European Knight vs. Japanese Samurai: Who wins?

In My Humble Opinion
21

Going by my admittedly patchy knowledge of medevial Japan, I would guess that a samurai would balk at a one-on-one contest with an opponent so heavily armored. Not all of them were so concerned with honor that they would accept such a disadvantage cheerfully.

Smarter thing to do would be to attack from a distance with a bow from horseback. The samurai’s armor may be lighter, but it has one big advantage - he can mount and dismount a horse without help. The battle, if it takes place, will be on his terms.

22

Come on. Everyone knows that Samurai would so totally win, because he’s Japanese and thus about a million times c00ler than the stubby old knight. I mean, the Samurai probably knows all kindsa c00l ninja tricks and watches anime and whatnot.

23

But that wouldn’t really be fair against a swordsman. The samurai should be challenging other mounted archers.

24

Guys, your assesments of the Knight’s skills would get you sued for slander, if Galahad were alive.

European knights recieved training in both armed & unarmed combat, & as squires, fought alongside their knights in battle. Without the heavy armor.

Physical training was dammed demanding, & in terms of stamina & strength, the Knight certainly came out way ahead of the Samurai.

The larger amounts of protein in the Knight’s diet didn’t hurt, either. Not much beef, chicken, mutton or pork in the Feudal Japanese diet, not even for the guys in charge.

The Samurai wasn’t the grossly exaggerated figure you see in martial arts flicks or anime, either. Quite often, he went through his entire life without ever drawing his sword in anger. Many Samurai spent most of their time drinking, & it showed. After the last of the attempts to invade Japan by the Mongols, the Samurai became less and less relavant, there being no wars to fight in. Many were little more than administrators & paper shufflers.

The ronin, or “masterless samurai” weren’t the killing machines films depict them as, either. Often, they were kicked out because they were undisciplined, troublemakers, drunks, or just no good at fighting. They became vagrants, bullies, robbers, bounty hunters, or professional gamblers to make ends meet.

The Samurai wasn’t a Superman, & the Knight was better than you portay him as.

The Knight takes the fight, & the Samurai’s head into the bargain.

BTW-- the Knight, as a Squire, also learned music, dancing, courtly manners, tactics, chess, hawking, hunting, poetry, & reading & writing. Just like the Samurai did. The Knight of the Middle Ages was no dummy.

25

To reiterate: The samurai carried a sword that is virtually worthless against heavy plate armor. Curved swords like the katana are superb against unarmored opponents, because they can easily open up hideous wounds with a draw cut. However, they cannot thrust through armor. Even if the samurai scored a hit against a joint in the armor, the knight’s counterattack with a specifically anti-armor sword (i.e., hand-and-a-half sword) would be devastatingly fatal.

The fact is that combat tactics and Europe and Japan developed quite differently. In Europe, noblemen were able to field expensive armor and warhorses, and even the common footsoldiers could scrounge up some armor, often looted from dead opponents. (although, recent excavations of the Battle of Hastings indicate that armor at that time was less prevalent than previously thought). The island of Japan simply did not have the metal deposits and metallurgy to similarly outfit their forces. Instead, they created a series of swords that were:
A. Two-handed, as shields were virtually unknown in Japan.
B. Curved, for best use against unarmed foes.
C. Very well-crafted and durable.
Also, Japanese archers were organic elements of the battlefield, and very common. In Europe, only England recognized the full value of archers, and that only sporadically.

I in no way assume that Europeans were better fighters, or in any way “special”. However, the Japanese mystique of swords that could slice through machine-gun barrels is nonesense.

Both cultures developed weapons that best suited the situation in their own backyards. It just so happens that in the specific case of the elite European ground/mounted unit, the armored knight, has many distinct advantages that the Japanese Samurai just cannot counter.

Now, hand the samurai a spike warhammer and armor, or strip the knight of his armor, and everything changes. But that wasn’t reality.

26

I’m assuming for the sake of argument that we are comparing a champion knight who adhered to the code of chivalry versus a samurai master who adhered closely to the Bushido code. Certainly not all Samurai were created equal but then neither were all knights cut from the same cloth.

As to knights being trained in unarmed fighting you can’t seriously suggest that that training matched samurai unarmed training. Take your samurai and knight dressed only in a loincloth and drop them in the ring and I’ll take the samurai as EASILY trouncing the knight. Yes the knight may be bigger and stronger but as anyone who’s taken martial arts knows that can be a liability. Speed and technique will win the day and the samurai master has it.

Once again I am not suggesting the knight was some pansy anyone could walk all over. At their best they were downright devastating. However I still see the samurai as the more flexible and adaptable warrior. The only thing keeping the knight from a straight death sentence is the katana’s major shortcomings versus armor.

