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

Samurai or Knight?

  • Total voters
    52
Will you guys please stop being so vague?? Ofcourse the samurai would win.. Ever seen the matrix?? They aint that fast but wtf its almost the same thing...




















I think...
 
who has seen the last samuri (came out on the 9th jan)
after viewing that i belive only the most devoted knightofile (obsessed with knights for the uneducated :p) would belive that one would win. I know its all fiction , special effects and tom cruise stunts (the most impressive of all was the fact he learned perfect japanise in a year), but that movie really kicks ass. In the stunts. Not the plot. So i choose samuri.
 
so basically it comes down to history (knight-leaning) vs hollywood (samurai-leaning).. haven't seen tom cruise in action personally, so i'll stick with the knight as i elaborated upon.. :|
 
The answer is pretty obvious. I'm glad to see the majority of the people who voted did so with common sense.
 
"common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen."
-albert einstein

:)
 
The Samurai get my vote, although that one link mentioned before said it nicely:

"the outcome of the match would come down to intangibles of personal attitude and individual prowess."
 
check out some of these videos, interesting:
http://www.thearma.org/Videos/TPVideos.htm

does anyone know links to good 'bushido swordsmanship' (or whatever) videos?

all your base are belong to history, warbie.

eh, my point is that there are some interesting historical considerations evidenced in my post and snark's post that to me would place better odds on a skilled knight, whereas there haven't been any serious arguements put forward by the samurai proponents. ;)
 
My dad teaches Iado, some obviously i'm a little biased :)

I watched some of those movies and, while impressive, saw little to change my mind. The level of control and preciseness of cuts seemed rather clumsy, slow and needlessly exagerated (but that may be because the weapons are more for bludgeoning rather than cutting, needing alot of force). These were from the guys without full body armour.

Samurai would practise constantly, each strike carefully measured and exact - you can tell when a move is performed correctly by the sound the sword makes going through the air. The attacks are super quick - much of the time I can't tell what actually happened because it was too fast.

Armour would be a massive hinderance in a 1 v 1 - and offer little to no protection against a Katana (which would also slice through shields with ease) Avoiding the knights relatively slow blows wouldn't be that hard either - the whole basis of Iado is to be able to fight without the need to block the opponents weapon (of course they did when they had to :) ) If they can judge and avoid another Samurai's attacks they wouldn't have much trouble avoiding a knight in armour.

Both fought on horse back, new how to fight hand to hand (although Samurai much more proficiently) and both used a variety of close combat weapons. Samurai were also skilled marksmen - able to shoot accurately whilst riding. They also used guns, something knights refused to use (I think).

I don't have any movies, but will have a look.
 
i would enjoy seeing something to back up those claims warbie. from what i've read about this:

1) samurai were no more proficient at either swordsmanship or hand-to-hand fighting than european knights

2) armor was little hinderance (none, compared to the defensive advantage it granted), in battle.. 1v1 or otherwise. samurai wore armor too, btw.

3) full plate armor would be near impervious to a katana, infact it could easily damage the cutting blade. the samurai would have to focus on the joints and unarmored parts (e.g. back of legs).

4) a quality shield is a huge advantage, and infact classic kenjutsu has little to no provisions to fighting shields.

idle speculation is nice, but informed speculation is nicer :)
 
The problem with things like this is we all...with the obvious exception of The Amazing Lil'TImmy On show every Friday at 12, have serious bias'. Whether we like it or not, we have all been influenced by the media, our persoanl history, what we think about our countries how we view other cultures.


I remember a thread like this on the total war forums...Only that was on a much bigger scale. They have ideas like, Medieval European army verses a Japanese one of the same time. THen there were crazy things like, Romans verses Japanese.
 
thank you for recognizing my specialness farrow.

can i paypal you this months check?
 
timmy, you asked warbie to back up his claims instead of idle speculation, but you then present your own 4 points which are idle speculation too. you're just refuting everything he said without being 'informed' in your own points. the only people qualified to make a decision about this have been dead for centuries.
 
