# Knights vs. Samurai: Who wins in a fight? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 8, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439 "2009-01-08T22:59:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/41 "2009-01-09T17:09:09Z")
Actually, in Europe, plate armor continued to be used and improved upon well into the gun powder age. The reason? It still worked. As metallurgy and the technology of armor improved it kept apace of the advances in missile weapons for quite a while, at least enough to make a difference on the field of battle. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/42 "2009-01-09T17:26:23Z")
Does the relative strength of the blades figure in? When they cross swords, is one or the other more likely to shatter? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/43 "2009-01-09T17:29:03Z")
> [@WormTheRed](#): > > Bullshit, since the **Pirates** would swing themselves in from the deck of their ships and swasbuckle the ninjas. > > In the other fight: My money’s on the big guy - hence the Knight wins. Is swashbuckle a synonym for sodomize? Because pirates were known for their sodomy. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/44 "2009-01-09T17:35:13Z")
> [@](#): > > Does the relative strength of the blades figure in? When they cross swords, is one or the other more likely to shatter? Not really, no. Couple of things: blades crossing tended to be a momentary thing. It’s not the drawn out push/pull you see in movies. The moment your blade is redirected/stopped you move the point or the entire sword to quickly engage another opening. Also, blades would not shatter in normal use unless there was some sort of a catastrophic failure due to a defect or previous damage. The longsword is the more resilient blade though. Due to the Katana’s blade geometry and construction method, if you bent it, it was likely to stay bent or take a set. A good quality European sword could bend a considerable amount and would then snap back to “true”. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/45 "2009-01-09T17:36:50Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Is swashbuckle a synonym for sodomize? Because pirates were known for their sodomy. So were Samurai, and since some ninja were invariably samurai… ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/46 "2009-01-09T17:39:51Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > As for ninja’s: remember, ninjas are not the black pajama wearing, high kicks in the air, twirling and jumping from roof tops loving dudes that we see in movies. They were normal people, specifically: assassins. Actually, I think they were employed as **spies** more often than as assassins; and, while spying, did not wear black pajamas, but whatever clothing would help them blend in to the crowd. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/47 "2009-01-09T17:41:40Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > So were Samurai, and since some ninja were invariably samurai… The our answer is clear: The knight would win because he could kill the samurai while the samurai was engaging in sodomy with a pirate. This question is now officially answered for all time. ---
**Author:** ![Earthworm\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f07891/32.png) [@Earthworm\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earthworm_Jim)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/48 "2009-01-09T18:02:05Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The our answer is clear: The knight would win because he could kill the samurai while the samurai was engaging in sodomy with a pirate. This question is now officially answered for all time. [George Silver](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Silver) does clearly state one must “keep [ones] rear unobstructed” when in battle. That’s a guy with his priorities, er, straight. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![WormTheRed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bbe5ce/32.png) [@WormTheRed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WormTheRed)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/49 "2009-01-09T18:16:06Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > The our answer is clear: The knight would win because he could kill the samurai while the samurai was engaging in sodomy with a pirate. This question is now officially answered for all time. That’s the answer I’m gonna use if this question ever comes up! Absolutely brilliant 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/50 "2009-01-09T18:48:27Z")
Ninjas? Pirates? Really?! :dubious: It’s obvious there is only one clear winner. Zombies ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/51 "2009-01-09T19:06:31Z")
Just to be nitpicky, “Samurai” were not a classification of warriors, but a social caste. The samurai were Japan’s nobility, not its army. While most samurai males trained as warriors, not all soldiers on a Japanese battlefield were samurai, and it was not impossible for a commoner to rise to high rank. Totyomni Hideyoshi was (it is believed) born a peasant and ended up a samurai. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/52 "2009-01-09T19:23:57Z")