As was said earlier probably the best strategy for the samurai would be to tire the knight. The knight may be stronger and beef fed but he needs to be to tote 50 pounds of armor and swing a heavy sword (you try swinging a 3.5 pound anything around for a few minutes). There’s a show on The Discovery Channel called Conflict (or Conquest) where the guy was going over medieval combat. He said you were good for only a few minutes of fighting before tiring (assuming you’re really having at it). The samurai sword in comparison was much lighter and he could probably weild it effectively much longer than the knight could use his sword.

So, if the samurai does some kind of “Aieeeee” banzai charge into the knight he’s toast. If the samurai uses his head instead of losing it (literally and figuratively) the knight is going to have a bad day.

27

I think Whack-A-Mole is being a little blinded by an idealistic image of the Samurai. The fact is that the knight evolved as a counter to agile light infantry ( which is what a Samuari is ). Samuaris would need to overwealm the knight by numbers. Even standing back with a bow wouldn’t help, arrows bounced off plate, a crossbow is needed to penetrate and IIRC, feudal Japan never developed that particular weapon ( They didn’t need to, they weren’t fighting knights ). One on one a Samuari is going to be dead meat against a knight, no question.

28

at one time there were European Martial Arts. Savate is the only survivor available today, but up until the mid-19th Century or so , there was another–“The Gentlemens’ Art Of Self Defence”.

It was, in fact, a martial arts style. It is dead, today, but there are still a few surviving posters used in training that show proper stances and basic moves.

It was apparently similar to Tai Kwan Do, and trained in using walking sticks/singlesticks as an informal weapon. There were also some simple wrestling holds & breaks.

Unfortunately, I cannot find an on-line source for this. My orginal source materal was a book on fencing I read at the University Of Tennessee At Chattanooga. The unarmed combat style was later taught in connection with fencing schools, which ,makes sense. Nobody should ever use a weapon until he learns to use his hands & feet.

29

at one time there were European Martial Arts. Savate is the only survivor available today, but up until the early-19th Century or so , there was another–“The Gentlemens’ Art Of Self Defence”.

It was, in fact, a martial arts style. It is dead, today, but there are still a few surviving posters used in training that show proper stances and basic moves.

It was apparently similar to Tai Kwan Do, and trained in using walking sticks/singlesticks as an informal weapon. There were also some simple wrestling holds & breaks.

Unfortunately, I cannot find an on-line source for this. My orginal source materal was a book on fencing I read at the University Of Tennessee At Chattanooga. The unarmed combat style was later taught in connection with fencing schools, which ,makes sense. Nobody should ever use a weapon until he learns to use his hands & feet.

30

For average Joe Infantryman certainly. If a knight is wading in against light or unarmored opponents of conscript caliber then certainly the knight is going to kick some ass. But we’re not talking about the hand-to-hand fighting training you might get in something like basic training (or whatever passed for that in medieval times…did conscripts even get formal training?). We are talking about someone who has devoted their life to the study of the martial arts (in this sense not necessarily kung-fu or whatever…just combat training in general).

A true samurai was the Japanese counterpart of a knight. They were the special forces of their day. I do not think it is idealistic to suppose someone who is trained to the most extreme measures that training can take anyone is going to be a force to be reckoned with. No question that a knight and samurai facing each other had best take the other very seriously indeed. If either one thinks he’s going to have an easy time of it he will probably die.

As such I do not think you can equate Samurai to ‘light infantry’ that knights were designed to squish. Certainly the samurai were armored and armed like light infantry but the similarity ends there. They were trained FAR beyond the cannon fodder masses.

31

I am not sure that Japan had anything that could compare to the longbow. A weapon that was more effective in the proper hands than most guns into the 19th century. Longbow training was a full time endeavor, while gunfire was much easier, so it soon died out. King Henry laid waste to about 8000 knights with an army of 500 in Avincourt with a regiment of longbowmen. The value of the knighthood declined after that, to where it soon just became sport.

Were the samarai’s arrows fast and hard enough to pierce knight’s armour?

32

Bosda Di’Chi of Tricor:

That is fascinating about the European martial arts…I didin’t know that (SDMB teaches me something new yet again).

I would be interested in hearing more about it. However, given that it hasn’t survived I ahve to question its effectiveness. I bet you could find thousands of dojos across Europe today that teach Tae Kwon Do or Hapkido or take your pick of the asian martial arts. One might suppose that the reason they are there and the European martial arts have fallen by the wayside is the superior formalism and technique those styles offer.

That said I will grant that is just speculation. I already admitted that I never even heard of the European martial arts and I’ll allow that they might have been very effective indeed. I’m merely using the supposition that the better styles will prosper and the comparitively lesser styles will fade over time. One might suppose someone would have tried to ressurect the European style if it was worthwhile. I also understand that comparing one martial art to another and deciding which is ‘better’ is a dicey proposition at best.

