Samurai Vs. Knight.... Who would win?

[CokeLite]

IYHO who do you think would win in a fight between a Samurai soldier and a midevel Knight? Remember, The knight has heavy armor but the samurai has more manuverability. Ill post my vote later.

 

[QProtocol]

Soviet Russia would win

 

[Bleeder]

samurai swords are super tempered....they are strong enough to cut through metal......and a knight only has one head.

 

[LoneDeranger]

I think the result became blatantly obvious in the War of 1812.

 

[Cooper]

I'm going to say Knight just for the hell of it. On a open field with both forces charging I think the Knights would win because there lances would have a longer reach and porbably spit the Samurai before they reach the knight. The Samurai don't have sheilds to deflect the lances so I would consider them gone in that scenario.

On foot though or in close saddled combat the odds would still be in favor of the knight just because of how much armor they have. Samurais weild curved swords made to slash lightly armored opponents not thrust through a plate of steel while the knight has a sheild in one hand and a weapon in the other so he is able to change from defense to offense fairly quickly. A Samurai can also do this but he has both his hands on a single instrument so that may impede how well he can block and then deliver a strong strike.

Now I admit the Samurai isn't my forte so I don't know what sort of weapons they weild but a knight could use a number of like a sword, mace, axe, hammer, or a flail. All of which have strengths/weakness that you would have to take into account against the opponent and what they weild.

 

[Pressure]

I think the result became blatantly obvious in the War of 1812.

Um... To my knowledge that war was between Britain and the United States.

 

[Murray_H]

Gun wins every time! Oh wait, theres no gun option

Ermm puppy wins eve...oh

If the samurai is asleep, knight wins

If the knight is asleep, samurai wins

 

[CyberSh33p]

I'm gonna say samurai because they're not as busy looking after damsels so they can concentrate on fighting.

yes, a serious post is too late for me now, people already made serious arguments and I hope they die WHAT? I'm crazy.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Im gonna have to say...knight because im bias

To be honest, i think it depends a lot on the person. I mean, a knight may be wearing some heavy armour, but dont forget they would be used to it and im pretty sure they could move with some speed. Obviously a samuria can move about alot more, but whether or not he would win i dont know. The fighting styles and ideologies are very different....different beliefs of honour and such. The samuria would be very strict in their views of how to fight, where as a knight may not be so unwilling to try out new ideas...such as cutting off their hair or something.

 

[gh0st]

knights are white, so they would win. white people are always superior.

[/sarcasm]

seriously, knights would win. i think this is blatantly obvious by the japanese vs teutons in age of empires.

 

[fizzlephox]

Knights are one thing primarily. Mounted Warriors. They are so slow when not on a mount that they can easily be out manuevered by lighter armored foes. But of course why would a knight ever go to battle without his horse under his arse? Simple, he wouldn't. Samurais are not mounted warrior mainly, they're both mounted and foot soldiers. So in a battle where the knights are on mounts and prepared they would win, on foot or unprepared the Samurais would win. If I were on a horse or on foot and had an axe I'd always win... well no, I'd actually die fairly fast.

 

[A2597]

sameri, hands down.

face it, a knights sward, while a nasty weapon, is NOT made for sward play. a samuris however, is. plus a knight cannot move very quickly in that armor, sameri can. plus the sauri has martial arts training...

 

[gh0st]

No I Teh Tink Taht Teh Night Wud Lewsss!!1111

 

[JonTheCanuck]

samurai would pwn a knight. Samurai's were people that had been trained with swords since being a child. To them, their sword is just an extension of their body. They spent countless hours bettering their skills and mastering their disciplines. Knights.... well.. sure they practiced but not to the extent of the samurai.

 

[Prince of China]

Gun wins every time! Oh wait, theres no gun option

Ermm puppy wins eve...oh

If the samurai is asleep, knight wins

If the knight is asleep, samurai wins

But during the end of the middle ages, knights were carrying guns such as wheel-locks.
So they could own T3H Samurai

 

[Dedalus]

i'd have to say the samurai, but only just. a knight's armour would give him a bit of an advantage. and remember, samurai's do not fear death. the knight will most probably be of aristocracy and would manicure his nails after a fight etc etc. samurai are hard as nails, so going up against someone with superior armour and possibly strength would be something they'd jump for. it's that drive which i think would make the samurai the overall winner, if a little beaten up.