> [@](#): > > and ended up a samurai. Was that _rear_ ended up a samurai? ---
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/53 "2009-01-09T19:51:08Z")
Maybe something of his ended up in a samurai. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/54 "2009-01-09T19:59:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Europeans were also much shorter 500+ years ago. Nutrition wasn’t very good back then anywhere. Uh no, they were NOT. That’s a myth just like the one about knights being winched onto their horses. Medieval Europeans were, on average, just an inch or two shorter than their modern-day descendants. Part of this misconception arose because of the smaller height of doors in medieval buildings (they were built that way to keep in heat) and skeletons of people from the industrial era, who really were stunted (the industrial era was an exceptionally unhealthy time period to live in). Medieval people actually ate very nutritious diets except in times of famine. Here’s some data from _Food in Medieval England: Diet and Nutrition_ (2006) by C. M. Woolgar, Dale Serjeantson, Tony Waldron and from _The Great Household in Late Medieval England_ by C.M. Woolgar: The food supply fluctuated depending on the season, which is to be expected when methods of curing and storing food was limited. Preserved fruits, such as **dried dates, figs, currants, and raisins** were popular at Christmas and during Lent (when they would’ve provided a respite from fish). **Leeks, onions, and cabbages** were also commonly consumed with fish during Lent. Some fruits did not keep well and had to eaten immediately, like \*\*strawberries \*\*in the summer. Others, such as **apples and pears** , were kept for Christmas delicacies. In winter, **wheat, rye, and winter barley** were sown, and from these were made breads, ale, and fodder for animals. In the spring were sown **oats, spring barley, beans, and peas**. Then as today, wheat made the preferred bread, but cheaper coarse breads were made (from most to least expensive) from rye, a barley/oats mixture, and ground-up peas and barley. As for fish, **cod and herring made up the bulk of fish** eaten in medieval England. In Scotland and Northern England, **saithe or coalfish** were also popular. In southwestern England, **hake** was more popular than cod. By the 11th century, herring had become by far the most popular fish on much of the island. **Whiting** made up a distant third of the most popular fish, after cod and herring. **Flounder** seems to have been favored by the wealthy, as remains are found in the well-to-do sections of Winchester and London. Cows and sheep were too valuable for their milk, musclepower, or wool to be eaten regularly by most peasants. **Pigs** , which provided little other than meat, were much more likely to end up in a pot. Peasants were not supposed to take game meant for highborn nobles like **deer, boars, and rabbits** , but some poached **rabbits and wildfowl such as ducks and geese**. Wine was consumed in quantities that seem amazing to us. The Bishop of Hereford’s household in 1289-90 had a DAILY consumption of between 4-14 gallons of wine. At Christmas and Easter this could surpass 40 gallons. Milk for the most part was made into other things rather than being drunk outright: **cheese, curds, and whey. Cider from apples and mead from honey** were also drunk. In the households of great nobles, it became common by about 1200 for Wednesday, Friday and Saturday to be days when no flesh was eaten – in other words, fish days. As for a highborn nobles’ diet, Woolgar gives us the example of Eleanor of Brittany, the niece of King John: Monday: beef, pork, honey, and vinegar Tuesday: pork, eggs, egret Wednesday: herring, conger eels, almonds, eggs Thursday: pork, eggs, pepper, and honey Friday: conger eels, herring, almonds Saturday: bread, ale, almonds, butter, eggs Sunday: mutton, pork, chicken, and eggs This diet seems to me to have been reasonably healthy; certainly, medieval people didn’t consume the ungodly amounts of sugar we do today. Scurvy and rickets would’ve been the plague of townsfolk, who lacked the easy access to fruits and vegetables that their country cousins enjoyed. Lead poisoning from pewter vessels and contaminated wine was a real danger. To address the myth that medieval people were malformed and much smaller than people today, here’s an analysis of skeletons taken at St. Peter’s Church, Barton-upon-Humber: 950-1149: Mean height for males: 1.69 (5’5) Mean height for females: 1.61 (5’2) 1150-1299: Mean height for males: 1.70 (5’5) Mean height for females: 1.59 (5’2) Modern-day British: Mean height for males: 1.76 (5’7) Mean height for females: 1.62 (5’3) ---
