I would like to acknowledge that yes, the following is completely and utterly ridiculous but it is what some nerds do.
A recent article posted by a fellow writer made the claim that a medieval knight would hands-down defeat a Samurai in combat. The situation described was unfair at best, the Knight was able to choose from upwards of three different weapons that knights had been known to use, why then, was the Samurai not entitled to a bow? A knight would have a difficult time mustering the flexibility to utilize a bow, while the Samurai’s mobility would easily allow the use of this ranged weapon that he had been trained to use in combat. While the armor of a knight was obviously resistant to the piercing of an arrow, it could not prevent a possible concussion, or even a chance shot to a soft spot. From twenty feet away, getting off a shot with a bow can most certainly be lethal or simply disorienting to the recipient.
Now truthfully it was mostly the early Samurai the emphasized the use of a bow, and it was particularly useful when they were mounted on a horse. Later Samurai, closer to the 15th century had placed a stronger emphasis on ground combat. Yet the knight was allowed to wield his mace, which depending on the region was not exactly standard equipment. So why do we not just whittle it down to swords? Two sword-weilding opponents, no bows or maces, only relatively similarly designed weapons that are truly separated by the style of fighting used with them. For the purpose of expedience, I will draw nearly the same conclusions as thedeebo did in saying that the Samurai was lightly armored and mobile while the knight was heavily armored and his weapons generally unwieldy.
The fight begins, two warriors careening toward each other preparing to fight to the death. The location is a plain in central Switzerland (I had to pick somewhere neutral), and the opponents are each well rested. The Samurai could easily use his speed to trip the knight, in which case the floundering European would recieve a piercing stab to the throat. Or the Knight could swing his heavy weapon crushing the Samurai’s rib cage. A knight could be defeated simply by the Samurai managing to get behind the knight, in which case the knight would be ill-equipped to make a quick turn-around to face his assailant. The knight could also dishonor the Samurai, in which case the Samurai may just kill himself. There are countless situations, and I feel that J. Clements says it best in his his short essay, The Medieval European Knight vs. The Feudal Japanese Samurai:
There are many other factors that still could be raised when speculating on a hypothetical combat between a knight and a samurai. In the end though, my own answer to the question of who would win is that it is unanswerable…but would be an awesome experiment. Being a great warrior is a matter of individual ability and technical factors that are not exclusive to any one culture or time period. The better fighter wins a fight, and whoever does win is therefore considered the better fighter –or at least the luckier one.
I could not agree more, yet I would take this a step further than Clements was willing. When the ability to travel backwards in time arises, we shall use resources to bring together pairs of Samurai and Knights, and they shall fight. Of course it will be difficult to establish a control group and work out all of the scientific wrinkles, but it is a distinct possibility. I think we may be surprised by what we find.
fiercemudcrab
thedeebo
Indeed, you raise valid points. The reason I chose the time period, armor, and weapons I did was because this was the time period that people associate with the stereotypical Samurai warrior. I didn’t feel it would be fair to compare a Samurai from the 14th to 15th century (the “golden age”) while comparing him to a knight from the 10th and 11th centuries.
The knights of the 15th century were heavily armored, and armed primarily with maces and hammers to counter the widespread use of plate armor in use at the time. The English were particularly fond of the war hammer, the Germans of the mace, and the French the poleaxe. The choice of weapons simply reflects the versatility of the Europeans to adapt to changing situations, a characteristic that led them to control fully 80% of the world’s landmass by the late 19th century.
The Samurai, on the other hand, were steadfastly traditional. They employed the same fighting techniques that they did for centuries. They eventually adopted gunpowder weapons AFTER contact with the Europeans. The bow, admittedly, was a widespread weapon used even after gunpowder weapons made their way to Japan. The Samurai should be given the benefit of his bow during the fight. I feel, however, that the Samurai would choose to do the honorable thing and quickly close the distance with his noble foe. Seeing as the European’s armor is actually bulletproof (for the gunpowder weapons at the time) I feel that the bow would actually be superfluous during this combat.
