Knight vs. Samurai (interesting article)

[neigung]

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

[Ikken Hisatsu]

interesting read, and as he says there really is no way to compare the two because of so many variables. there is no doubt that a knights warhorse was larger and more ferocious than that of a samurais, and medieval knights were great horsemen. on the other hand, samurais were adept archers and so in a battle field situation were more flexible than knights. Another interesting question- who would win, a medieval european army, or a japanese army of the same period? The japanese were superb archers, but English longbowmen were also trained from childhood and their bows were of incredible quality. Japanese armies didn't have much in the way of polearms to crush horses and men, however their spearmanship surpassed the average peasant armed with a crude spear by miles. and while an army of europe would generally be far huger, the samurai were known for their ferocity and bravery in battle, and as a whole the japanese armies were far braver in the face of adversity. It would most definitely be an interesting thing to watch.

[Liokault]

If you are talking one on one as oposed to armies the knight would wipe the floor with the samurai every time.

the knight had armour that a katana would not have touched, would have been much bigger, would have constantly fought battles (remember that at the hight of what we think of as the samurai they would have been been at peace for 200 years), would have been at least as good with a sword as a samurai.

Also I seem to remember a historical document linked here last time that this was discused that basicaly said that early european traders who went to japan were not particulaly imperesed with the sword play thay saw. This would have been at a time when every gentleman would have had sword lessions.

[KC Elbows]

Armour is only useful if your opponent does not have the opportunity to circumvent it. One on one battle completely eradicates the advantage of heavy armor.

I question the validity of heavy cav in a one on one battle having any advantage on a more lightly armored foe. Manueverability suddenly comes into play much more, and knights were not meant for such in anything but grail stories. A fighter in heavy armor is highly susceptible to more manueverable foes.

As for the assessment of sword work of one group being analyzed by another, not very reliable. I wonder if the samurai, who also had sword lessons, would have been flattering toward european swordwork in text intended for japanese eyes? Really, battle is a more reliable account, and since there was none, it's somewhat moot.

I think that the knight would lose because he was not meant for that type of battle. I think that, likewise, in full warfare, the knight would win, because he would be fulfilling his role perfectly with no unnecessary added functions added on to his role as heavy cav.

Anyway, I heard both cultures didn't really catalogue and systematize their fighting methods until after they were obsolete due to guns. Is this not true?

[Ikken Hisatsu]

Originally posted by KC Elbows
Armour is only useful if your opponent does not have the opportunity to circumvent it. One on one battle completely eradicates the advantage of heavy armor.

false. the correct has kicked you way out of her building and slammed the door on your ass. a knights armour was designed so that slashing attacks were inneffective, while also allowing them to fight well- knights armour is nowhere near as heavy as we are led to believe, and since knights for the most part were lords, they could afford the best crafted armour available. not to mention that knights themselves were very powerful men and trained their whole lives to fight in this kind of armour. they studied greco roman wrestling and fencing, and to be honest I think they were probably more accomplished swordsmen than the japanese, as they devoted far more time to swordplay and actual battle than samurai did.

[Kristoffer]

wow, u are dumb

[Kristoffer]

The knight would crush those puny rise throwers

[Ging Mo Fighter]

Originally posted by EmptyCup
the japanese would have killed the white man the way they have killed them in cars and electronics

But white man invented cars, and most consumer electronics
not to mention the main principles of electricity and electrical science as well

(sorry just ****es me off when asians are racist, without understanding that the majority of there economies relies upon the discoveries, creativity and needs of "white man" and "white culture")

[Mr Punch]

LOL at the challenges issued in this thread... you brave champions offering to fight on behalf of the samurai and the knights!? God****it, there are some wierdos round here!!!

Dunno where you folks are getting the idea that the samurai didn't actually fight... Or that the Tokugawa Shogunate was the pinnacle of samurai culture. It is widely known as the pinnacle of samurai philosophy, tempered or weakened (depending on your POV) by a couple of hundred years of peace, but hell, the Shogunate had to persuade them that fighting wasn't such a good idea somehow, given that they had been slaughtering each other en masse for the previous 7 centuries since Shotoku Taishi, through Kamakura, through Heike and Genji, to Nobunaga's armies... didn't fight!? To sum it up:

Fat Freddy's Cat
You're -
full -
of -
****!

Read the ****ing article for chrissakes already... which period of knight are you talking about, and which period of samurai...

then you can factor in points such as the best samurai swordsmiths' blades being tested on the best armourer's helmets... before you start wittering on like an old woman about the invincibility of knights' armour...

and such as the samurai cutting style being based largely on aiming for the joints in the armour, much like later knights' own dagger styles...

plus the people criticizing the later samurai sword practice being traders, not being swordsmen.

I've no idea who would win, but I have some idea that some of you have less of an idea of the difference between your arse and a hole in the ground.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Ging Mo Fighter


But white man invented cars, and most consumer electronics
not to mention the main principles of electricity and electrical science as well

(sorry just ****es me off when asians are racist, without understanding that the majority of there economies relies upon the discoveries, creativity and needs of "white man" and "white culture")

You're so dumb you're hurting what's left of the head you've just forced me to cut off.



In fact you're so dumb, you don't even get a !

[Ging Mo Fighter]

yeah, nice argument

whats that? oh yeah you didn't give one

[Ging Mo Fighter]

I could have said something like

blah blah blah "nuke" blah blah blah Japan

now is "white man" so weak?

but I didn't

[Liokault]

Read the ****ing article for chrissakes already... which period of knight are you talking about, and which period of samurai...

Indeed this is the main problem with any argument, but anyway why stop the fun?

then you can factor in points such as the best samurai swordsmiths' blades being tested on the best armourer's helmets... before you start wittering on like an old woman about the invincibility of knights' armour...

Are you telling me that a samurai sword will cut though a metal helmet? Unless the helmet shatters the blade is not going to make much more than a deep scratch on the steel no matter how fine or sharp the blade (unless infanatly fine and shape but thats silly)

plus the people criticizing the later samurai sword practice being traders, not being swordsmen.

Yes they were traders but they would have also been gentelmen and as such would have been proficiant with several differant kinds of sword play.



It should also be noted that samurai is a class of person not a term denoting a sword master (or weapon master). Not all samurai would have joined a school to learn sword play.

Also that the importance of the sword came quite laye in the history of the samurai. Origionaly the weapon of the samurai was the bow (of uneven halfs so it could be used on horse back). The bow was very hard to master so only the samurai had time to learn, and as such proficency with the bow came to be a kind of status symbol. Latter when the carrying of swords was banned to all but samurai class this became the status symbol.

[Mr Punch]

Originally posted by Ging Mo Fighter
I could have said something like

blah blah blah "nuke" blah blah blah Japan

now is "white man" so weak?

but I didn't

And you'd still be a *****. Oh, wait... etc...

I'm not going to 'argue' with you for the same reason that I don't talk to my fridge, or say, the vegetables I'm about to eat.

But by all means, keep coming back with your superior retorts. Then I won't need to provide evidence of you being such a *****.

[Vash]

Mat,

Why would you want to eat Ging Mo Fighter? That's just silly.