Samurai vs. Medieval Knights

Not that its the same thing....

But my mate who is a big medieval buff who is into all the role playing and stuff came around this morning and I requested that he bring his armor ( full chainmail and shield) and his sword.


He got suited up and I chucked on my heaveist karate gi.... We had a little bit of 1 on 1 using blunted swords ( me using my katana) and I bet him 7 out of 9 times.....



Sure I've been training in martial arts since I was 7 but I only started weapons training last year....


And yes our style sure are different!

 

It would be a good battle, but in the end I think knights would win because their armor actually did something, the samuri armor was really weak

 

But what use is armor to samurai if they aren't going to be hit?

 

apples and oranges. To entirely different fighting styles, for both individual fighting styles as well as army. This question has no clear cut answer.

But i would vote samurai out of personal preferance...

 

I'm not saying I'm the only one who's watched Kurosawa, but I am saying this thread wouldn't exist had Tom Cruise not just made a film about Samurai, and that most of the misconceptions being masqueraded as fact here are based off Hollywood hagiography or presentations.

E_S

 

A katana could cut through a knights armor like butter

how do i know? i've taken kendo for 5 years and I own a katana

a fully trained samurai one on one agianst someone else with a sword is unstopable

 

What if he's fighting one on one against another fully trained samurai? Which one of them would be unstoppable.

 

This article concerns the exact topic at hand. It's quite well written and reasoned, and refutes a lot of the claims made in this thread.

 

Uh, Medieval knights weren't exactly untrained. It's pretty hard to say who would win, especially since their methods of warfare and one-on-one combat were different.

 

I'm not saying I'm the only one who's watched Kurosawa, but I am saying this thread wouldn't exist had Tom Cruise not just made a film about Samurai, and that most of the misconceptions being masqueraded as fact here are based off Hollywood hagiography or presentations.



Don't jump to conclusions..... The last samurai isin't even out here yet! I was just watching an episode of Samurai Jack when the idea hit me!

 

A katana could cut through a knights armor like butter

And a broadsword could cut through a samurai like butter!

E_S

 

perhaps i am just being idiotic and spreading heresay, but i have always been told that european swords were not build to be super sharp, but super durable, more for stabbing at the point and blugening with the side, in order to counter act armor. Would they still be able to "cut a man in half" i would think so, but again i am not an expert, so someone correct me with historical facts if neccessary...

 

I was just watching an episode of Samurai Jack when the idea hit me!

Well, of course Samurai Jack would beat a medieval knight. He's Samurai ****ing Jack! He has a magic ****ing sword!

 

...and he's a cartoon character.

 

And that, yes.

 

Everyone is ignoring my point about Samurai horse archers.

I'd also point out that Samurai also had periods of heavier armor and they used massive spears to knock each other down.


The conception most of you seem to have of a katana wielding Samurai becomes predominant only in the last few centuries.

 

But the arrows would just bounce off the knights armour wouldn't it?

 

You're making a few classic mistakes.

First you're considering that the knight is the target. Even in this case it is possible to target parts of the knight.

Targetting the horse would be much easier.

Do not also forget that the Samurai did wear less armor and as a horse archer could not help but be nimbler.

Certainly the mongol horse archers were more then a match for their opponents

 

Didn't most medieval Knights have armoured destriers (sp? - war horses) too?

However, two points:

1 ) Yes the broadsword wasn't meant to be sharp, 'cept round the point, but it had a fine edge and an almighty swing would allow for fine cleaving action. Order yours today!

2) Farrie is right about the diversity within Samurai fighting styles, which isn't limited to a Katana (or, for those who get the reference, the cardboard tube wielding Samurai), but I think we're talking one on one, in which case, Glorfindel would pwn all.

E_S

 

It should also be considered that around 1440, the Samurai developed a rapid fire arrow gun, that could fire up to 20 arrows a minute. With this device a single Samurai could mow down an entire Squad of knights before they even got close.

Also do not forget the Samurai Dragon, the Japanese borrowed early rocketry and gunpowder techniques from the Chinese to create rudimentary missiles and bombs. In one instance a group of Samurai leveled an entire town from a distance of two miles away with over 100 Samurai Dragon.

 

And, inconsistent with that turgid waste of film The Last Samurai, Samurai had been using firearms for around 400 years (hence how lord Shigen was killed!)

E_S

 

do i sense some bitterness E_S?

 

I read somewhere in a comparison, that the Roman Legions would have done quite well vs the Samurai in battle in theory if they were on foot. The Samurai would definitely have the advantage of horse archery which the Romans did not do.

 

Boutros-Boutros, that was an excellent article.