I responded that a Samurai would win hands down. Nobodyimportant questioned if that would really be so then thought better of the question thinking it would constitute a hijack.
So, rather than hijack that thread further here’s a post to discuss it. I doubt there is a factual answer to this question so no GQ and it doesn’t seem to rise to GD material so IMHO it is.
For my part a medieval knight is a lumbering tank. Heavily armored and generally carrying a heavy (relatively speaking) sword (or mace or flail and so on but we’re on about swords here). No doubt they were deadly opponents especially when pitted against un-armored or lightly armored opponents.
No take a Samurai. They had light to medium armor but wielded a sword that was much lighter than the bastard sword typically used by knights. As such the Samurai was more mobile and their sword had greater accuracy. The bastard sword could be used for thrusting but in general it was too big for fine work and more often than not was swung like a bat.
So, a knight lumbers up to a Samurai. Samurai were no fools…they were exceptionally well trained as the knight probably was. The knight however can’t respond as speedily as the Samurai could. If he takes a swing and the Samurai dodges (which he probably would rather than blocking the sword as his sword is much lighter and might break) the Samurai could step inside the swing and have his way with the knight (or step around the side or behind the knight). The Samurai sword (katana) can then use its accuracy to get at thinks in the knights armor…armpit, back of the knee and so on.
A knight is “lumbering”. What comic book did Whack-a-Mole do his historical “research” from? How does he justify his claims of “lumbering” in light of the Anglo’s recent work on the topic of European combat before the Industrial Era?
Indeed, how does he justify his claim of “lumbering” in light of the following work:
A knight is lumbering in context. Your good knight will simply not be as fast as a lightly armored Samurai. There is simply no two ways about that unless you are comparing Mr. Universe with a 90 pound weakling. All other things things being equal (body size, reflexes, etc.) a guy with 50 pounds of armor strapped on is going to be slower.
Further, a knight in armor wielding a heavier sword will not have the endurance a samurai will. For a one vs. one battle that probably won’t matter has it likely will be over before fatigue becomes an issue but in a protracted battle the knight will be at a disadvantage.
Add that your vaunted knowledge is incomplete as well. You said in the other thread that Samurai were mounted archers suggesting their training with the sword was diluted by training with the bow. In fact Samurai caste had three major ranks. Kenin (administrators), mounted horsemen and foot soldiers.
FTR I fully realize that a knight in plate armor was a lot more agile and quick than is commonly assumed. I merely maintain that a Samurai is quicker and more agile and for my money I will place my bet on the more nimble opponent in a contest such as this. Implying that Samurai were somehow lesser swordsmen because they learned how to use bows as well is simply wrong. The elite Samurai were as highly trained with their swords as you could get much as knights were with theirs (I specify elite Samurai for an apples-to-apples comparison as knights were the elite warriors of the medieval European battlefield). If you suppose that Samurai were somehow lesser swordsmen because they also trained with a bow then you must assume that a Navy SEAL is found wanting as a marksman with his weapon because he spends time learning demolition or first aid.
Yes, a guy with 50 pounds of armor on will be slower. However, you don’t seem to realize the tremendous value of heavy armor. Heavy armor didn’t develop because Europeans wanted to slow themselves down, they wanted the protection that heavy armor provides.
Now, I would think your typical samurai would be armed with a katana. Katanas are curved, thin, slashing swords. Swords designed to penetrate armor, thrusting swords, are designed like the knight’s bastard sword: straight, heavy, pointed, and with a long hilt.
This means the knight will have a weapon capable of penetrating the samurai’s light armor. The samurai will not be capable of penetrating the knight’s heavy armor, and would likely break his sword trying. So, all the samurai can do is aim for the armpit (often protected by maille) and the joints. Meanwhile, the knight is swinging heavy blows with a heavy sword at the samurai. If he parries, the samurai may well break his sword.
So, at the end of the day, the knight just has to break the samurai’s sword or land one good blow. The samurai has to stay alive without parrying or striking the armor directly, but has to try and slash at joints in the armor, eventually disabling the knight.
Now, which victory condition do you think is more likely to happen? Samurai simply were not equipped to take on heavy armor, but knights WERE equipped to take on light armor.
First, let me say that I know absolutely nothing about this stuff, yet that I am also quite interested in it, so I just want to ask some theoretical questions… but please forgive me if I seem ignorant (which, I admit, I am).