I certainly would use my time machine to abduct a knight and a Samurai warrior and force them to settle the score once and for all. The multitude of factors that influence victory in such a scenario make a certain decision impossible. I should reword my conclusion to state that I believe a Western knight has a better chance at victory than the Samurai, combat ability being equal. It truly would be a fight for the ages, and the age old question could finally be answered.
Well put, and now we should close this debate and proceed onward, or perhaps further backward into history.
Interesting, but it is silly to compaire a Samurai to a Knight. They were too different to compair- the entire way of life & thinking is unfaire for a comparison. But if I were to place a bet, I vote for the samurai hands down. They got more skill with the sword, bow & spear than any knight would (not to mention, personally I think Samurai are just awesome- the Bushido & culture…nothing else quite like them). ^_^
I read all the statements and you both seem you are well informed on European culture, but some of Japanese and of the Era but I saw on fact that was highly neglected.
Samurai were professional, trained from when they could raise a sword, warriors. Not only where they trained but created many more advanced styles of swordsmanship, along with unarmed combat while throughout history most ‘western’ European soldiers had to rely on national talent. Most the cases be they were handed a weapon, or just taught by their parents or ‘good fighters’ with no real central formation of styles until later on, as oppose to Bushido, Kendo, Judo, and many a few other styles.
Also the Katana, races next to the Scimitar as one of the sharpest weapons ever forged, their armor wasn’t actually designed to stop swords but arrows. Nor did they ever apply shields because they were useless when faced with a katana. Also most European swords and weapons weren’t sharp, they were just used to bash in the other person and used lots of swinging momentum so they could actually cut another person. While that was not a case with a Katana, many styles applied a drawing cut, where you just draw your blade and in the process has cut someone down.
Now I agree, in the end it depends on the skill of the person and just how good they are at fighting. But given the Samurai training, they are in a high advantage of being a BETTER fighter then a European knight.
To Shu:
You apparently didn’t read that most knights in the Middle Ages were also trained to be warriors from birth. Europe at the time had no professional armies, and the knights were the only professional soldiers to speak of. There were mercenary armies as well, but these were usually led by a knight (or one of the knight class) and the bulk of the soldiers were commoners who wanted to escape the toils of peasantry.
The European knight might not be all that good with a bow, since that was supposed to be the weapon of the lower classes (though not the peasants). The spear was transformed into the cavalry lance by the knights and they wielded them with extreme skill. Swords were used up to the point where they were no longer very useful against the armor of the time. The mace and war hammer became the weapons of choice. The reason is that the quarter-inch thick steel plate was impervious to attacks with anything but a hammer or a mace. I doubt that even a katana would be able to penetrate the armor. You mentioned the way that a samurai would kill on the draw of their sword. This would also be ineffective since the armor of the knight was meant to deflect blows as well as absorb them. The katana would find nothing to cut, and would simply be deflected.
The maces and hammers used by the knights were also devastating to unarmored opponents, as unfortunate peasants discovered. Their weapons were more than enough to do the job against the Samurai armor. Granted, their armor was not made for the stress and strength required for European warfare.
As I admitted earlier, I am not very familiar with Japanese culture except for what I’ve said here.
To Samurai Sam:
This statement is ridiculous. It is the same as saying that I can’t say that I like strawberries more than I like broccoli since one is a fruit and the other is a vegetable. Obviously they are so dissimilar that I could never compare them, right? I guess we should all sit and stare at a wall, since we obviously can’t use our critical thinking and reasoning skills to draw comparisons anymore.
What would you find acceptable to compare? An English knight versus a French knight? They still had different cultures and a different way of thinking, despite their relatively close proximity to each other. How about an English knight to a German knight? The distance is still greater, as are the cultural differences. Is it because they are all Europeans that you think that we could compare them? Something that many people don’t understand is that different groups of Europeans could have been about as different from each other as an English knight and a Samurai culturally and philosophically.
