European Knight vs. Japanese Samurai: Who wins?

In My Humble Opinion
81

Heres a scenario:

An English knight of the 15th century travels to Japan. Being royalty, he is made a guest of one of the Oyabun, which insults a visiting samurai duelist. The knoght is challenged to a duel to the death for the honor of the Oyabun. If the knight refused, he is branded a coward and killed.

The knight having spent some time in Japan has some idea of the martial arts of the place. Being a foreigner he is allowed to choose his weapons and armor. Normal japanese duels are fought with no armor.

The knight appears in a helm, full chainmail, breastplate, gloves and a broadsword.

The Samurai seeing the knight wisely opts to wear his armor of wood lacquered breastplate, heavy leather gloves and light chainmail. with Katana. He does not wear a helmet to show his contempt.

Using western swordfighting techniques which uses every part of the broadsword from its armor peircing sharp tip, to its bludgeoning hilt. The samurai is taken aback by this technique because to the untrained eye, it almost seems the knight was wildly swinging his weapon all around him. His slashing cuts are accurate and wouldve cut thru most japanese armor but the knights thicker chainmail and good defense of the apparent weak spots does nothing to hurt the knight.

The knights blows however are staggering. Even a parry was painful and only the superb craftsmanship of the samurais katana keeps it from breaking. It suffers huge gouges in its sharp edge from trying to stop the heavy english sword. A slash downward strike to the neck from the samurai is captured in the metal gloved hand of the knight. Holding fast to the katana, the knight twirls his other arm on top of the katana and puts his whole weight on the sword, the knight disarms the samurai and kills him.

Ya dont need plate armor to fight man to man. Plate armor was invented to stop arrows and a small mob of untrained villagers with small swords, A sensible knight would not go to a battle wearing that thing. You only wear as much armor as you need to to protect yourself from the waepons of your opponent. If all he has is a slashing sword, then chainmail is quite appropriate.

Samurai were pitted weapon against weapon. armor was a sign of cowardice in a one on one duel. Thats a disadvantange against a man who wears armor most of his waking day. The skill with which an english knight can bring on to a battle would surprise and confuse a samurai who have never seen a knight fight on foot. The average samurai warrior will fall to an average knight. Why? because a knight does not fight with a style that uses a countermove for every move. A knight is used to cutting down opponents both skilled and unskilled. A samurai would not know how to properly counteract an unknown skill.

82

  1. On the boxer vs. Martial Arts - I think anyone who knows how to kick is going to beat the boxer. One good kick to the knee, and it is over for Joe Lewis.

  2. The knight beats the samurai hands down. All this talk of tiring out the knight is laughable, the knight isn’t going to bound over hill and dale chasing the wily samuri until he can’t move for exaustion. The knight will have to wait for the samurai to attack, or attack the samurai on the ground of the samurai’s choosing, but I don’t expect either will be fatigued by the fight. My understanding is that the blow from the heavy sword, even if it didn’t cut, could still break bones. I would expect the knight to beat and break the samurai into little pieces. I don’t know anthing though!

83

It should be noted that, if one peruses the old manuals, the European masters did pay attention to the difference between unarmored and armored combat. Judicial duels could be fought without armor.

Also, by the 15th century, in parts of Europe, it had become fashionable to wear a sword in “daily” dress. The fighting masters adapted to this trend. G. Silver’s manual of “short” (actually as long as a Scottish broadsword) sword combat seems to have been written for this situation as much as for armored combat.

84

What we have is a classic strong/long strategy vs. a weak/short strategy. Mr. Stronglong (knight) wants to keep the distance and can inflict heavy damage on a “glancing” blow. Mr. Shortweak (samurai) wants to get inside the knight’s optimal range and go for that truly telling blow. Note that “weak” in this case does not refer to muscular weakness or a bad weapon, it means that the “weak” fighter has a harder time inflicting damage with a less-than-perfect blow.

Now, if that knight has a shield, things could get ugly.

85

Rapierist vs. samurai.