You seem to be suggesting that the samurai would be at a greater advantage due to his increased agility.
Well, unless the knight was extremely slow, he would still have some chance at evading/parrying blows, wouldn’t he? And you seem to be saying that with the knight’s armor, most of the samurai’s attacks would be ineffective, except those that are aimed at certain weak points in the armor (which seem to be relatively small areas). So what if the knight got just one lucky swing in, say to the torso, during the middle of all this parrying, dodging, and armor-blocked attacks?
Or, what if the knight decided to fight differently? What if he donned less armor, say nothing except a chainmail tunic, and use maybe a smaller sword and a buckler instead of a two-handed bastard sword?
In general I agree with you completely but I think it falls apart when the knight is faced with a sufficiently good swordsman. When knights would wade into a battle with lightly armored and realtively untrained troops opposing him he was at a decided advantage. A Samurai swordsman however is likely fully capable of sizing up his opponent and adjusting his style to take best advantage of weaknesses he perceives. I would expect a Samurai would probably just try and sweep the knight’s legs from under him and knock him to the ground (Samurai were trained in unarmed combat as well so no reason he wouldn’t combine the two). The Samurai’s greater speed should give him at least a fair chance of doing that. If nothing else he can keep dodging just out of range of the knight and cause the knight to wear himself down.
Does this mean the knight is a pushover (no pun intended)? Certainly not. The samurai had better take his match very seriously if he expects to live. Will the samurai win every time? Doubtful but I would expect the samurai to win more than they lose. Again if I was a betting man my money is on the Samurai.
FYI: A bastard sword was more of a 1.5 handed sword (called hand-and-a-half). It could be used single handedly or two handed but often the grip had just enough room for 1.5 hands. Of course swords weren’t strictly confined to any design so I’m sure you could find variants that allowed a full two-handed grip but they generally weren’t the ‘norm’.
The knight would likely have a shield as well, wouldn’t he?
In my mind, the European knight has the advantage. The knight regularly goes up against lightly armored opponents, but how often does a samurai have to fight a medieval tank?
It doesn’t seem like something he’d even be trained for.
Maybe and maybe not. Certainly it is an option for him. I would expect his choice of weapon will decide if he has a shield. If he’s using a two handed sword then no shield. If he’s using a bastard sword then he could use a shield but give up the ability to use his sword two-handed (and using a bastard sword solely one handed will tire out the sword arm quickly). If he has a mace or flail he probably would have a shiled.
I think people are forgetting that Samurai were a warrior class taken to the extreme. It was religion to them. Knights certainly trained well but samurai ate, breathed and shit the martial arts. Their training included unarmed combat as well as sword and bow. A samurai may have no experience with a walking tank but a knight has no experience with the unarmed fighting styles of the far east. The knight is not just facing a swordsman…he’s facing an opponent who has a deeper bag of tricks than he’s ever experienced and frankly has no training to counter with.
The knight’s greatest advantage would be in surprise. A samurai with no experience of a medieval knight might well scoff and figure this seemingly slow opponent is easy pickings. As *Dogface was mentioning a knight is a fair bit faster than one might assume and that wrong assumption could see you head and body part company right quick.
So let me sit on the fence on this one. At a first meeting the knight probably has the advantage. After the samurai have seen the knight fight a few times (two or three maybe) the samurai will be able to modify their approach and win from then on (they could learn to tire him out, sweep the legs, etc.). The knight has much less ability to modify his approach so he’s stuck. In the longrun the Samurai win.
In the Knight vs Samuria combat each combatant is a well trained swordsman. The knight allthough armored when dismounted would more often than not drop some of his armor. The main point in wearing armor in the first place was to protect the body from the short slashing swords of the time much like the one a Samuria would have been armed with. The plate armor of a knight could only be penetrated with a heavy axe, hammer or other thrusting device. The Samuria’s blows against any part of the plate mail would just glance off and possibly break the blade. It would be possible for the Samuria to get a killing blow if he could thrust his sword into a joint or expose section of the underlying chain mail. The key to victory for the Samuria would lie in the physical stamina of his opponent. Mainly the Samurai would have to tire out his opponent and then make his killing attack.