My point is that we can go further than superficial differences to the core of each side’s (albeit stereotypical) qualities and compare them. We are making a value judgment based on our own beliefs as well as any evidence we can gather. Isn’t that pretty much how most science works?
now i am not a expert in any of these two warriors at all i have basic knowlage of ther armor weapons and the pros and cons of them, so first off a knight a knight lets say a english knight of the 15TH century or so hes big posh and british now if you look at his armor and weapons he will more that likly have a heavy weapons like a hammer a mace or a polearm maces and polearms where more the freanch and germans thing so ok hes got full place armor and a two handed warhammer.
so thats he gear out the way lets look at the knights as a person so again he will be of noble or “high birth” posh and well trimed. he will of course be in great shape meaning he will be a incredably fit person fast strong and skilled. he will be train to the highist order of knightly combat with a large number of different weapons from daggers all the way too huge and powerfull weapons like hammers and maces.
now people seem to have this thing for there armor being realy heavy and will slow them down a lot. ok do people know that the standard british soldiers have about twices the weight of a knights plate armor just of his torso? and trust he a train soldier and move run and fight in it with out must of a problem ok so back to the knights armor. he has aromr weighing about 45pounds sounds a lot right well no not realy he has that weight spread over his body, i have worn some plate armor that wassent even made for some one of my size and i could move swing a sword very easy with it pluss i wassent train from the age of about 5 to use it i dident use swords weighing 3 times that of real war swords to buff up my arms for battle, so a knights trained from the age of 5 to use armor and use swords 3 time heavyer than battle ready ones would have no problem what so ever fight with it so this hole thing about knights being slow is rubbish.
now the way armor works, (most of the time) armor is made to make the blow “slide” of the armor not to be super stroung and take it though it could the impact of most hits would damage the knight inside greatly,
now the saumri, so he has his swords he armor make from thin bits of iron or bambo. now again lets look at him as a person hes crazy about honor and pride two ever good triats, he is skilled with bows swodrs and spears, i dont know what age they are trained at or wether there nobility or anything, now if we were to look at a shaumris body to the knights body you will see there are very different for one thing the white brits are bigger then most japs its just teh way we are so the kights a bigger person 2) the way a knights was ment to look was brourd sholdered and thin schomach meaning he will have the 6pack the pecks and what not a very fit man, teh shaumris body if again brourd shoulers and large stomach so hes will have a fair amoint of body fat, so the knight is a fitter man over all.
so lets compare gear the katana vs the knights fullplate armor now if swords from britian at this time could next to nothing to a knights armor what hope dose a katana have? if it weighs less and has been proven to not be much sharper then over swords of this time the knights realy dosent have much to care about. the knights or the over hand could hit the shaumri anywhere he likes he knows all to well the the hammer will splatter the shaumri easyly in one blow leaveing him dead out right or blocken up on the floor bleeding all over the place so the shaumri is a little short of places to hitthe knight again pluss one for the knight, now lets get away from this knights vs shaumri thing for a second and think about this.
wy a knights vs a shaumri why not a british atrmy vs that of a japs army? now again there was a lot more knights than shaumri per army. so the japs main froce will be of pesent armed with a spear (probs) and no armorat all the brits pesetn will have the gearest bow even made the long bow its self would ravege the japs easy the main soldiers would be better train and better gear out than the japs so realy the japs would stand no chance againts a british army of the time, i thnk people look a the movie vertions of the shaumri and are like o my god there so cool they cant be killed they can stop bullets this there swords and can cut tanks builders anything in half and realy take it in, but with films about knights its not even true the armor never works people get hit with 1H swords and they die?? no its wouldent do anything at all a direct headshot from a swords could not play a nice game with the knights brain but he would die from in but then its not easy hitting somone trained from the age of 5 to stop you form doing so and to kill you first,
now many thanks for reading this im not trying to picks sides here its its raly hard not too when history is so onesided the knights had better gear they were trained highly and look great too XD please feel free to comment about what i have said but i must ask that we keep it mature and profetional ones again thank you for reading my post R.J.M
ow and im sorry for the poor spelling people its very late and cant think right atm PS could some one inlighten me about then a shaumri would begin his training and what not thanks a million
R.J.M
Thanks for your comment Rob. I tend to agree that the samurai as a warrior is a little overblown by popular culture. People like to think that samurai trained all their lives and Medieval knights sat around and drank all the time. While they did drink significantly, they weren’t pushovers as you pointed out. I still think that a knight would win most of the time.