I think speed normally refers to flat out top speed while quickness refers to acceleration, reflexes and maneuverability.
I literally have no idea.
Since I own, and have worn, both a 14th century suit of Hungarian armor and a suit of Samurai armor (replica from 1577) and fought in both (Historical Combat Enthusiast) I feel uniquely qualified to offer anecdotal evidence.
My European armored self would beat my Japanese armored self.
The Zero’s speed, maneuverability/quickness came at the cost of (lack of) self-sealing fuel tanks and a very light superstructure.
Samurai/Early War Zero /= Knight/Widlcat.
No comparison.
The Zero still had a 12:1 win ratio. Its advantages and reasons for winning were speed and maneuverability.
In a duel at the king’s courtyard, neither would like being in full armor and prefer light, keen weapons. In this case, the samurai’s fighting technique is pretty awesome, unless the knight is very good with a long rapier.
In the battlefield, you expect to be in your best armor, and armed with long, heavy, blunt weapons. Stow away your katana if you don’t want it to get chipped. So here, the Frenchie has the advantage because of better armor, but both have a wide choice of battle weapons like lances, halberds, maces, etc.
Bah, they’re the same thing, except that the Samurai has one point more defense, and doesn’t require Horses to build, only Iron. So a Samurai attacking a Knight is just like another Knight doing the attacking. In the case where the Knight attacks a Samurai, though, the Samurai would have a slight edge (especially considering the +25% or more terrain defensive bonus).
And the knight’s isn’t?
People seem to have this notion of samurai as super-quick l33t martial artists, vs knights as lumbering tanks. I’d love to know the historical justifications for these stances.
The last samurai.:rolleyes:
The stereotype of the lumbering tank-knight is easy to trace: it comes from the fact that museums are full of fancy late-period jousting armour, which is much heavier than the stuff actually worn for battles.
Combine that with accounts of various historical battles in which knights in armour suffered against lightly-armoured troops - I’m thinking of Agincourt here - and you get a rather fictionalized menal image of the knight as lumbering tank.
Never mind that at Agincourt, the French knights were attacking, on foot, through thick mud in the face of an arrow-storm. 
Or that their English opponents included a significant mumber of knights armed exactly like them.
I disagree with this. Suppose the knight is reasonably sure that a slash or even thrust from the katana would have little chance of penetrating his armor, and thus he decides to rely on his armor to stop the samurai’s strikes. Then when the first attack from the samurai comes, the knight would also strike, and the two of them would hit each other at almost the same time. The knight’s sword may be able to overcome the samurai’s armor, but I am not sure about this. However, the knight would have ample experience with heavy armor, and thus he would know about techniques such as half-swording. Regardless, the knight would not just stand there and take the samurai’s hits.
Against the fighters it was annihilating early in the war it had no real DISADVANTAGE, either. Which makes the comparison invalid.
Later in the war the Zero was consistently beaten by fighters that were still not as maneuverable, but which had other advantages like diving power, firepower, and armor.
I know this (and that stupid Victorian play with the knight getting winched into the saddle didn’t help)- I’m more wondering where they get the idea that an (armoured) samurai was some sort of whirling bladed deathstorm.
Especially since the Japanese samurai I’ve seen in actual period portraits (as opposed to Edo-era prints) tend towards the mature and … not so lithe, shall we say. Of course, it’s the rich and powerful who get portraits, so there’ll be a weighting there, but I don’t see anything to justify the skills attributed to samurai (yes, yes, Mu-fucking-sashi, the guy we mostly know about from his own works and period fanfics, who was distinctly post-medieval, and who didn’t seem to go around in armour much, anyway) - Hell, I’d love anyone to point to a medieval Japanese source anywhere near as on-point a training manual as the German Fechtbücher or The Flower of Battle.
Can’t help there … a recent history of the Samurai I read made the point rather forcefully that nearly all that was written about the details of how samurai actually fought, was written during the Tokugawa era by (or for) samurai-bureaucrats who lived in a society that fetishized swordplay, had outlawed guns, and who of course never actually fought in any battles.
Not unsurprisingly, such writings were infected with a great deal of romanticism about the glories of samurai warfare, and aren’t a particularly reliable guide …
12:1 only in the early stages in the war.
Again, a Samurai, equated to a Zero, is not a valid comparison to a Frenck Knight equated to…what? Brewster Buffalo? Grumman Wildcat? Even the WIldcat ended the war with a ~7:1 favorable kill ratio against Japanese aircraft.