This is a matchup where the rapierist wants to control that distance and keep it LONG. His weapon’s strength is the point, and the strength of the point is that you can really reach out and touch someone. His weapon will likely be longer than the katana, as well. Samurai Jack wants to get in close and start carving. Now, earlier rapierists were prone to having a secondary defensive weapon–a dagger with nice long quillions, but it’s not too useful against a cut directly. However, it has another feature that I was taught: One can ward the blow with the sword and then “grab” the opponent’s weapon with the dagger. However, if ones rapier is too long vs. the opponent’s, one can’t effectively take advantage of the situation.

Rapierist vs. samurai turns into “crane vs. snake”.

That being said, the Spaniards were of the opinion that they could often face somebody with a shorter weapon, who liked to cut. These “vulgar” swordsmen (as they Spanish called them) were to be dealt with by controlling timing, geometry, and distance. Do it right, and one comes out ahead. Do it wrong, and one gets tagged.

A weakness of the point is that you can kill somebody and his body won’t realize it for a while. So you now have to deal with this desperate man who realizes that he’s a goner and throws all caution to the wind.

Rapier and smallsword duels used to end up in the “two dead idiots” outcome rather often, from my reading of the accounts.

86

The knight would win hands down, not because of any superior skill, but because of the ethics of battle. As soon as the samurai bows to his enemy, the knight will seize the opportunity to slice his head off. :slight_smile:

87

I don’t think a samurai would have sunk so low as to show any form of respect to a filthy ketô.

88

The rituals of European honorable combat were no less delicately observed than were the Japanese rituals.

Of course, the blatant and irredeemable racism of Japanese culture far outweighs anything ever come up with by any other society, so I would say that the samurai would be far more likely to violate the norms of honor and rationalize it upon racist bases.

89

Dogface’s analysis is pretty good so far, even for the widely misunderstood discipline of Spanish fencing.

They were often fought without armor. Even weapons such as the longsword and arming sword were used for blossfechten. Most of the west’s earliest fencing treatises were unarmored heavy weapons fighting for the duel.

Although I have never fenced with sharps, research seems to indicate that this is not often true. It depends on where the blow is landed. Even light thrusts to the torso to non-vital areas can cause the body to recoil involuntarily, just like the foot would when one steps on a tack. Of course, this won’t necessarily stop a kamikaze samurai, but the odds are still pretty good.

Hence almost all techniques for rapier and smallsword involve controlling the opponent’s blade even while a killing blow is landed. Attack in absence and you are taking a serious risk. Either a stesso tempo action or a stop thrust would be very appropriate techniques when dealing with an opponent with a cutting weapon.

This is probably due to the fact that people were as stupid in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as they are today. :slight_smile: As the veteran of many smallsword vs. rapier contests, I would say that such double hits happen when the attacking fencer fails to control his opponent’s blade adequately. The smallsword fencer needs to maintain blade control in order to gain sufficient distance to strike with the point. If he loses control of the rapier and does not withdraw defensively, he’s a dead man. The two dead idiots problem exists because the smallsworder insists his attack into a free blade and an extended arm. This is particularly common with people who don’t have much experience fencing rapierists.

I fence rapier and smallsword, and have been on both sides of this kind of encounter. I have to say, I think the smallsword has a decided advantage against the rapier, unless the rapier fencer has considerable sensitivity and point control.

*quote]Of course, the blatant and irredeemable racism of Japanese culture far outweighs anything ever come up with by any other society, so I would say that the samurai would be far more likely to violate the norms of honor and rationalize it upon racist bases.
[/quote]

Touche. :slight_smile:

90

If the knight was the tank of his era, then why are we taking away his treads?

The knight evolved for one purpose: shock cavalry. While knights often were used dismounted, their true purpose was on horseback. Let the rabble and the Swiss do the marching.

Of course, both types of warrior were only components pf tehri larger armies. That’s the fight I want to see. A battle between a medieval European army and a comprable feudal Japanese one.

