A Essay -- The Knight vs. the Samurai

[Celtavian]

re

I might have said the Samurai prior to today. I watched a video called The Warrior Challenge: Knights made by PBS. They had two regular people train with a master of medieval combat. Knight sword fighting was quite different than what I expected.

The Knight trainees could move fairly quick in bulky plate armor and wieldred their swords like staves. They would hold the sword by the handle and the pointed end using it to block and strike with the blade and hilt. It was quite an eye opener and made me like knights even more.

I'm not sure who would win between a Samurai and a Knight. If medieval sword fighting was brutal, it was brutally efficient. I know Bujutsu is a very efficient form of fighting. It would be a tough call, but the knight would probably win because of superior armor.

 

[Dogbrain]

I was reading through the replies to this post and noticed that several people were complaining about the 'Japanophiles'. I'm just curious as to why it bothers people so much? I mean, shouldn't it be a good thing that people are finally starting to accept/enjoy other world cultures? Personally I think it's a lot better than being the typical ethnocentric

What a load of total rubbish. It is not open-mindedness that is castigated, it is narrowminded "Japan ueber alles" attitudes that so many Japanophiles have. Japanophiles often indulge in massive ethnocentrism (and vast ignorance) in matters of military science and martial ability.

 

[Dogbrain]

Some bonehead posted the following elsewhere herein:

Oh yeah, doood, that's right. They'd lose against knights, 'cause like, mid-evil knights were like, 6'10" and 385 lbs and carried two handed swords everywhere, and like wore titanium plate armor. Like, sumuri are like, 2'3", tops and only use kutaanaas.

I know this, cuz, like, the dood, Sir Strongbad at the SCA told me. You know, the guy with the shoulder length hair and Richie Blackmore moustache ? Yeah, that one.

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.

 

[Dogbrain]

I've seen a katana cut through metal.

Besides, any self-respecting samurai would not make such a foolish move. They'd go for the joints (weak areas of armor, like under the arm), or unbalance their heavily armored opponent.

And though I'm against weapon speed factor, a katana would be a lot easier and faster to wield over the heavier bastard sword.

Evidence? Or are you merely spouting typical comic book ignorance. You ARE aware, are you not, that medieval knights underwent EXTENSIVE training in wrestling, grappling, and other techniques that bear remarkable similarity to jujutsu and other Asian forms, right? You aren't just blathering on from ignorance, right? You ARE aware that the katana, if measured IN PROPORTION to the height of average samurai during the eras in question was THE SAME PROPORTION as the longsword ("bastard sword") was to Europeans, right? You aren't just blathering on in ignorance, right? And if the "bastard sword" is SOOOOOOOOOOOO much heavier, then won't it cleave the samurai right in twain while he jockeys for that all-important "weak point" attack?

And which "weak points" will he attack--and HOW? Thrusting? The katana is a curved blade. That means that thrusts are more difficult for him than for the European. And the European WILL do a lot of thrusting in a deadly fight. You ARE aware, of course, that the old masters very strongly taught that, against an armored enemy, thrusting was a very good technique to use--and they taught it extensively. Indeed, one German master actually made it quite clear that thrusts were the preferred technique in a real fight--cuts were for unarmored opponents or to use in a tournament, since thrusts were too dangeous for tournament play. You aren't just blathering on from Victorian ignorance and modern-fencer foolish notions that pre-modern European swordplay was nothing but hacking away with no sophisticated point use, are you?

 

[reanjr]

I'm not sure where people are getting that a long bow or crossbow was useless against knights in plate armor? Heck the history channel demonstrated what a long bow could do to armor. A full plate breastplate with padding was shot at from 50 yards with the long bow and the arrow went right through the suit and out the other side. I think people are really underestimating its effectiveness.

Oh and I vote for the Mongol Mangudai.

The longbow is actually the weapon that began the decline of plate armor (while the flintlock finished it) from everything I've heard. I think these people are confused, misinformed, or have bad memories.

The shortbow, it is true was pretty ineffective against plate armor, and really composite longbows were the only ones worthwhile - they punched right through the armor.

 

[reanjr]

Random thought: did everyone here know (assuming I remember my samurai and knight studies) that both samurai and knights started training at age 7 and finshed at age 21. I say that the knight's plate mail would be the determining facter.
PS:random storm kills both
PPS: what would happen if Japan fought France in 1500?

France in 1500 was a military dreadnought. Japan would have been utterly crushed (or repelled if they tried to invade).

 

[pogre]

It would be a bloody fight, but I gotta go with Ditka.

 

[wizardneedsfood]

The Knight because he has greater reach, better armour, and more tactial flexibility (ie. his weapon isn't constrained to one type of attack).

 

[heimdall]

More on the longbow:

Short History of the English Longbow

What caught my eye:

"Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. 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!

"Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards. "

 

[Drifter Bob]

More on the longbow:

Short History of the English Longbow

What caught my eye:

"Such was the power of the Longbow, that contemporary accounts claim that at short range, an arrow fired from it could penetrate 4 inches of seasoned oak. The armored knight, considered at one time to be the leviathan of the battlefield, could now be felled at ranges up to 200 yards by a single arrow. 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!

"Modern tests have verified that this was indeed possible. A 700-800 grain arrow can pierce 9 cm of oak at close range, and 2.5 cm at 200 yards. No armor up to plate was proof against an arrow at less than 200 yards, and even plate could be penetrated at less than 100 yards. "

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.

DB