A Essay -- The Knight vs. the Samurai

[Prince of Happiness]

Some bonehead posted the following elsewhere herein:



Congratulations. You have only proven that the ignorant fools who mindlessly rahrahrahrah for samurai are likewise utterly ignorant at the level of scholarship available for historical European martial arts. If you think that it all comes down to the word of a single SCA member, your opinion is as worthless as someone who forms his opinion of the fighting prowess of the Japanese from watching anime and nothing else.

It's called being facetious kiddo. Try reading in context, it helps.

 

[Sejs]

One account recalls a knight being pinned to his horse by an arrow that passed through both armored thighs, with the horse and saddle between!

... you know, that's one LONG friggin' arrow.

 

[Creamsteak]

I voted for the Knight. I think the shield and the height advantage played into my vote.

 

[Destil]

From Rapier vs. Katana:

Although occasionally argued by some, I do not believe for an instant that the rapier would be "cut" or broken by a katana. Although katanas were (more or less) capable of cutting through metal, slicing an adversary's very sword, especially one as agile as a rapier, is improbable at best. The rapier really just doesn't offer the opportunity or the necessary resistance to even attempt it. We might wonder however about the rapier's recorded propensity to break when used in cutting. Yet it is necessary to understand that there was considerable diversity in the geometry of rapier blades. Some designs intended to produce an especially light and agile thrusting weapons resulted in particularly thin points that did indeed tend to snap off when a forcible edge blow was struck with them.

That's it. I'm nerfing sunder to hell and back in my game.

 

[Planesdragon]

Thats all bogus old school English propaganda. It's been refuted by several recent tests at the Royal Armory at Leeds. There was a History Channel documentary about this quite recently, they fired longbow and crossbow at flat sheets of 2mm plate at all ranges and it failed to penetrate. Just FYI.

Got a link to what weight bow, quality steel, and style of arrowhead they used?

Battered and re-hammered plate is much weaker than plate right off the assembly line, and the weight of the bow and structure of the arrowhead could mean the difference between splitting armor and bouncing off someone's shirt.

I love the history channel, but sometimes they just fall flat when it comes to their info.

 

[Sejs]

Rapier vs Katana, re: sundering.

the rapier is just too light ("agile" if you prefer) - you'd be far more likely to just push it aside with a forceful blow then break it.

 

[Ottergame]

I have always felt that a samurai at the peak of their ability in time would get their ass handed to them by knights in their peak of their ability in time. Unless a horseback mounted samurai bowman got very lucky with an arrow, the knight is going to close range and chew them up.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Got a link to what weight bow, quality steel, and style of arrowhead they used?

Battered and re-hammered plate is much weaker than plate right off the assembly line, and the weight of the bow and structure of the arrowhead could mean the difference between splitting armor and bouncing off someone's shirt.

I love the history channel, but sometimes they just fall flat when it comes to their info.

History channel can be hit and miss on a lot of levels, but in this case I think they were quite close to the mark, at risk of using an archery term. The test they presented was conducted by the Royal Armories at Leeds and is part of a series of tests designed to debunk exactly these kinds of arguments. I have been following the reports from these tests for some times and the standards are quite rigorous.

In this case I believe they used flat sheets of 2mm mild steel, which was felt to be the closest thing to the iron used in the day. Of course, top quality armor in the Renaissance would have been made of tempered steel, and would be shaped to far better resist penetration.

DB

 

[Aust Diamondew]

First off this is an utterly pointless questions . In one on one combat a samurai might win (but the knight proably would). However in a large group a knight would definitly win because samurai fight as individuals and not as a unit (at least not until later).

 

[Dioltach]

Wow, 16 years! Not a bad thread necro.