I say teh samurais will do alright for themselves, although they’d be vulnerable to shock cavalry when the Europeans could force it, up until the age of the longbow. Then the knights really dominate (dominate here being defined as taking credit from the deserving, but low-statue archers).

91

Two words: Spiked Greaves

Take a look at this suit. See those plates protruding from the side of the knee? Directly behind the knee is chain mail or at least heavy padding. Sweeping the leg is extremely risky. If they have a setup like this one then you’re likely to end up with your own leg crippled by even trying this one. Plus they’ve got their own stability(and the stability of a well-trained knight is nothing to sneeze at) augmented by the weight of the armor. It would take a lot of force to sweep that leg under any circumstances and I would expect the samurai to be limping at the end of any attempt even if they got lucky and knocked the knight down.

IMHO I think individual tactics and technique would carry the day. Training and equipment may help, but if you put a remarkably clever duelist like Miyamoto Musashi(one of the most celebrated duelists in Japanese history) up against his equivelant in the knighthood and I’d guess their training and equipment would not play nearly the part that their creativity and intuition would.

Enjoy,
Steven

92

Finally I get to find time to post…

I have scirmished and trained both in western style plate armour and samurai armour. I’ve studied Tae-Kwon Do, kendo, naginata, spear and broadsword fencing and have loved all of them.

I may not be a 7th degree black belt ninja nor the King of the western world but I might have an insight that may be helpful.

Right here you make an assumption. The idea that an armoured knight is a “tank” has implications that might cloud your judgment of the issue.

The average knight’s armour was not much heavier the what an average soldier carries into battle today. About 30-50 pounds maximum (More if he’s on horse). The crusader knights wound up learning to fight all day in the deserts of the holy lands and it was only reckless charging or bad strategy that usually lost them the battle. I, myself, have fought medieva combat in the Victorville desert in the summer from 9:00am until 4:00 pm with just a lunch break. Granted it was not life or death but it’s still something you can train yourself to do.

This is no secret to the knights who conquered europe, they knew what they were doing.

All warriors learn this, or they are dead.

No it’s not. The speed of a well trained swordsman weilding a well balanced basket hilt claymore or broadsword is astounding. I’ve seen with my own eyes (and been on the recieving end of blows from,) how quickly a parry, riposte and counter attack can be instinctively launched. The samurai were still human men, no faster or stronger than other human men anywhere else on the globe with simular training and experience.

as is a knight, this idea is not unique to japanese miltary training.

How would he realize this? ninja mind-scanning? If the knight was wearing his taberb or surcoat, the Japanese might not even know that there’s armour on his opponent.

Try it sometime…

Not to pick on you, Whack-a-mole but I really must insist you talk not only to your martial arts freinds but take a walk to your nearest S.C.A. meeting and watch some of these guys. They are pretty good at research by doing and not just reading.

Incorrect. Medieval combat was life and death, to think that a deadly, experienced fighter would “not expect” a flying kick to the chest is just plain silly.

I’ve wrestled and sparred for fun in my plate armour and it’s no picnic but it’s also not a problem to jump, roll, leap, kick and spin.

I think you have an overly inflated opinion of what a samurai could do. An earlier post was speculating on why eastern unarmed martial arts schools survived and western european schools did not. they guessed that it was because one systen was superior than the other.

This is wrong.

They were never in competition. The reason the eastern schools survived was inaccessability . They were cut off from the surrounding world. China, Japan and to some extent, Korea, all had an insular society that shunned the outside world.

European unarmed martial arts schools died out because of gunpowder. Basically, it’s much easier (and cheaper) to gather a big crowd of men by emptying your jails and wharfs and spending a couple of weeks drilling them in how to point and shoot than it is to spend years training them to be an elite unit of knights.

Knight would win 5 out of 7 times.

93

Yes, the Knight would win most of the time… with armour- and even allowing the Samurai a choice of alternative weapons designed for use against armour. I have seen those dudes from the SCA, and BMalion is right. Our soldiers today carry more wieght than a knight in armour.

