Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Medival European Knight vs a Japanese Samurai

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Imperial View Post
    The thread is too long for me to browse right now, so sorry if this answer was already given by someone. I think the Samurai would disable the horse then have his way with the fallen, clumsy knight. Samurai win.
    That could be trickier than it sounds. Knights knew that a fallen horse was no picnic and they did armor their steeds. Also take into account that if the samurai is attacking the horse he is permitting the knight to attack unopposed against him. Forget what you see in martial arts movies, you can only fight effectively against one target at a time. And, unlike the knight, the samurai can not afford to let someone pound on him while he is focused on something else.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
      That could be trickier than it sounds. Knights knew that a fallen horse was no picnic and they did armor their steeds. Also take into account that if the samurai is attacking the horse he is permitting the knight to attack unopposed against him. Forget what you see in martial arts movies, you can only fight effectively against one target at a time. And, unlike the knight, the samurai can not afford to let someone pound on him while he is focused on something else.
      Very true, but did the knights on horseback in a battle wear all the armor that they did in a joust? If they did they would be very slow moving off their horse, and the samurai while armored had very much lighter armor. Their armor was not made of steel for the most part(in an earlier post I stated that their breastplate was armored but only in the 1500s) but was made up of laquered leather and cotton, so it would be easier to move in on the ground than the knight in full metal gear. Even if the knight wore only his chain mail it would still be heavier than leather and cotton.

      My main theory on this subject would be that the knight on horseback versus a samurai on horseback in a full on charge with the samurai charging back that the knight would win. Few could stand up to that. But in almost every other scenario I see the samurai coming out the victor.
      Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

      Comment


      • #93
        I think the key part of the equation is can a Katana puncture steel armour? Because if it cannot then the rest basically does not matter.
        Last edited by Engineer 1888; 05 Feb 07, 15:35.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Engineer 1888 View Post
          I think the key part of the equation is can a Katana puncture steel armour? Because if it cannot then the rest basically does not matter.
          Good point, but there are joints in the armor that the samurai sword could penetrate. And if the samurai were fighting a knight the samurai would probably be using a no-dachi sword instead of the katana, which was used more for individual challenges between samurai. The no-dachi was heavier and longer and also the preferred weapon for large battles, so if the knight and samurai met it would be in the context of a larger battle. Unless we are talking about single combat, I think that the samurai, seeing how his opponent is armored, still brings the no-dachi to the fight.
          Last edited by R. Evans; 05 Feb 07, 18:22.
          Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by revans View Post
            Very true, but did the knights on horseback in a battle wear all the armor that they did in a joust? If they did they would be very slow moving off their horse, and the samurai while armored had very much lighter armor. Their armor was not made of steel for the most part(in an earlier post I stated that their breastplate was armored but only in the 1500s) but was made up of laquered leather and cotton, so it would be easier to move in on the ground than the knight in full metal gear. Even if the knight wore only his chain mail it would still be heavier than leather and cotton.

            My main theory on this subject would be that the knight on horseback versus a samurai on horseback in a full on charge with the samurai charging back that the knight would win. Few could stand up to that. But in almost every other scenario I see the samurai coming out the victor.
            It depends on the era. In the early middle ages you went into tournaments with the same armor you rode into battle with. It wasn't until the 1400s or so that the heavier, built from the ground up for jousting, tournament armor came into being.

            One thing making the armor debate so tricky is that everyone is visualizing a different set of armor from different time periods. Chain mail really doesn't cut down on your mobility too much but heavy plate can. Also the concept of the knight being a turtle on the ground is partly true and partly false. A man in armor can retain high mobility but he can't keep it up for as long as an unarmored man can - he will tire faster. Most knights who find themselves being massacred by "fleet-footed infantry" were either exhausted and being assaulted by fresh troops, heatstroked (this was especially true in the Holy Land), or in the case of being forcibly dismounted - injured from the fall and possibly pinned under an equally injured/dead horse. But a fresh, uninjured knight, on foot or horse, was a dangerous adversary.

