# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/61 "2009-01-09T20:47:49Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > A sword as light as a katana, however sharp, would not even scratch a knight’s plate armor or chain mail. No contest. [Not necessarily](http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html). That having been said, two things -[ul][li]The samurai is likely to be somewhat more experienced in fighting single combat (_shinken shobu_ was their specialty) and on foot. Knights spent more of their time training as heavy cavalry.[\*]What might be referred to as the cumulative battlefield experience of the knight is likely to be broader than the samurai. Japan is an island, and almost all the samurai’s experience is going to be against other samurai, and based on the almost ritualized nature of Japanese feudal combat. The European knight’s experience is more likely to encompass battles in northern, middle and southern Europe. [/ul][/li] Regards, Shodan ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/62 "2009-01-09T20:49:45Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > . > > 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. I have never owned one these swords but I have handled one. A fine sword to say the least. I can’t imagine these were ever mass produced. A weapon of the finest quality. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/63 "2009-01-09T21:10:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [Not necessarily](http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html). Is that a steel helmet? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/64 "2009-01-09T21:25:55Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > 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) Two inches is pretty significant. In any case, the diet described in that account was hardly typical, even for someone wealthy enough to afford a horse and armour. Anyway, the point is that whatever height the Japanese gained over the last thousand years is probably close to that gained by Europeans. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/65 "2009-01-09T21:28:27Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Is that a steel helmet? _Kabuto_ were usually made of riveted iron, IIRC. ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/66 "2009-01-09T21:56:41Z")
> [@Omegaman](#): > > 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. Hah, those barbarous orientals… shows what they know! ---
**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, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/67 "2009-01-09T21:57:11Z")
[quote=“Shodan, post:61, topic:480439”] [Not necessarily](http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html). That having been said, two things -[list][li]The samurai is likely to be somewhat more experienced in fighting single combat (_shinken shobu_ was their specialty) and on foot. [/li][/QUOTE] I would disagree and would ask why you would assume this. Certainly most of the literature we have on medieval and renaissance martial arts display combat against a single opponent. It really doesn’t even make much sense. When we say that a martial art is effective, do we not mean that it is effective against a single opponent? Against multiple? On the field of battle? On the sporting arena? The only way your statement would be true would be if the martial art of the Samurai where somehow superior. Which is simply not the case. As for the helmet, I’m familiar with the demonstration. It also says absolutely nothing about the Katana’s ability to cut through articulated plate. The test is completely unrealistic in the test setup (the helmet is on an unyieldieng surface, at waist level and against a targeted full on strike). And the gash on the iron helmet is probably not deep enough to have killed. It’s a pointless demonstration, really. It is simply inpractical to try an cut at an opponent in articulated plate. While you are busy marring the surface, he’s busy poking holes in you. ---
**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, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/68 "2009-01-09T21:59:37Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Two inches is pretty significant. In any case, the diet described in that account was hardly typical, even for someone wealthy enough to afford a horse and armour. Anyway, the point is that whatever height the Japanese gained over the last thousand years is probably close to that gained by Europeans. No, it is NOT atypical. The entire point of Woolgar’s book is what normal people in medieval England ate. I would advise you to read it. And two inches is well-within normal variation of a population. And just who do you think knights were, anyway? They were the sons of the nobility, trained in the art of warfare. They were not peasants. They had access to the best food, medical care, training, and equipment available to them in their culture and time period! ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/69 "2009-01-09T22:13:09Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > No, it is NOT atypical. The entire point of Woolgar’s book is what normal people in medieval England ate. Despite what you may have read, the Bishop of Hereford and/or nieces of the king weren’t “normal” people. > [@](#): > > And just who do you think knights were, anyway? They were the sons of the nobility, trained in the art of warfare. They were not peasants. They had access to the best food, medical care, training, and equipment available to them in their culture and time period! Some of the knights were wealthy, and therefore well-fed, equipped, and so on. Some were not. A knight was originally simply a mounted soldier; the term did not always come with the modern association with the gentry. ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/70 "2009-01-09T22:34:57Z")
In fact, just in case anyone’s still convinced medieval people were stunted and weak, here’s some more data from actual studies of medieval cemeteries, not just hunches derived from armor in museums or bad Hollywood movies. From _The Cemetery of St Nicholas Shambles_ (1988), by W.J. White: Average height for a male (11-12th centuries): 1.72 (5’8) Average height for a female (11-12th centuries): 1.58 (5’2) From _Death and Burial in Medieval England, 1066-1550_ (1998) by Christopher Daniel: Taunton, England Male: (average height) 1.71cm (5’6) Female: (average height) 1.56 (5’1) Male: (shortest) 1.65 (5’4) Female: (shortest) 1.46 (4’7) Male: (tallest) 1.80 (5’9) Female: (tallest) 1.71 (5’6) From _Medieval Towns_ (2003) by John Schofield and A. G. Vince: St. Helen, York, England (10-16th centuries) Male: (average height) 1.69 (5’6) Female: (average height) 1.57 (5’2) St. Mary’s Priory, Thetford, England (12-13th centuries) Male: (average height) 1.77 (5’9) Female: (average height) no data St. Leonard’s, Kent, England (14-15th centuries) Male: (average height) 1.70 (5’7) Female: (average height) 1.57 (5’2) ---
**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, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/71 "2009-01-09T22:39:00Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Despite what you may have read, the Bishop of Hereford and/or nieces of the king weren’t “normal” people. Wow, you did not even read my post. 90% of the data is collected from archaeological studies down on medieval settlements. Only a small bit is obtained from medieval household records. If you would actually READ Woolgar’s book instead of talking about stuff you obviously haven’t studied, you would know that. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Some of the knights were wealthy, and therefore well-fed, equipped, and so on. Some were not. A knight was originally simply a mounted soldier; the term did not always come with the modern association with the gentry. Um, NO. A knight was born to a certain social class. Despite what you may read in High Fantasy novels, strapping farmboys did not pick up swords and become knights. They were counterparts to the Japanese samurai: high-born, well-trained, elite warriors. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/72 "2009-01-09T22:46:06Z")
> [@Mississippienne](#): > > Um, NO. A knight was born to a certain social class. Despite what you may read in High Fantasy novels, strapping farmboys did not pick up swords and become knights. They were counterparts to the Japanese samurai: high-born, well-trained, elite warriors. This is my understanding, too. The “strapping farmboys” that showed the proper agressiveness might be selected for training as regular or household soldiers, called “men-at-arms.” Still pretty tough, but not up to “Knight” quality. ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/73 "2009-01-09T22:51:52Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > This is my understanding, too. The “strapping farmboys” that showed the proper agressiveness might be selected for training as regular or household soldiers, called “men-at-arms.” Still pretty tough, but not up to “Knight” quality. That’s because you have some idea of what you’re talking about. Unfortunately, some people in this thread don’t. I have no idea what the average or mean height of a Japanese man during the approximate medieval time period would’ve been. Probably such records, if they exist, are in Japanese. If anyone reads Japanese and would be up to researching and posting their findings, it would be most enlightening. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/74 "2009-01-09T23:28:08Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The samurai is likely to be somewhat more experienced in fighting single combat (_shinken shobu_ was their specialty) and on foot. Japanese samurai specialized as mounted bowmen, and as massed spearmen. They certainly knew how to fight on foot in single combat, but that wasn’t how most Japanese battles went. ---
**Author:** ![Furious\_Marmot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dfb087/32.png) [@Furious\_Marmot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Furious_Marmot)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2009, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/75 "2009-01-09T23:53:33Z")
Regarding medieval food, is there evidence that meat consumption (from all types of animals) increased significantly after the population of Europe declined following the Black Plague? The idea being that more land supporting less people=lower demand for dairy products, and draft animals, resulting in more affordable meat prices. This was mentioned tangentially in an I essay I read about horse consumption among Europeans, and I have long wondered if it’s true. As to the OP: Robots. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/76 "2009-01-10T03:18:49Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Japanese samurai specialized as mounted bowmen, and as massed spearmen. They certainly knew how to fight on foot in single combat, but that wasn’t how most Japanese battles went. > [@](#): > > Records of individual exploits are as plentiful as in an earlier age, and in Japan the accounts of notable and bold feats ‘performed in the sight of noble men’ produced as late as the Korean War of 1592-98 would not have disgraced the hyperbole of the war tales of the 14th century such as the Heike Monogatari. With a stunning contempt for the reality of contemporary warfare, personal achievement and single combat are cited and praised, and for every description of a commander carefully marshalling his arquebus squads there are a dozen describing individual prowess. For example, Okochi Hidemoto led a mixed unit into Namwon castle in 1597, but the greatest emphasis in the chronicle is laid on his reaction to having killed a Korean warrior in single combat: [Cite.](http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/eastern_warfare/knights_and_samurai__brothers_in_arms/) > [@](#): > > Whereas the samurai used no military formations and challenged their opponents to formalized single combat, the Mongols were experienced tacticians that maneuvered skillfully in tight formations even when on horseback; they also had crossbows and catapults. [Cite.](http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Samurai-dokoro) > [@](#): > > Rules of engagement > > (single combat) > > Before engaging an enemy, a samurai would recite his name, ancestry and deeds of heroism. Upon defeating an opponent [Cite.](http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n11423816) > [@](#): > > brave deeds in single combat contribute to the overall victory. … [Cite.](http://books.google.com/books?id=NR9j09T2hLkC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=samurai+single+combat&source=web&ots=ytaRZtnNHH&sig=IUiVdldQ9r4EifHXkDu1PHU1ywQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result) > [@](#): > > Samurai relied on a sword, the katana, liked to wear armour and prefered single combat between peers. [Cite.](http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080310231219AAkjrV5) > [@](#): > > Now the ashigaru were trained to fight as a group and form up in several ranks while the samurai indulged in their pursuit of single combat and duel [Cite.](http://www.taots.co.uk/content/view/13/27/) _:shrugs:_ I shouldn’t have bothered. I have participated in these kind of debates on [e-budo.com](http://e-budo.com), and no one ever changes their mind, least of all me. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 10, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/77 "2009-01-10T04:08:43Z")
You’re being ridiculous. First of all the Samurai’s primary weapons was the spear and the bow, as mentioned above. This is similar to the Knight whose primary weapons were the spear/polearm and lance. Swords were SIDEARMS. Do you honestly believe that any unit that did not maintain formation or use proper field tactics would survive on the battlefield? Unelss Japanese warlords were stupid, Samurai would be the first casualties of any engagement. The Samurai “cult of the sword” might be what you are thinking about. But this did not take place until the 200+ period of relative peace (the Edo period from about the 17th century to the 19th). It is during this time that the Samurai that has been popularized in popular fiction emerges though not exactly as depicted in our modern fiction. I don’t believe that he put down his spear and bow, but during this time, the sword and the duel did become very ritualized. This still does not answer my question: Why on earth do you believe the Samurai would have an upper hand in a duel situation? Knights of the 15th century would have been plenty acquainted with Judicial Combat and duels and a variety of personal combat. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [January 10, 2009, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/78 "2009-01-10T17:40:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > [Cite.](http://books.google.com/books?id=NR9j09T2hLkC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=samurai+single+combat&source=web&ots=ytaRZtnNHH&sig=IUiVdldQ9r4EifHXkDu1PHU1ywQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result) If you read the rest of the paragraph… > [@](#): > > As will be explained below, this is a misleading construction… The idea of Samurai engaging each other in single armed combat fit the samurai’s image of themselves. And, if you look at the next page, dealing with samurai armor, > [@](#): > > This completed the costume of the samurai which had one overriding purpose: to provide the maximum protection for a man who was a mounted archer. This role was so important that the samurai referred to their calling as _kyuba no michi_, or “the way of horse and bow”. In fact, read pages 25-31 of that source, which talks about how Japanese battles were usually conducted and about the secondary nature of the sword. Or check out Turnbull’s other book “Warriors of Medieval Japan”, where he talks about the samurai’s role during the Warring States period, and mentions the primary samurai weapon was a _yari_, a short spear, that could be used both on horseback and on foot, with the sword taking a secondary role. ---
**Author:** ![GameHat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ed655f/32.png) [@GameHat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GameHat)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2009, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/79 "2009-01-11T05:24:16Z")
I’m kind of surprised this hasn’t been posted: [The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai](http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm) I don’t know if the site qualifies as an expert in the field (Association for Renaissance Martial Arts?) But it’s a decent read, though the author is far too waffly in drawing any conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [January 12, 2009, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439/80 "2009-01-12T11:15:36Z")
[quote=“Shodan, post:61, topic:480439”] [Not necessarily](http://www.shinkendo.com/kabuto.html). That having been said, two things -[list][li]The samurai is likely to be somewhat more experienced in fighting single combat (_shinken shobu_ was their specialty) and on foot. Knights spent more of their time training as heavy cavalry.[/li][/QUOTE] A lot of their training would include tourneying, where single combat by challenge was a common motif. Also things like the behourdium and fighting at barricades. While melee was usually the centrepiece of tourney, fighting on foot was definitely part of the scene. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/knights-vs-samurai-who-wins-in-a-fight/480439.md?page=5)