Dedalus said:
timmy, you asked warbie to back up his claims instead of idle speculation, but you then present your own 4 points which are idle speculation too. you're just refuting everything he said without being 'informed' like you said. the only people qualified for have been dead for centuries.
Click to expand...
ehh, to a degree.. the next obvious place to look would be to people who have expertise in the japanese and european martial arts.. hence that link to john clements discussion on the first page of this thread. so i have a bit of ground to stand on for those points i made (unlike the claim that a katana would slice right through a shield, for example).

and yes, i'm still waiting for some kenjutsu perspectives on this..
 
I know how to solve this once an for all. All the people who support samuria fight, as samuria, all the people who support knights...who will also be fighting in character.
 
awesome, time to dust off my damsel gown, er.. my gothic plate armor i mean :/
 
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm is worth a read.

I know it takes a lifetime of practise to become proficient with a katana ... the techniques used today are the same as they were during feudal Japan, having been passed down from generation to generation till the present day. The speed i've seen ppl move, strike and return their sword into the scabbard is breathtaking (i'm still trying to get some vids to demonstrate this stuff) It's a different world of skill to those videos in the link.

The techniques we believe knights used have been derived largely through specualtion and from a few sources (sketches and text). It's hard to determine how skilled they actually were.

I agree that full plate armour would provide a problem for a katana - but anyone wearing full plate would be so hindered that a average guy with a dagger/spear could cut them down (as they did in many battles, knights requiring others to protect them from such adversaries - only really being effective while charging infantry and agaisnt other knights) Partial plating and chain mail wouldn't have been a problem.

Samurai were trained for duels - often pairing up during battles and fighting it out. While knights fought duels, they were used to perform a specific function in battle - and were largely trained to do so ... in this respect I think a Samurai would have a distinct advantage.

Comparing hand to hand skills seems a little silly, today most soldiers are taught to fight using techniques borrowed from Japanese martial arts .. they are very effective.

I'm doubtful how much use a sheild would be in this fight. The way a knight and samurai fight is so different it's hard to compare the two. A samurai certainly wouldn't be whacking a sheild with his sword, nor would he be trying to parry a knights attacks. He also wouldn't stand still, allowing a comparably slow knight to rush and bash him to the ground.

I appreciate that knights were quicker than most give them credit for (there was a program on the histroy channel that had guys in armour moving at staggering speeds and displaying much skill) The fighting did consist of bashing the crap out of each other, trying to knock the opponent off balance, dent his amour/sheild - basically beat him to death with a dull blade (apparantly a axe and sheild was the way to go) Each duel lasted quite a while. Very different to a samurai duel, which is often over in under a second.

I'm not specualting idly :) - have been interested in this stuff since I was a kid and have seen many ppl who are skilled in various weapons and martial arts. My dads a complete war nut - and has 100's of books covering all this stuff.

I think a fencer would beat a knight too - but that's a whole new debate :)

//edit - whether a katana could cut through a shield or not depends largely on the sheild ...... you're probably right that a real sturdy steel sheild wouldn't be cut. I have seen katanas slice through armour helmets and thick planks of wood in demonstrations tho ..... they arn't brittle as many would have you believe and own all other swords :)
 
Hmmm...Well i dont keep armour or for that matter gowns liying around, but i do have my own forge...ok so its a small coal fire in the front room, but i made the poker get pretty close to being hot once. Actually it was almost white..that was a fun day indeed. I kept on melting through candles, plastic containers and large spiders. I even burnt out an ants nest.



i think part of the problem here is as has been pointed out. Samuria and knights were there for different purposes. Europeans during battles think on a different level to the Japanese (Speaking more of medieval times than nowadays).
 
Warbie said:
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm is worth a read.

I know it takes a lifetime of practise to become proficient with a katana ... the techniques used today are the same as they were during feudal Japan, having been passed down from generation to generation till the present day. The speed i've seen ppl move, strike and return their sword into the scabbard is breathtaking (i'm still trying to get some vids to demonstrate this stuff) It's a different world of skill to those videos in the link.

The techniques we believe knights used have been derived largely through specualtion and from a few sources (sketches and text). It's hard to determine how skilled they actually were.

I agree that full plate armour would provide a problem for a katana - but anyone wearing full plate would be so hindered that a average guy with a dagger/spear could cut them down (as they did in many battles, knights requiring others to protect them from such adversaries - only really being effective while charging infantry and agaisnt other knights) Partial plating and chain mail wouldn't have been a problem.

Samurai were trained for duels - often pairing up during battles and fighting it out. While knights fought duels, they were used to perform a specific function in battle - and were largely trained to do so ... in this respect I think a Samurai would have a distinct advantage.

Comparing hand to hand skills seems a little silly, today most soldiers are taught to fight using techniques borrowed from Japanese martial arts .. they are very effective.

I'm doubtful how much use a sheild would be in this fight. The way a knight and samurai fight is so different it's hard to compare the two. A samurai certainly wouldn't be whacking a sheild with his sword, nor would he be trying to parry a knights attacks. He also wouldn't stand still, allowing a comparably slow knight to rush and bash him to the ground.
Click to expand...
you do realize that almost everything you said there is contradictory with the link that you (re)posted, right? clements basically decides it's a toss up, btw.

Warbie said:
I appreciate that knights were quicker than most give them credit for (there was a program on the histroy channel that had guys in armour moving at staggering speeds and displaying much skill) The fighting did consist of bashing the crap out of each other, trying to knock the opponent off balance, dent his amour/sheild - basically beat him to death with a dull blade (apparantly a axe and sheild was the way to go) Each duel lasted quite a while. Very different to a samurai duel, which is often over in under a second.
Click to expand...
doesn't the observation that knights had to use heavy bashing weapons to fight other knights imply that blades were highly ineffective against a knight???

Warbie said:
I'm not specualting idly :) - have been interested in this stuff since I was a kid and have seen many ppl who are skilled in various weapons and martial arts. My dads a complete war nut - and has 100's of books covering all this stuff.
Click to expand...
if you could somehow get him to post or something, i'd be interested in his take on clements article and the debate in general.
 
Lil' Timmy wrote:

'you do realize that almost everything you said there is contradictory with the link that you (re)posted, right? clements basically decides it's a toss up, btw.'


That's cause i disagreed with some of the article :) - don't think I contradicted it much, nor did I borrow from it.


Lil' Timmy wrote:

'doesn't the observation that knights had to use heavy bashing weapons to fight other knights imply that blades were highly ineffective against a knight???'


I don't think so. Hence why knights needed troops to protect them from more manouverable, lightly armoured foes.

It was more a status thing imo - knights only fought duels with their peers, wearing armour was indictaion of their importance and rank. Armour enabled them to perform a very specific role on the battle feild, I don't think they were very adaptable fighters at all.

But hey - i'm just speculating.

//edit - i'll give hima bell and see what he thinks ... being an old fogey he has no connection, detesting the internet and almost everything on it
 
Warbie said:
That's cause i disagreed with some of the article :) - don't think I contradicted it much, nor did I borrow from it.
Click to expand...
well, i think you contradicted it quite a bit :). and, no offense, but i prefer to 'borrow from' the experts, personally. learn from the best, as my pimp always used to say..

here's yet another extended post by a person who claims to have extensive experience in the subject on another forum.. borrow till the cows come home (first post by "mooncaller").

http://www.jdorama.com/viewtopic_2407_30.htm&sid=d51a03093fa0f3e70f2094b54041b85e

still waiting for a similarly experienced person to post why a samurai would be able to take on 5 knights (from anyone, not just you warbie), as some seem to think. more likely, why a samurai would have a greater than 50/50 chance vs a european knight.
 