33

FWIW, I’ve seen movies, played AoE2, and I’ve read The Once and Future King and I agreed with the OP that your typical middle age knight would have been the “slow and lumbering but powerful” sort. I know the worth of my input here is next to nil, but T. H. White got most of his facts right in OAFK, if you’ll recall the great and glorious duel between King Pellinore and Sir Grummore Grummerson.

34

I don’t know for certain but I seriously doubt it. The English Longbow was fairly unique and as you pointed out very hard to use effectively. However, in the right hands they were devastating. I don’t think the Japanese bows were anywhere near that caliber. That isn’t to say a Japanese bow couldn’t possibly injure a knight such that he’d want to sit still while fired upon but he could probably have a fair expectation of surviving such an attack.

35

Whack-a-Mole I’m not an medieval era combat maven, but just looking at the facts on the ground I think you are substantially overestimating how well a trained unarmored solider would fare against a trained armored solider.

Modern movies and literature paint the Samurai as a near superhuman warrior. They were well trained, but in the end they were basically quite small, muscular soldiers well versed in the martial arts fighting in Bamboo armor. The knights were somewhat larger, though still small by modern standards, and were well trained to use their armor to enhance their ability to strike both armored and unarmored opponents. It is possible that a Samurai could get in a lucky hit, but Samurai Jack cartoons aside metal will almost always beat bone and meat. One or two hits and the Samaui would have been done.

36

Samurai jack could easily kill any number of European knights, and then drink a cup of tea afterwards.

37

No, he could kill robot knights. He seems to have a thing against killing anything living.

I guess Kenshin is out too. Something tells me a reverse blade sword wouldn’t do much to armor.

Great info guys. I’m really learning a lot here.

38

astro:

Fair enough but I think people are underestimating just how good a true martial arts (in this case Asian martial arts) master is.

Because of movies people seem willing to pish-posh what they are capable of. No question the movie version of the Kung-Fu master is wholly overblown. I spoke with a martial arts expert and he sneered at the movie stuff. He said most fights (assuming two people trying their damndest to kill the other) would be over in a matter of a minute or less if not seconds unlike the 5 minute brawls movies show us. Martial arts teaches that each strike should count for something (i.e. always trying for an incapacitating, maybe deadly, blow). One or at most two hits land and the fight is over. The only way you will get an extended brawl is if somehow the opponents are so perfectly matched that they will continously block the other (very unlikely).

Armored tank though the knight may be he still has to pay for that protection. He will pay in endurance and speed. Martial artists know that size and strength are not the deciding factors if you know what you are doing…they can even be a liability. They are trained to use an opponents size against them. Speed and technique are the watchwords for a good fighter (of course if you can add strength to that so much the better). If you’ve ever seen a legitimate martial artist do their thing you’d know that they are fast…really, really fast. It does almost seem superhuman. The martial arts expert I mentioned earlier that I was talking to at one point told me to try and block an incoming punch. Granted there was no doubt I’d have a prayer at doing this but what surprised me was his fist an inch form my face before I even flinched (kidjanot…I was amazed…I figured I could at least move a little bit but I hadn’t even started before he was done and I was expecting it).

Of course our knight is well trained and would not fare as poorly as I did in the ‘punch test’ but nevertheless his speed is definitely hampered by his armor. The samurai is trained to use speed to his advantage and his opponents size against him. He’d probably realize his sword would be practically useless against the knight’s armor so what to do? At a guess I’d think the samurai would try to knock the knight down and a simple leg sweep or kick to the chest would probably suffice and I think the samurai has a better than even chance of being successful in that move. The knight probably wouldn’t expect it unless he had seen it before. Once on the ground the knight has real problems.

In short I think everyone here assumes heavy armor wins the day. Since the Japanese katana can’t penetrate the armor the knight is home free. The armor certainly helps a great deal in some respects but a smart opponent will try and turn that advantage against the knight and I think a samurai has both the smarts and skill to make the knight’s armor a liability rather than an asset.

39

What you’re missing is that so were knights. Trained especially to fight smaller, quicker, lightly armored opponents. Not denegrading Samuari, but no matter how well trained and quick a fighter is, if he can’t dammage his opponent, except perhaps by luck or an extremely difficuly combination of attacks that the knight trains to counter, he’s going to lose

40

Just out of curiosity what are the opinions of who’d win in an unarmored match of knight vs. samurai? The knight still has his bastard sword and the samurai his katana but both are stripped to their skivvies. This is a one vs. one Thunderdome match…two men enter, one man leaves.