Medieval knights vs Samurai. An Analysis
- Thread starter bolido2000
- Start date
Interesting...
Individual battles seem to be unpredictable, but what about on a broader scale? An army from one of the crusades against a japanese warlord's army say? Of equivalent size and training of course.
Individual battles seem to be unpredictable, but what about on a broader scale? An army from one of the crusades against a japanese warlord's army say? Of equivalent size and training of course.
If you had a knight in full plate with a tower sheild and a broadsword, the only way a samuri could kill him would be to run away and then drop a large boulder on his head.
The katana could not instantly slice through full plate armor, it is sharp enough, but as the article mentioned, far too thick to make more than a minor surface wound. a thrust would either slide off, or make a small wound and become stuck.
I'd say the european would win, provided we are talking european clad in full plate and not in light mail, simply because his armor renders him nearly invulnerable to the katana. I'm not saying that a katant could not kill a man in full plate, I am saying it would take either a lot of luck or a lot of time, while the knight only has to land one good blow to kill his counterpart.
The katana could not instantly slice through full plate armor, it is sharp enough, but as the article mentioned, far too thick to make more than a minor surface wound. a thrust would either slide off, or make a small wound and become stuck.
I'd say the european would win, provided we are talking european clad in full plate and not in light mail, simply because his armor renders him nearly invulnerable to the katana. I'm not saying that a katant could not kill a man in full plate, I am saying it would take either a lot of luck or a lot of time, while the knight only has to land one good blow to kill his counterpart.
How can training be equivalent? Warriors (or athletes) win because of better training and more funding. A better idea might be that both are of the same status. Say protectors of the king and the other of the Emperor.
Boo, I read that whole article only to have him say it's unknowable. I'll go with the Knight though, I think his armor would be the deciding factor.
Well, I didn't want a professional long-standing european army doing battle with a bunch of peasants with a week or two of training and illusions of grandeur. Both sides are composed of veterans of many battles and are fairly disciplined.
I was just coming back into the thread to say that. All that reading just for the "we can't really make a guess, HAHA!" conclusion. weak
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,141
- 12,560
- 136
i'm going with samurai because they have greater mobility. think about it, despite how physically strnog a knight may be, most times the only thing holding him up is his horse. if he falls, he's, quite literally, a sitting duck because full plate + chain mail is so heavy, probably on the order of at least 200 pounds. the plates themselves (disregarding weight) also cause mobility decrease.
knock a knight off his horse = pwnt
knock a knight off his horse = pwnt
I'm sorry, but the Samurai were vastly superior to Knights. They feared nothing, and killed without emotion or thought. There is always a flaw in the armor to exploit...
Interesting how you don't really understand the full concept of a medieval knight. It's a common misconception that their armor was so heavy that when they fell off their horse, they were basically helpless. I think you just watched too many movies where some poor guy beat the cocky and rich knight by getting him off his horse and defeating him on foot.
Skel
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2001
- 6,218
- 679
- 136
If they stood going blow for blow, yes you are right. However the Samuri's armor was also designed with the idea of mobility. While the knight searched for his shot, the samuri would be free to move. Because of this I would give the Samuri the greatest advantage.
With due respect, IMHO this article has a lot of shortcomings. The author completely either ignores or is not aware of the disadvantages from using long sword in battle formation. Many if not most of warfare historians agreed that the fall of the roman empire was due directly to the elongation of the sword (glavius) from about 50cm in Marius time to 150cm or more during the fall of the roman empire. The reason of the elongation of the sword is lack of discipline, low moral, no esprit de corps etc ... The author should use at least tell the readers about the outcome between hellenistic Phalanx and roman turtle clashes so they can make an educated guess regarding the samurai/knight topic.
"operation timed out"
but i'd say samarai. all he has to do is run around behind the big lumbering eurpoean ape and poke his katana straight through the armor.
but i'd say samarai. all he has to do is run around behind the big lumbering eurpoean ape and poke his katana straight through the armor.
The knight would kill the samurai from a distance with a crossbow. They used more weapons than just a sword.
I also want to point out that the author does not emphazise that crusaders were devasted whe they engaged the first time with the arab forces equipped with Damascus steel curved sword and light armor. The typical Damascus steel has around 6000 layers while the Samurai sword has much more (some kanata has up to one million or more layers) so I don't understand why the author talk so highly about the medieval knight sword without supporting data.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter