• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Medieval knights vs Samurai. An Analysis

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Compton
The knight would kill the samurai from a distance with a crossbow. They used more weapons than just a sword.
Click to expand...

Samurai had arrows too... they were funny that way....
 

I have to go with samurais, because they could take knights down long before the knights could reach them.

The Japanese samurai.Knights and Samurai ? Brothers in Arms?
"although Japanese craftsmen were producing the world's most technically perfect swords from the 12th century onwards, prowess in a warrior had been measured by his skill at mounted archery, not by his reputation as a swordsman. The earliest expression equivalent to bushido is 'The Way of Horse and Bow', never 'The Way of the Sword', and most instances of single combat in Heike Monogatari are settled with a dagger rather than a sword. Even in the 16th century it was the spear, wielded from horseback or on foot, that was the samurai's primary weapon, not the sword."
 
Seems to me that unless the knight is wearing enough armor to protect him from a bomb blast, the samurai would win.
 
1. This is so stupid

2. There seems to be a lot of magical mystique about a samurai which does not exist any more than it does with a knight.
 
Originally posted by: murphy55d
Of course Samurai is going to win here... half this board has yellow fever. Anything Asian > *.
Click to expand...

Well I suppose the Samurai would have access to all the yellow stickers and coffee can mufflers they could use... 😀
 
Originally posted by: LordMorpheus
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.
Click to expand...

Untrue. The samurai main weapon in combat was NOT the katana. Most of them opted for a spear, and will not draw the katana unless the opponent managed to close distance. Even full plate armor has weak points at the hinges, and can EASILY be penetrated by a spear.

Read this and learn about the arsenal of weapons available to samurai. Or better yet, watch a Kurosawa flick.
 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i find it interesting that more people have voted samurai than knight.
Click to expand...

The article considers them quite equal _if_ the knight uses full plate armor and either a greatsword or a shield + longsword. Full plate armor and greatsword are heavy, as is full plate + shield + sword. The Samurai armor wasn't exactly light, but was made for more movement than a full plate. The Samurai can therefor just keep his distance the first while, and the knight will get tired far sooner. If he then circles around him a while he might be able to get in close with the dagger, and just push it gently between body armor and helmet.
 
Originally posted by: kenshorin
Originally posted by: Compton
The knight would kill the samurai from a distance with a crossbow. They used more weapons than just a sword.
Click to expand...

So did the samurai.
Click to expand...

Well then lets hear about that too. I'm really suprised to see this thread still up on the first page.
 
Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
i find it interesting that more people have voted samurai than knight.
Click to expand...

The article considers them quite equal _if_ the knight uses full plate armor and either a greatsword or a shield + longsword. Full plate armor and greatsword are heavy, as is full plate + shield + sword. The Samurai armor wasn't exactly light, but was made for more movement than a full plate. The Samurai can therefor just keep his distance the first while, and the knight will get tired far sooner. If he then circles around him a while he might be able to get in close with the dagger, and just push it gently between body armor and helmet.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Full plate was very maneuverable in.

A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. It was just invulnerable to sword cuts ?even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor which they even wore into battle ?they did not prize them merely as exotica). 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.
Click to expand...

No way in hell you are going to get through plate with a katana.

Of course, samurai are idolized by movies and TV, so they are winning the poll.
 
Samurai for sure - particularly in a swordfight. The big, hard to wield sword is at a huge disadvantage to the lighter and better constructed katana. And the samurai opted for a quick and decisive kill - none of all that sword clanging. Just watching some amateur do kendo, it's amazinly fast; there's no way a knight in full armor with a heavy sword can match the speed of a samurai - I can imagine him easily seeing the knight telegraphing his next move, dodging to the side, and make a quick cut at the week points in the armor like the elbow joint or at the neck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top