            I agree with you on the full charge. In a charge on charge scenario the lance charge is superior to just about anything.
            A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by revans View Post
              Good point, but there are joints in the armor that the samurai sword could penetrate. And if the samurai were fighting a knight the samurai would probably be using a no-dachi sword instead of the katana, which was used more for individual challenges between samurai. The no-dachi was heavier and longer and also the preferred weapon for large battles, so if the knight and samurai met it would be in the context of a larger battle. Unless we are talking about single combat, I think that the samurai, seeing how his opponent is armored, still brings the no-dachi to the fight.
              Good point on the no-dachi. The knight has the advantage of impact force with broadsword vs. katana but the no-dachi, like the claymore and flamberge, has the heft to hit hard enough to knock the knight off balance. I would still give some advantage to the knight for having a shield, but if the samurai can score a body blow he could knock his opponent down and finish him.
              A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

              Comment


              • #97
                I don't see the samurai's extra mobility making up for the lack of armour, as I all ready pointed out the knight has more offensive mobility for having more target area and been able to be more offensive. The samurai's speed means little if he has to bring the knight down though an accurate strike to a joint. One of you give me a visual of what you have in your mind with the samurai beating the knight.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
                  Good point on the no-dachi. The knight has the advantage of impact force with broadsword vs. katana but the no-dachi, like the claymore and flamberge, has the heft to hit hard enough to knock the knight off balance. I would still give some advantage to the knight for having a shield, but if the samurai can score a body blow he could knock his opponent down and finish him.
                  But isn't a no-dachi just a longer sword and not that much thicker. The knight in the same token if he get's one blow on the samurai he will win but he can do it with a much faster and easier to wield weapon. Length is very important(which is why I belive that swords were not used as much as spears) but the length that the no-dachi gains costs weight unlike the length of a spear which is free. But really the no-dachi was rarely used compared to other weapons.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Galfirdus View Post
                    I don't see the samurai's extra mobility making up for the lack of armour, as I all ready pointed out the knight has more offensive mobility for having more target area and been able to be more offensive. The samurai's speed means little if he has to bring the knight down though an accurate strike to a joint. One of you give me a visual of what you have in your mind with the samurai beating the knight.
                    I don't know that the samurai lacked armor, it was just different. Their armor was known to stop arrows and sword cuts, but it could not take the prolonged pounding that the knight's armor could, but then again I don't believe the samurai would have to take a prolonged attack. I really think that the knight off his horse would tire very quickly and if the samurai stayed out of wrestling range, the samurai would have the opportuninty to find the weak spots in the armor(joints) and then finish the knight off. But we really are talking about two completely different styles of warfare, knights evolved to fight other knights and the same thing happened to the samurai, so any discussion(while wholly entertaining) is unlikely to come to conclusion satisfactory to what ever side of the arguement you take. You like the knights while I prefer the samurai. To each his own.
                    Last edited by R. Evans; 06 Feb 07, 13:50.
                    Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Galfirdus View Post
                      But isn't a no-dachi just a longer sword and not that much thicker. The knight in the same token if he get's one blow on the samurai he will win but he can do it with a much faster and easier to wield weapon. Length is very important(which is why I belive that swords were not used as much as spears) but the length that the no-dachi gains costs weight unlike the length of a spear which is free. But really the no-dachi was rarely used compared to other weapons.
                      I totally agree. The samurai would have to have greater sword skill in order to inflict the body blow I was talking about. A katana doesn't have the mass neccessary to knock a knight off his balance so the samurai would just have to hope the knight gets tired before he gets a shot on the samurai. But if the samurai was lucky enough to get a shot on the knight - let's say a full force blow to the head - it wouldn't kill the knight but it would ring his bell enough for the samurai to possibly get in a killing shot while the knight was off balance and stunned. A long shot I agree, but possible, and certainly more likely than if a katana were in use.