 

[Draklyne]

I have to go with samurai on this one. Knights' swords aren't incredibly sharp - I've seen a sword demonstration of real killing techniques with a broadsword, and they're not relying on the edge to kill people. They'll grab the edge and batter their enemy with the hilt. Also, the blade would move slower than katana. Samurai are trained to be able to dodge katanas. Knights' armor is heavy and restrictive and even then I doubt it would hold against the folded edge of the katanas.

Mounted, Knights would be more on an even plain with samurai, but I believe, between samurai and knights at the same time period, samurai had better tactical sense, with the Art of War and Hagakure's Way of the Samurai on their side. They had similar mounted weapons, but the samurai would pwn knights.

 

[nw909]

Angry Newfoundlander in a canoe would own both of them.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

an interesting question, but you need to define your "knight" more carefully. the medieval knight changed a lot more over time than did the samurai. are you talking about plate-armored teutonic knights from the 15th century or chainmailed normans from the 11th century??

you must remember than the european knight evoled as a tank of sorts, to be impervious to swords (and peasant weaponry). even the vaunted katana would be useless against a quality 14th-15th century era fully articulated tempered steel plate suit (not to mention the shields). infact, it'd probably be ruined by the first few slashes. recall that the whole reason specialized bashing weapons (maces war-hammers, etc) were developed is b/c the knight had evolved into an anti-sword warrior. samuri armor wasn't nearly as effective against swords, and yet it worked for them. also, knights had a highly evolved system of 'martial combat' training just like the samuri did. and to reitterate the point about shields.. the samurai had no training or real contingecy for even fighting them (though they could probably improvise on the spot). and a good buckler or kite shield would easily handle a katana.

if you want to assume an earlier knight, like the maile-bearing normans or something, it'd probably be pretty close.

but all other things being equal, a clasic plate-armor knight from the 14th or 15th century would probably be too much for a samurai.

edit: spelllllling

 

[CyberSh33p]

and here comes lil'timmy with his thoroughly researched reply again

 

[Lil' Timmy]

you know it.

there was an excelent program on TLC or discovery about the evolution of the knight and how they fought and all that.. i can't remember what it was called (Conquest maybe?) it was a british host i remeber.. anyway, after seeing that i went and looked up a lot about real knights (as opposed to movie knights). a completely different history and development from samurai..

 

[dfc05]

and here comes lil'timmy with his thoroughly researched reply again

yeah really. that's an insane amount of analysis
but he didn't address the "Angry Newfoundlander in a canoe" suggested by nw909.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

yeah really. that's an insane amount of analysis
but he didn't address the "Angry Newfoundlander in a canoe" suggested by nw909.

that wasn't one of the options... :dork:

 

[CyberSh33p]

looks like samuai is winning regardless of convincing arguments for the knights. Come on people, lil'timmy went for knight lil'timmy is the smartest guy here

 

[Pressure]

Me. I pwn em all. I fly up in my AH-64 Apache and blast em all with my 30-mm Machine Gun, Hell Fire Missles, and other rockets. Boo yah bitch! I'm goin home.

 

[CokeLite]

Me. I pwn em all. I fly up in my AH-64 Apache and blast em all with my 30-mm Machine Gun, Hell Fire Missles, and other rockets. Boo yah bitch! I'm goin home.

That is not an option

 

[Top Secret]

Even though I think Samurai's are way cooler, the knight would win. I don't care how sharp a Katana is, it isn't going to get through 1/8 inch of steel. You need weight to get through metal, not sharpness.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Come on people, lil'timmy went for knight lil'timmy is the smartest guy here

yes... yes i am... *nods pensively*

 

[Draklyne]

I'm not too sure about the katana breaking, as I know katanas were brittle due to the steel being folded several hundred times, but they were extremely sharp. As to my not being sure about their breaking, (and I know this isn't much backing) but a katana sold on ebay was used against a metal dumpster with little effect to the blade. And even with plate armor, not every section was as well guarded as the chest.

