motions (like ducking and dodging the knight's slashing sword!), outstanding footwork and/or these well-executed acrobatic moves performed by the graceful yet frustrated samurai, who would most likely regain his balance and immediately correct his body stance/defensive posture to deftly fend off any sharp and heavy blows coming from the European knight. I say the knight dies of terrible exhaustion and dehydration, though not from any piercing blows being delivered from the Samurai sword. Also, the only professional "knight" who may have been able to match the Samurai, with respect to skill with blade weapons, viciousness and personal prowess in combat, athleticism and in his relentless courage and desire to prevail, would be those ultra-ferocious, tall and powerfully built Scottish/Irish mercenary shock troops known as the Gallowglass, who were probably the most feared and devastating of all close-quarter Western troops when it came to hand-to-hand combat (the term "Gallowglass" came to be this European by-word meaning blind savagery and supreme valor, though what it literally means is young, foreign warrior, probably referring to that tad of Viking blood that many of them had running through their veins, and although they fought in this manner that was very similar to that of the Vikings, in speech, everyday traits and customs and in much of their genetic makeup they were Gaelic!). Much like the Swiss halberdmen (who also may have been this match for the Samurai!) the Gaelic speaking Gallowglass soldiers carried and fought with halberds, though they often opted instead to attack and fight with long swords and short axes, and in terms of offensive shock power they were the equal of the Swiss pikemen and would no doubt give any Samurai they faced in face-to-face combat this good run for their money, yet the amazing speed and skill of the sword-slashing Samurai would probably prove superior to the brute force, awesome physical strength and unrelenting hacking capacity of the charging, utterly fearless Gallowglass (the Gallowglass warriors---who could be either native Irishmen or Scottish, yet whose origins were, for the most part, to be found in the Western Scottish Highlands and Celtic/Norse Isles---also rigidly adhered to this especially powerful code of honor where they actually took this blood oath to never retreat from the field of battle and to fight until the death if need be, which they often did!). So in the end, at least in terms of their invariably evident and visceral determination to win, spectacular ability with handling, maneuvering and killing with blade weapons, tenacity and in that inherent, firmly held code of honor the Samurai scores the most points. For I believe that the Samurai would gradually wear down any overburdened, tired Medival European knight (basically by dancing circles around him and weaving these dazzling, tough-to-follow patterns with the Samurai sword!), while defeating any Celtic shock troops through expertly exploiting the savage, die-hard ferocity of any mad-as-hell Gallowglass warrior charging at them full speed and bent on wreaking gruesome slaughter (the Gallowglass usually wore these cheaply made coats of mail that were of this inferior quality to the heavy body armor that covered and protected other knights of their time, thus rendering those Gaelic shock troops terribly vulnerable!), basically by executing these highly effective, deadly and poetically awe-inspiring Samurai sword tricks (though of course the mostly Celtic, partly Norse Gallowglass warrior and the Samurai could both mutually deliver the final killing blow at precisely the same moment, regardless of the opposing fighting forms and body angles!). Please feel free to disagree with or disparage my (naive?) viewpoints., cause you guys all know more than I do.

[Galfirdus]

I'm not convinced that European armor can withstand the Katana. It's ability in the hands of a master to slice through different materials is legendary.

You are joking right? The Katana is one of the most overrated things in history. No sword could cut though good European armour and if you know what you are doing you wouldn't even try to hit the armour in combat, rather you would thrust where there isn't any armour in one of the joints(using the half-sword method).

Of all the elements in such a battle the difference in their swords would be one of the last factors I would take into consideration because the difference is small and both our fighters would use other weapons first before they even touched their swords.

[biliev1]

samurai wins

to that guy with Rommel's pic - it's ironic that you would choose the knight. no insult here man but i'm just going to point out this obvious lesson in history and its funny and also ironic connection to your pic. if anything hanz guderian and rommel proved the effectiveness of wwii german armored philosophy "speed is armor" and the importance of out-maneuvering your opponent when opposing the early heavy russian and british tanks with the speedy panzer II, III and early IV (all these were outgunned, underarmored but fast, reliable, great cross country and never, never forget the excellent training for these german crews was also a decisive factor). now this may seem out of context to the current thread but if you take into account the various "khans" achievements, genghis and ogedei specifically, against the europeans - you will "see" how little the fundamentals of warfare have changed. Romans were especially successful against mounted types utilizing german mercs like gothic cavalry. romans were atrociously horrible against the parthians - okay before i get lots of legionairre fans' hate responses to this, i grant the fact that the romans did sack the capital of partha later in their wars. BUT in an open battle against expereinced, deadly-accurate horse mounted archers european heavy armor is a serious handicapp. doesn't matter who. take the armored hoplites, useless on uneven ground and without good cavalry support on the wings, the lorica segmentata of the legionairre or later on the way-overrated knights (these carrying different armor in different medieval periods) early medieval - chain mail, shield middle ages- chain, some plate, shield, some horse armor- late middle ages - full plate, shield chain mailed horse - all of this has its roots in parthan cataphracts, also something that the byzantines (eastern romans) having learned their lesson, imitated. Now, about this topic all the european heavy armored infantry and cavalry are useless against the superb maneuvering tactics and speed of the lightly armed but deadly accurate horse archers. in a couple of more crushing pincers using the cantabrian cirlces tactic ogedei khan would have "violated" western europe and its overrated knights like a virgin's ass. so sengoku jidai period horse mounted samurai will beat horse mounted knights of the late middle ages on an open battlefield any day, any time. if the two dueled - it would depend on what period knight we are talking about - but full plate armor knight with over a hundred pounds weight is like a obese beetle on opium. while the samurai would be like a cat on crack. again without his squires, the knight is going to tumble his ass on the ground and the samurai would disarm him, take of his helmet and with his wakizashi slit his throat all without breaking a sweat.