WikiQuote:
Superior protection does have its advantages, but it’s really about tactics and technique.
I don’t know where people get this image of a cumbersome, lumbering knight flailing away spastically with a sword barely better than a baseball bat against the graceful whirling dervish Samurai with a sword one step removed from a Jedi’s Lightsaber.
I wonder just how many posters have actually hefted a Samurai and a Medieval Arming sword- or perhaps even something like a rapier.You would be surprised at the similarity in weight.
The idea of the lumbering knight with a heavy swinging lump of sharpened metal could not be further from the truth, the reality is that the knights sword was rarely above 4 pounds in weight, and Samurai sword is perhaps only slightly lighter, but there is plenty of scope for the Samurai being slightly heavier - it would depend upon which exact swords were being compared.
Mass always reacts in the same way to the same forces, a Samurai sword does not move any faster - it is not some lightening fast slicer and dicer, the Knight sword is pretty much the same weight, is made of much much better material and is able to keep a better edge. It is far stronger too and recreations using the same materials and methods also produce a blade that can take flexion.
Medieval swords were extremely good, they were not some primitive lumpen object.
Surprised? It happens that in my home town we have the national arms museum, and they have plenty of such stuff there to check out, you can even pick up certain exhibits.
Knights would have been expected to train from an early age, from perhaps 7 years old - there would be battle competitions to keep them very sharp indeed, and those tournament melees were designed to be a close as possible to the real thing.
I believe most posters here are imagining the fighting skills of knights to be largely based on the jousting competitions, but these were very formalised and ritualised competitions and nothing like the mock battles that became social ladders for those who were successful. There was serious, very serious money to be made from mock battles and the result was that these events were taken very seriously.
What we have in a medieval knight is someone who has weapons of equal or superior quality to the Samurai, has far better armour, has trained in his field for at least as long as a Samurai, and whose weapons are designed for dealing with with armour protection.
The Samurai has weapons that are not designed to handle plate armour and without previous combat experience of opponent using it, is going to be at a serious disadvantage.
I’ve seen exhibition days at the Leeds Armouries, and let me tell you, the guys doing it are extremely mobile, and just to demonstrate they will sometimes do a series of tumbles in armour. These demonstrators are probably not as used to the armour as a medieval knight would have been, so one can only wonder at just what could be achieved by someone spending maybe 15 years or so from very early youth living with armour.
Katanas are superb swords but with each blow against steel they become duller and duller. I would reckon dodging is more fatiguing then tanking blows to the armour but I’m not certain.
Should the fight proceed like you think it would, you’ll end up with two tired warriors, with the knight being the only one with a functional weapon.
Racial prejudice. Nothing more and nothing less. People have over time tended to lump all “Oriental-lookin’ people fightin’ styles” together. The image of a person who LOOKS Asian fighting has to conform with a general style, which in the Western world is assumed to be one of speed, grace, and almost superhuman technique and precision. The fact that Japanese warriors
- Did not all, or even MOSTLY, use swords as their primary weapon,
- Were not all elitely skilled warriors, and
- Weren’t all Bruce Lee,
… is lost on most people in the Western world because most of them don’t grasp that people who look like that aren’t all like the images movies give them. A great many people don’t even perceive a difference between Chinese and Japanese people, despite the fact that they are as different as Swedes and Turks.
Conversely, to a Westerner, a 15-the century knight is part of our world, and is by definition, to us, old and archaic and stupid. (There is a term of art for the mistaken tendency to assume that people from the past were stupid, but I don’t recall it.) The boards are replete with examples of people saying “why were the soldiers/generals of the past so stupid to do X?” They’re OUR past, though, so it’s easy for us to feel superior.
Both opponents would possess very effective armor. And as others have pointed out, the knight’s would not be bulkier or more detrimental to his mobility than the samurai’s. Both opponents would have possessed thorough martial training. Discounting individual variables like speed, strength, level headedness etc, the knight wins because his sword is specifically designed for fighting an armored foe, and the samurai’s is not.
Of course, the knight would probably prefer a poleaxe for fighting a heavily armored foe, and the samurai would probably feel naked without his bow.
Why the hell anyone would think that aerial dogfights from the Second World War would have anything to do with a melee duel between two men armed with swords is beyond me.