 

[Draklyne]

wow, this guy's invested some time into the topic.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

I'm not too sure about the katana breaking, as I know katanas were brittle due to the steel being folded several hundred times, but they were extremely sharp. As to my not being sure about their breaking, (and I know this isn't much backing) but a katana sold on ebay was used against a metal dumpster with little effect to the blade. And even with plate armor, not every section was as well guarded as the chest.

oh, i don't think they'd break, just be ruined (dulled) by the armor. sure, knights weren't impenetrable, but that's why they had a system of martial arts as well. if you had a highly trained 14th century knight vs. a highly trained 14th century samurai, odds are the samurai would'nt be able to penetrate the kngihts defense and the knight would win.

edit: yeah that arma article is very good

 

[Draklyne]

that article has convinced me that I must get a time machine and 100 knights and samurai.

 

[Draklyne]

you can't really just say

the knight would win.

although you just did. It's up to luck, chance, individual skill, and a hundred other factors. I concede, however, that the knight is not as bumbling as I thought.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

you can't really just say although you just did. It's up to luck, chance, individual skill, and a hundred other factors.

that's where the "all other things being equal" phrase comes in

 

[Letters]

The knight would win.

 

[snark^]

I'm with lil timmy too. Knights also regularly used the armour itself as a weapon; quick blow to your enemies unarmoured bits with elbow joint or gauntlet would put them out of commission just as easily as his sword. Sharp swords aren't much good against metal armour as the thinner edge will turn at the first hit, rendering it pretty much useless. Blunt or pointy weapons are best: hence the rise in use of picks, hammers & mauls, spiked maces, bodkin-pointed arrows, etc. during the hundred years war.

Note that the knight (C14th) would probably primarily be armed with some form of polearm too (bill, glaive, halbard, poleax), which is basically just a big can opener on a long stick -- swords were backup weapons in Europe from the Norman conquest on up. The Samurai (who also tended to use polearms IRL IIRC) would have to get inside that long reach before being able to use the katana.

It's worth noting that main reason the total plate came into being was because of the increasing use of the longbow by the English and the crossbow elsewhere in Europe. Robert Hardy's book on the longbow has a neat picture showing the armour types in use during the 100 years war; starts off with plain Crusader-era chainmail, then chain with plate coverings, then those suits of plate which totally covered the wearer (and weren't all that heavy or encumbering as they looked -- seen pix of SCA people doing forward rolls in them).

Japan wasn't metal rich (a lot of the high quality steel that went into their swords came from Europe) hence they couldn't waste it on superfluous stuff like metal armour => sharper swords remaining viable => sword culture proliferating well into the age of the gun (in Europe at least).

I do remember reading a report on sci.military.moderated of an incident during the second world war where a katana was used to chop through the barrel of a tommy gun. It's one that got repeated and enhanced in the telling a fair bit (guys getting their guns chopped in half by quick swishes during h2h combat) only to be spoilt by the real tale: they had the gun held solidly in a vice before testing the sword out on it.

A better question would be Samurai vs those C17th fencing duellists (Cyrano de Bergerac and co.). The quality of the steel in the swords was pretty much the same and the martial side of the disciplines involved were more of a match. My money would be on the fencer.

 

[Warbie]

A Samurai would easily win.

A knights armour would offer bugger all protection agaisnt a katana. Up close knights were completely minced by your average foot soldier, who had little or no training, leather armour and a dagger/short sword. Against a trained Samurai they'd stand no chance.

Samurai were were also known to use a variety of weapons - from bows and guns to Naginata (essentially a small katana blade on the end of a pole - very nasty /o\).

A Samurai v 5 Knights is a better question

 

[Javert]

Come now. Imagine a knight with armor face Kevin Wantanabe. gg.

 

[Speculator]

I've seen an M1 Steelpot helmet literally caved in from a Katana hit. (Its right there at the D-Day Museum in New Orleans).
An actual fact: The Samurai Sword are one of the strongest blades in the world.

 

[Jackal hit]

a knight, have none of you ever read "A Song of Ice and Fire" by george r.r. martin... the mountain! just think about it! oh well, i voted knight because i figured samurai would have the most votes, i think either side has equal footing, just depends on the human element. an individual samurai may beat a knight and lose to another one and visa versa.