A lot of Warbie's points are valid. I'm still waiting for Timmy to back up his point of view. Correct me if I'm wrong but he hasn't, yet.

Personally I believe a fully trained knight, with just a sword, versus a fully trained samurai, with just a sword wouldn't be a match that lasted more than a minute. I find it hard as hell to try and understand anyone who honestly believes said knight would defeat said samurai.

It feels like you're totally ignorant of the sheer training Samurai go through and the strength of a well made katana. Comapred to a clumsy, semi-slow knight with a bulky thick sword I really fail to see a comparision.
 
nice way to repeat apparent fallacies D33 :)

not to flame, but did you simply not read the expert and the apparent highly trained swordswoman opinions that have been linked to? i'm going to take john clement's and katherine johnson's experience over your's and warbie's anyday.. and i hope you would do the same for me. but all you need to do is give some sort of justification for your stance, and i'd happily entertain the idea.. so far you've just stated how obvious it is (nice argument, btw ;)) or refered to notions that clements and johnson clearly disparage. disagree with them if you want, but plz gimme something to chew on!

i'll admit, blindly sticking to your guns in the face of all reason can be exhilarating though :)
 
I can't be bothered to read any "posts made by other people" because it can never be proven unless you have a magic little device that most of us know as "a time machine".

Don't say you would change your mind either if some magical proof were to be posted. You're as bias to knights as I am to samurai.
 
ok d33, i'm not going to argue with you. i'll base my opinions on (potentially fraudulent) experts, you base yours on.. on.. well whatever it is you're basing it on... oh that's right! your well-informed common sense. :|

edit: you and your editting!!!!!! :angry: your honor, let the record show that d33 claimed his opinion was based on "common sense" before he edited the above post.. no further questions, case dismissed, i plead the 5th.

double edit: ok, D33, so are you saying without a time machine we can't say one way or the other? i'll slightly conceed that point.
 
dunno why, but this thread remiinded me of bedknobs and broomsticks with all the knights in the end :)
 
Why resort to petty sarcasm? Have you really sunk to such a desperate level?

No modern day expert would be like a Knight or Samurai of the past thus in theory it is actually impossible to answer this question. As for that expert, I couldn't care less if he's learnt how to fight with a Katana. I could learn how to fight with a Katana. It doesn't make me a god damn Samurai.

If you want to prance about in modern times then your "knights" consist of Sir Paul McCartney, Sir Elton John and Sir Alex Ferguson. Alas, on the discovery of these modern day fierce warriors I assume it would be better for you if one were taken from his true day and age as well.

The Samurai aren't renowned for their fighting skills, discipline and swordsmanship for no reason.

As for my edited message, I edited it for a reason. Hence the whole point of the edit button. To add or remove parts of the post. You really shouldn't need me to point out such things.
 
ok D33, choose not to respect the experts if you don't want to. we can disagree to agree on this point. while there's no reason an expert opinion should ever be taken for granted (and i'm not being sarcastic here), i'll place a little more of my faith in them, personally. i see no further avenue of discussion on this topic btwn you and i. but i will patiently wait for word from warbie.

oh and sorry if you didn't find the humor in the whole editing thing, it was meant to be more humorous than not... oh and thanks for pointing out the purpose of the editing feature for me. (ok, that was sarcastic :))
 
agree to disagree \o/

you're like a turd that won't flush ;(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Krynn72
You guys, what the **** is up.
Replies
11
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
Omnomnick
TF2 "Meet Your Match" Update - Day 2 (Meat vs. Match)
Replies
1
Views
10K
Adabiviak
Adabiviak
Omnomnick
TF2 "Meat vs. Match" Class Winner Revealed
Replies
0
Views
19K
Omnomnick
Omnomnick
Back
Top