Medieval knights vs Samurai. An Analysis

[tk149]

Ok, the author has a lot of information in there, but I didn't see anything that backs up his argument that

Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. Unless you?ve worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would fight. Plate-armor was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood.

Bottom line: How much did a full suit of plate armor weigh? Hmm...Google turned up this place that sells armor and they say it weighs 45 to 60 pounds.

And, at least in the museums I've visited, plate armor does have weak spots at the joints. I vote for the Samurai.

 

[RanDum72]

Its all about speed, mobility, and possibly the best blade ever made that will enable the Samurai to win over a European knight in a hand to hand comabt, but it might be different when both sides attack in formation and when there is no room to maneuver. The armor of the knights are pretty solid and if they maintain their lines and charge with their lances forward, they are like battering ram with spikes sticking out. But if there is room, the Samurai are more agile with their horses. They can also fire arrows with their horses running full speed, something that European Knights haven't been able to do.. The Samurai also has better coordination between units; their signalling system with flags and stuff are just better.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: RanDum72
Its all about speed, mobility, and possibly the best blade ever made that will enable the Samurai to win over a European knight in a hand to hand comabt, but it might be different when both sides attack in formation and when there is no room to maneuver. The armor of the knights are pretty solid and if they maintain their lines and charge with their lances forward, they are like battering ram with spikes sticking out. But if there is room, the Samurai are more agile with their horses. They can also fire arrows with their horses running full speed, something that European Knights haven't been able to do.. The Samurai also has better coordination between units; their signalling system with flags and stuff are just better.

This is about individuals. But anyway, what makes you think a Samurai is more agile in his full armor? Full plate is very well articulated, from what I've read. It's like an exoskeleton, and doesn't weigh very much. I think a full suit is 30lbs or so.

 

[nanyangview]

but i think european knights have limited field of vision. Look at their helmet, it is basically only a few slits that permits vision.

i think that would be a hinderance too.

 

[Babbles]

This topic has been worked to death on martial arts type forums since the inception of internet message boards.
In fact one martial art sword forum has very little patience for this question as it used to get asked every other week by some trolling person.

My opinion, while it is entertaining to think aobut possibities it is very niave to try to determine an answer.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: nanyangview
but i think european knights have limited field of vision. Look at their helmet, it is basically only a few slits that permits vision.

i think that would be a hinderance too.

Not like the samurai is going to magically warp to be outside his field of vision. The knight could be wearing an open face helmet like the samurai anyway.

 

[Michael]

Fenixgoon - Full plate weighs much less than you think and is much easier to move in than you think.

As for the question, who the hell knows.

They're basically the same - the military elite/lower levels of nobility.

They both have probably trained from childhood to fight.

As for the person who said that the Saracen armies were so great because of their Damascus steel swords, the Saracens actually won few head-to-head combats and for sure did not have the succes you're claiming. They fought a much more mobile form or warfare and relied on horse archery and fake retreats.

Michael

 

[gogeeta13]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Palek
Pepsi Twist

You mean Coke.

Bruce Lee?

 

[JEDI]

bah..both would fall to my lightsaber

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: JEDI
bah..both would fall to my lightsaber

Is a Jedi really a knight? or is he a Samurai?

 

[amoeba]

A lot of the people who voted for samurai seemed to not have read the article that carefully. Plate mail armor is not that heavy. Also, while there are weak points in the joints of the armor, plate mail still provides protecttion for 90% of the upper body.

compare this to samurai armor which is ill equipped to handle a blow from a medieval long sword.

Many of you will counter that katana is much lighter, again, this is not true. If you read the article, the author mentions that katanas are of the same weight as GREAT SWORDS. Thus the katana was not that light.
While its shape allowed for a much faster slicing motion, the katana gives up reach.

The author's basic idea seems to be that unarmored and on foot, the edge goes to the samurai. But mounted, armored, and without any range weapons, the medieval knight would likely win.

Regardless, both samurai and european knights are inferior to the 1300 golden hoard era mounted mongol archer.

 

[amoeba]

wow, this author really doesn't make a conclusion in any of this essays
rapier vs katana

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: amoeba
A lot of the people who voted for samurai seemed to not have read the article that carefully. Plate mail armor is not that heavy. Also, while there are weak points in the joints of the armor, plate mail still provides protecttion for 90% of the upper body.

compare this to samurai armor which is ill equipped to handle a blow from a medieval long sword.

Many of you will counter that katana is much lighter, again, this is not true. If you read the article, the author mentions that katanas are of the same weight as GREAT SWORDS. Thus the katana was not that light.
While its shape allowed for a much faster slicing motion, the katana gives up reach.

The author's basic idea seems to be that unarmored and on foot, the edge goes to the samurai. But mounted, armored, and without any range weapons, the medieval knight would likely win.

Regardless, both samurai and european knights are inferior to the 1300 golden hoard era mounted mongol archer.

