A Essay -- The Knight vs. the Samurai

[Vigilance]

When you say the Samurai was more of a mounted archer than a swordsman you're making a false distinction.

When samurai went to war, they used spear and bow and horsemanship.

However, individual combats took place both within and outside of Japanese warfare, and these duels were conducted with swords.

So the Samurai was not just a mounted warrior any more than a knight was.

Chuck

 

[Cergorach]

Hmm...
Knight vs. Samurai...
There's a reason people invented handguns...

 

[Vigilance]

lol. Too true.

The gun spelled the death of both warrior cultures. Even by the Tokugawa period war was conducted with the guns introduced by foreign merchants.

However, just as in the west, where fencing duels settled "disagreements" between men, Samurai continued practicing their swordsmanship for those individual affairs of honor.

Chuck

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

LOL. I'll put my 120mm smoothbore and Chobham armor up against either one any day!

 

[Argus Decimus Mokira]

Elminster, with the USS Enterprise D a close 4th ...

-Matt

 

[Rashak Mani]

One thing the essay did shine a light on... was what each one was equipped for.

Samurai seem ready more for one vs one duels and apparently combat vs several lightly armored opponents.

Knights heavy armor seemed more to resist shock tactics of mounted charges and chaotic melee. Emphasis in protection therefore.

If both fought though the limited vision of the European Knight with his helm would be a major disadvantage the author didn't point out. Still I voted for the Knight... the Plate Armor gives him too much of an edge.

 

[Chasmodai]

Interesting essay, and interesting thread.

My money would be on the chinese of the same era

Sorry dude. But my bet would be on the Malay silat warriors from any era. They were kinda like the Chinese monks, but they used a wavy-bladed dagger (called a kris) as a main weapon - besides their hands, feet and grappling.

And the cool thing about them? When the gun was invented (thus 'killing off' the samurai and the knight), the silat warriors invented a way to be bulletproof. It's a legend/myth, actually, but there are still reports of bulletproof (and just about anything-proof) men around in Indonesia today.

But more to the point, I'd have to vote for the knight, because I much prefer the European style of combat and lifestyle (they were filthy, but what the hell). And longswords look so much cooler than katanas.

IMC, I think just about any kind of warrior, from any country or time, can beat a samurai, if they were equally skilled. It's all just a bunch of hype.

 

[sword-dancer]

-L

1. The Samurai had access to ranged weapons and the bow was ever the bane of the Knight.

The Longbow wasn`t a even thread to munition grade plate Armor.


A good plate like Maximilain, or white could only be pierced at near range and with a perfect angle.

2. The Samurai is armed with a blade with an armor piercing tip good for finding the seams in joints or cracks in armored plates.

The kat AFAIK an edge at the end, not a point like a good european warsword.
and the joinst are at least protected by chain, if not ba plate itself.
Also is a katana a likeable to break if it smasches against plate.

3. The Samurai's lighter armor afforts better mobility. Lighter fighters with thin blades beat out the knights in Europe. Why not the Samurai?

Lighter Armor? What did a samurai heavy Armor weight? less than 23 kg?
How good protect it against a good (diamond or ace like point?)
the Samurais took from the portugeese the breastplate AFAIK.
OTOH The knight on foot would most likely use a poleaxe, How good would a Samurai Armor withtstand weapon, designed to break european plate or
or instead bastard sword or warsword, and thrust it through his armor, how good is japoanese armor designed to stand this.
Ro a mace, Warhammer, Luzerner Hammer etc..

 

[Cergorach]

@Chasmodai
That's what people call a kevlar vest or in earlier times a silk vest.

Personally i prefer the katana over the longsword (or any european sword, except maybe the sabre), not because of the kewl factor but because it's a curved single edged sword. The only 'problem' i find with the katana is that it's a bit to long for my tastes (my tastes are two blades, i don't have two hands for nothing), the wakazashi is not long enough.

I personally could care less about who would win 400 years ago. I'm far more interested how modern metalurgy could improve on the katana/wakazashi design (maybe a titanium alloy). Would a good clasical katana cut through a kevlar vest?

 

[LGodamus]

Cerg there are alot of myths about katanas,and there cutting power. Lots of people on these boards tend to hate katanas and japanese culture now, because of the rabid japanophiles. But, truth be told, the katana generated most of those tales because there were some very fine specimens that are amazing , and on average the workmanship put into one made them very good weapons. I have had the privelege to cut with a few authentic swords and a few reproductions made in a traditional manner but with modern materials, and I can tell you that with a proper cut,you would penetrate kevlar. While many people will tell you that european swords and katana are similar in useage , they are not. For a katana to effective you have a correct cut. The cut is very important because of two factors 1 being the damage potential of the cut is better with proper technique and 2 the stories of katana breaking are true, but mostly because of incorrect technique, because with good form katana are a very strong and durable weapon.