Thanks That was one of the few things I did know, though, and I should’ve just said a two-handed sword After posting, I was going to clarify it, but I figured it wasn’t worth making another post for.
The question I was really trying to ask was, what if the knight decided to sacrifice some of his protection and power for increased agility? But then again, maybe that would give even more of an advantage to the samurai, who has been trained to fight with/against that level of armor.
A possible historical equivalent may be how knights fared in one-on-one combat against arab soldiers during the crusades. The arabs rode smaller, but swifter horses, and were individually more lightly armed. The arab soldiers were not Samuri, but it could shed light on this excellent question.
P.S. Whack-A-Mole’s movie sounds a lot like what I feel is the typical Japanese plot. The plucky young fighter, eager to prove himself, goes up against an opponent whose attack he cannot fight off and whose defense he cannot penetrate. In the first battle he is beaten and humiliated, and the Knight laughs, saying “Your kung-fu is not powerful. You and your donkey are not welcome in this village.” The plucky young hero goes off to nurse his wounds, and meets up with his former master. However, the Knight comes in dramatically and kills the master, whereupon the hero again challenges him. A second tme, he is defeated. The Knight laughs scornfully: “You! Are not powerful. I have beaten you! Ha ha ha ha ha! Ha.” The hero meets up with a young girl who has also befallen some tragedy at the Knight’s hands, and she introduces some critical point she has innocently (and unknowingly) observed about the Knight’s strategy. The hero seizes upon this, and spends most of Act III in a montage of training clips, preparing his body and soul for the final battle, in which he defeats the evil Knight soundly.
Batman, eh? I vote for the modern combat pilot who has undergone no swordsmanship training whatsoever. One nice nuke and Batman, the samurai, and the knight combined still won’t stand a chance.
But back to the topic… lol, that’s an incredibly accurate description, Fish
I don’t know if you were just having fun or if you were implying that my theory has about as much truth to it as a cheap Kung-Fu B-movie.
In battle it is all about observing your opponent and upon seeing how he works devising a strategy to defeat him. If you’ve never seen your opponent before you do your thing. If you lose you figure what you did wrong and try again with a different tactic. You keep doing this till you win.
Of course your opponent can change things up on you but I maintain the knight was a one trick show. He had little he could do to change his fighting style (more broadly speaking than changing, say, from a hacking style of swordplay to a thrusting style). The Samurai on the other hand has many more options available to him. He is more nimble and with lighter armor and a lighter sword almost certainly has greater endurance. Add in unarmed combat techniques such as kicks (which the knight could do as well but hopefully we can agree kicks taught in far east martial arts are far more refined than what a medieval knight likely ever learned). Even if the knight had kicks and grappling techniques at his disposal taht were on par with far east martial arts the Samurai is still much faster and will be more successful using those moves.
Sigh. ARMOR. Large chunks of metal bolted to one’s body. It and a sword can make up for an amazing dearth of tricks. The only way I can imagine a samuri even damaging a knight with a katana is to either poke it through an eyeslit (at which point the samuri takes a longsword in the lungs) or in a joint (which almost certainly won’t be immediately fatal, and will almost certainly open up said samurai to a fatal counterattack. And don’t get me started on what would happen if lances and warhorses came into play.
Mole, just letting you know that I thought what Fish said was funny (and a good description of those cheap movies), but that doesn’t make your argument hold any less merit, IMHO
I was not trying to impugn your argument, Whack-A-Mole. Do carry on.
I merely wanted to observe that many Japanese stories of fighting prowess to emphasize, as you note, the ability of a true warrior to observe his enemy’s strategy and to adapt. I have seen these themes repeated in cheap B-grade kung-fu flicks, in Ranma 1/2, and in Jackie Chan films (which, I know, aren’t strictly Japanese, but they follow the same wuxia storytelling core). The adapt-adopt-and-improve idea is built into the mythos and culture.
I haven’t seen any evidence that specifically exempts the European knight from the ability to possess imagination or to size up his own opponent, though I admit without proofs that it’s probably true.
So my conclusion is similar to yours: if the knight didn’t kick the holy hell out of the samurai the first time, the samurai would definitely learn from his mistakes and try to fight against his enemy’s weaknesses.
But all of that boiled down to “Batman, if he’s prepared.”
That was one of the few things I did know, though, and I should’ve just said a two-handed sword