Now, in light armour, some samurai were experts in Iajitsu, or a surprise fast draw belly cut. I’d hate to be in light/no armour and not expecting this.

The Japanese had a longbow, just about as good as the Welsh- although few practiced as much with it. However, even the much vaunted welsh LB would bounce off good plate (however, note there were enough gaps in the armour to make this a dicey propsition). Note the battle of Poctiers, where the French Knights WALKED up - most were felled by the long walk through mud, and then others sprouted clothyard shafts in every gap.

The later plate armour did not depend on chainmail, it was fully articulated. It came in just after gunpowder, so…

That being said- some samurai had more time to develope their skill. Those rare few would be deadly. Of course, so would the knight who jousted for a living, but he practiced a skill that was not usuable in this situation… unless you’re going to give the Knight a destrier, and then it is all over very quickly, unless the samurai is VERY good with a polearm.

94

I think it is has been overlooked that men fough not as individuals, but in formations. The knights would go into battle supported by archers and flanked by infantry. I think a more relevant question is, what would be the result of combat between a formation of Knights vs a formation of Samauri. The battle would be decided by which ever battlefield commander could apply the strengths of his force against the weakness of the opposing force.

95

Virtually all of the extant swordplay treatises from the fourteenth century onward treat exclusively single combat. Go figure.

96

That’s because fighting in formation is best done by polearms or sheild and short sword. With longer swords used to defend the holes and gaps in the line. When fighting shoulder to shoulder there’s just not much room for elaborate fencing techniques. It’s cut and thrust and hacking. Single one on one combat was for when small groups of skirmishers ran into each other, or duels.

97

I was being facetious. We have treatises on both sword & shield fighting as well as polearm fighting. A lot of very good work has been done recently on jeu de la hache, or poleaxe fighting.

The claim was made that “men fought not as individuals.” This is bogus, hence my response.

98

:o

whoops, I didn’t see that it was you who wrote that post. I’ll be the first to defer to Maeglin on matters of the sword.

99

I am in no way as qualified as Maeglin is to answer this question, as I have seen his documentation and have heard his reputation long before I came to this board. (It’s a pleasure, BTW, to see you posting here Maeglin!) However, I have been armoured up in full plate (late 15th century Milanese to be precise), and I can tell you from personal experience that the assumption that it makes you slow or tires you out too quickly is entirely erroneous.

As I have posted before, I am a member of the Society for Creative Anachronism. What we do, in all honesty, in no way resembles the actual combat performed by medieval knights or warriors. We have far too many restrictions on what we can and cannot hit, and our weapons can only simulate, not match, the performance of their medieval counterparts. That is why I defer to Maeglin’s expertise…what he does is the real deal, what we do is sport. Despite this, we are one of the few groups that practice by throwing blows that are full speed and full strength, without pulling our shots…and until you have experienced it, you have no idea how fast a person in armour can move.

I recall my very first time fighting another person in armour, at my first SCA fighter practice. I had been “fighting” with swords and studying martial arts for ten years, and I was absolutely convinced that I was going to kick my opponent’s ass up one side of that field and down the other…after all, he was heavily armoured and I was only lightly armoured, and would have a speed advantage. I never even saw him move…I just felt a sudden, large amount of force and felt my head rock to the side. Since then, I have met others who are far faster than this guy…it really is amazing.

So please, don’t assume that a properly trained knight would be in anyway a slow or lumbering opponent. Also, look up the actual blade weights of 16th century hand-and-half swords compared to 16th century katanas…I’m willing to bet that their weights are fairly similar. As for martial training, check out Maeglin’s site, and also do a search on Fiore. There are some devastating WMA’s (Western Martial Arts) that I feel would easily equal that of a Samurai’s training.

Who would win between the knight and the samurai?

Whomever had the most luck, I think.

100

One only has to be fast enough for a single instant. That’s what some people tend to forget when they natter on about “fatigue”. One doesn’t have to jump around like a cartoon lunatic. Keep a cool head and only move when one must or the moment is right.