Samurai armor is made of overlapping plates isn't it? I don't see how it can hold up to a thrust from a pointy long sword. I also don't see how a katana, specialized for slicing, is going to penetrate "joints" (which are protected) in plate mail with its upturned point. The author also discusses the myth of European swords being heavy. Unfortunately, many people learn their medieval history from movies.

 

[joinT]

I saw a documentary showing how steel-tipped arrows could NOT puncture Full Plate. Therefore if the knight had a missile weapon, I would guess the knight would win. Even if the Samurai had a ranged weapon. Of course some medieval knights considered bows/crossbows/ranged weapons to be "dishonourable". If the knight has no missile weapon, I would say the Samurai, as they are more lightly armoured and can likely avoid the knights more clumsy attacks. They are also not beneath using the environment to their advantage, perhaps knocking over the knight.

^^^ didn't bother to read the article yet.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Originally posted by: joinT
I saw a documentary showing how steel-tipped arrows could NOT puncture Full Plate. Therefore if the knight had a missile weapon, I would guess the knight would win. Even if the Samurai had a ranged weapon. Of course some medieval knights considered bows/crossbows/ranged weapons to be "dishonourable". If the knight has no missile weapon, I would say the Samurai, as they are more lightly armoured and can likely avoid the knights more clumsy attacks. They are also not beneath using the environment to their advantage, perhaps knocking over the knight.

^^^ didn't bother to read the article yet.

If you had read the article, you would know that full plate is maneuvarable in (getting tired of saying this). People do backflips in replica full plate. Knights would grapple and knock each other over too, and had training in grappling. The scenario we are discussing is melee. Using ranged weapons would make he discussion irrelevant.

 

[SinnerWolf]

knight. simply because they can defelct a number of good hits (katana or otherwise) while a single hit from most any weapon a knight used would cripple a samurai.

and yes, anime sucks

 

[dquan97]

I vote for samurai because he could always use throwing stars into the knight's visor

 

[amoeba]

Originally posted by: dquan97
I vote for samurai because he could always use throwing stars into the knight's visor

This is due to popular misconceptions in movies. The difficulty of throwing a star in to a visor while mounted is incredible. Also, throwing stars have a range of 15 feet at best, charging cavalry can cover 15 feet in a fraction of a second. The throwing star was never meant for a killing weapon but rather to deliver poison or to bleed an opponent so that his reflexes with the sword were slower.

 

[Richdog]

lol entertaining thread.

My opinion is if dressed in full plate the knight would win. For all the people who say a knight could only maneuver in full plate while on a horse, you're forgetting that there were different variations of full plate armor, some for cavalry and some for infantry. Obviously those for infantry would be designed differently, and afford better mobility.

A knight wasn't a lumbering Ox either, if they were Christianity wouldn't have decimated most of their adversaries in such brutal fashion. If a knight was 6' 2" and packed with muscle, you can bet his endurance was uncanny, and his strength was great. Added to this their training in a weapon and tactic for just about every conceivable situation, and you have a monster in steel.

I have no doubt that Samurai's were fast, armed to the teeth with crazy sharp weapons, and good with unarmed combat too, but in a straight hand-to-hand weapons fight i'd think them outclassed.

If both were unarmored then I reckon the samurai would win without a doubt due to martial arts training.

If a division of knights got thrown into a battle with a division of Samurai, both wearing full armor and weapons, I think the knights would decimate the samurai as their training was far broader and more adaptable than that of the samurai.
Probably a load of BS but that's my opinion, lol.

 

[joinT]

Originally posted by: WinkOsmosis

Originally posted by: joinT
I saw a documentary showing how steel-tipped arrows could NOT puncture Full Plate. Therefore if the knight had a missile weapon, I would guess the knight would win. Even if the Samurai had a ranged weapon. Of course some medieval knights considered bows/crossbows/ranged weapons to be "dishonourable". If the knight has no missile weapon, I would say the Samurai, as they are more lightly armoured and can likely avoid the knights more clumsy attacks. They are also not beneath using the environment to their advantage, perhaps knocking over the knight.

^^^ didn't bother to read the article yet.

If you had read the article, you would know that full plate is maneuvarable in (getting tired of saying this). People do backflips in replica full plate. Knights would grapple and knock each other over too, and had training in grappling. The scenario we are discussing is melee. Using ranged weapons would make he discussion irrelevant.

There are many factors besides just the armour. I'm not saying the knight's going to fall and not be able to get up.. But he WILL be more hampered than the samurai. Archers have been known to defeat knights in melee due to the conditions of the battle. If there is muddy ground - the knights movement will be severly hampered. If it's very muddy - they will even have trouble walking.. I'm not saying knights are unable to manuver, just that under certain conditions, the Samurai would definitely have an agility advantage.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: poopaskoopa
Mitsurugi > Siegfried.

Tiger > Roy

 

[OulOat]

Knights with their wooden shields will definitely win. Once the katana gets stuck in the shield the samurai is boned.