                      As for how often the no-dachi was used well it depends on the era. Before big three unifiers of Japan came along (Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Ieyasu) the katana was pretty much the standard issue sword of use. The more exotic sword designs like the no-dachi came into more widespread use afterward.
                      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by revans View Post
                        But we really are talking about two completely different styles of warfare, knights evolved to fight other knights and the same thing happened to the samurai, so any discussion(while wholly entertaining) is unlikely to come to conclusion satisfactory to what ever side of the arguement you take. You like the knights while I prefer the samurai. To each his own.
                        A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by pirateship1982 View Post
                          Thanks. Right back at ya!
                          Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.

                          Comment


                          • But I don't like knights more then samurai I just favour the former because of the armour, this topic has always been about technology for me, in skill there both equal, the samurai did tend to be lead by better commanders though. Could of one you please give me a visual of what you have in your mind because I just can't see it.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Galfirdus View Post
                              The battle of Agincourt is a poor comparison as there is a very big difference between been stuck in the mud with your fellow soldiers all bundled together and simply just been dismounted. Honestly your comparing a few scars on the feet to having your legs cut off. And if you so meant in your post that the focus was of one on one combat then the knight would fight dismounted against his dismounted foe.
                              Hmm, ok, how about the battle of Morlaix then:

                              According to Sumption, the first attack was mounted not by the infantry but by Franco-Breton cavalry under the command of Geoffrey de Charny. These reached the English positions but were thrown back in disarray and de Charny himself captured. It has to be assumed that the archers managed to disable the horses and with the force of the mounted charge blunted the men-at-arms were able to finish off the dismounted knights.

                              Whatever the truth of the matter the final result was that 50 French knights were killed and 150 French captured including Geoffrey de Charny and a number of ‘populari’ which seems to indicate that at least some of the infantry were involved in the melee.

                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Morlaix

                              The knights with all their armor were not invulnerable, on the contrary, once they lost their mobility they were vulnerable.

                              The knight, dismounted through force, would be vulnerable in front of the samurai. Before he would get up to his own feet the samurai would be free to circle him and pick the spots for his strikes, keep him on the ground by knocking off his support points, or push him on his back, sit on his chest, lift his armor mask and drive through a knife. (you asked to give you some visual)

                              cheers

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Imperial View Post
                                Hmm, ok, how about the battle of Morlaix then:

                                According to Sumption, the first attack was mounted not by the infantry but by Franco-Breton cavalry under the command of Geoffrey de Charny. These reached the English positions but were thrown back in disarray and de Charny himself captured. It has to be assumed that the archers managed to disable the horses and with the force of the mounted charge blunted the men-at-arms were able to finish off the dismounted knights.

                                Whatever the truth of the matter the final result was that 50 French knights were killed and 150 French captured including Geoffrey de Charny and a number of ‘populari’ which seems to indicate that at least some of the infantry were involved in the melee.

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Morlaix

                                The knights with all their armor were not invulnerable, on the contrary, once they lost their mobility they were vulnerable.

                                The knight, dismounted through force, would be vulnerable in front of the samurai. Before he would get up to his own feet the samurai would be free to circle him and pick the spots for his strikes, keep him on the ground by knocking off his support points, or push him on his back, sit on his chest, lift his armor mask and drive through a knife. (you asked to give you some visual)

                                cheers
                                Archers, again failed comparison. Your first post in this topic indicated samurai killing the knight's horse in melee and pirateship read that post as such as well, pirateship tried to fight such a claim, I on the other hand agree with you but I am very much against using the idea and throw the whole thing out as been an unfair tactical situation(mounted vs dismounted) that is unfit to determine the superior unit. But with that gone you bring up a battle where the knights are beaten by terran then you bring up a battle where the knights lose to combined arms warfare.

                                If you even bothered to read all my posts you would know that no where do I protract knights as been invulnerable, my whole point has been that knights when in an equal tactical situation with their foe will win, the samurai or indeed any force can defeat knights with tactics as can the knights and their support do like wise but when the tactical situation comes to an equal melee battle the knights win hands down.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X