**Author:** ![Omegaman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e480ec/32.png) [@Omegaman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omegaman)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/55 "2009-01-09T20:01:11Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > Was that _rear_ ended up a samurai? From my readings there were a number of samurai that were openly homosexual. It was accepted by others without prejudice, as they judged the man by his skill, not his sexual preference. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/56 "2009-01-09T20:11:28Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > Uh no, they were NOT. That’s a myth just like the one about knights being winched onto their horses. Medieval Europeans were, on average, just an inch or two shorter than their modern-day descendants. Part of this misconception arose because of the smaller height of doors in medieval buildings (they were built that way to keep in heat) and skeletons of people from the industrial era, who really were stunted (the industrial era was an exceptionally unhealthy time period to live in). Don’t know if it’s true, but I read once that the myth also derived from diminutive suits of armor that can be seen on display in museums or manor houses – those suits being made for the knights as teenagers; they were customarily buried in their full-sized adult suits. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/57 "2009-01-09T20:15:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Medieval European knights used swords heavy enough to cut right through wood-and-leather samurai armor. A sword as light as a katana, however sharp, would not even scratch a knight’s plate armor or chain mail. No contest. For the last time, medieval European swords only weighed two or three pounds on average, even the biggest ones! I mean, medieval knights were some of the greatest warriors of their era. How stupid would they have to have been to haul around 20 pound swords into battle and hack at people for hours? These were powerful men with great finesse and skill. As **Kinthalis** pointed out, the katana was actually HEAVIER per inch of length than a comparable European sword. BTW, I would like to point out to people who judge medieval armor by the examples they’ve seen in museums: that armor tends to be armor that was specially made for ocassions such as parades, etc. They’re not usually good examples of armor medieval knights wore into battle; that stuff got banged up and dented and doesn’t look as good hanging in a museum. ---
**Author:** ![WormTheRed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/bbe5ce/32.png) [@WormTheRed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WormTheRed)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/58 "2009-01-09T20:15:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t know if it’s true, but I read once that the myth also derived from diminutive suits of armor that can be seen on display in museums or manor houses – those suits being made for the knights as teenagers; they were customarily buried in their full-sized adult suits. I thought most of the suits of armor found were “samples” made by armor smiths to show off how good they were. Hence they made them smaller, since they didn’t want to waste too much material on them. Or is that completely wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/59 "2009-01-09T20:23:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Don’t know if it’s true, but I read once that the myth also derived from diminutive suits of armor that can be seen on display in museums or manor houses – those suits being made for the knights as teenagers; they were customarily buried in their full-sized adult suits. It wouldn’t surprise me if that were true. Such armor would probably have been packed away when he outgrew it, and thusly would’ve survived intact centuries later when actual battle armor had been dented and rusted into oblivion. Knights, like samurai, began their training as small children and as members of the nobility, would’ve had a steady food supply and the best medical care available at the time. Many of these men could vault into the saddle and do handstands in full armor. I imagine by the time a knight was fully-grown, he probably had shoulders like a fucking linebacker. I would also like to mention that there were many European swords of comparable quality to the finest katana, such as the famed Spanish toledo. ---
**Author:** ![Mississippienne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d2c977/32.png) [@Mississippienne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mississippienne)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/60 "2009-01-09T20:32:59Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I know that they weren’t foot soldiers but rather stealthy assassins, so in a one-on-one fight where neither side is surprised by the other the ninja would have some disadvantages. But I’m curious whether or not their legendary martial arts and various tools would prove to be too much for a knight. Maybe throw a smoke bomb to blind him and then some shurikens to the visor? Did they even have smoke bombs like in the movies back then? 😕 That doesn’t make logical sense. How is the ninja supposed to aim for a little-bitty slit in the visor through the haze of the smoke bomb he just threw at the knight? Did they have echo-location or something? And that’s got to be the sloppiest assassination attempt imaginable. If a ninja wanted to assassinate a knight, he’d slip something in his food or cut his throat while he slept or something. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439.md?page=4)