Japanese Samurai VS. European Knights

[MIZILUS]

I always wondered what combat would have been like between the medieval knights of Europe and Japanese Samurai, both single combat and large battles. I am sure alot would depend on the individuals involved and such.
I think the Japanese would give the Europeans a serious run for their money if not flat out out-class them.
The Europeans may have had beter armor but I think the Japanese had better training and weaponry...in some cases anyway.
Anyhow, what do you all think if you care to discuss it?

[whyidie]

Here are MY thoughts on this topic. Typed out from my own fingers of course.

Romans used archers from the eastern Mediterannean who had some very powerful composite bows. I don't know what the draw strength and bow power were compared to Japanese weapons were, but any how bows weren't going to defeat Roman legions, at least not the way the Japanese used them. As to one on one combat then yes probably a samurai would've come out tops. But that's purely because the Romans were conditioned to fight as a unit not an individual. There are stories of Roman generals executing their sons for taking part in one on one combat after they were ordered not to. No Roman would have gone out to fight a samurai on his own. The Roman phalanx didn't need breaking as such. After Gladiator it's too easy to think of what Roman legionaries did there as real life tactics. It's fiction. The Romans fought in what might be refered to as a loose phalanx, but that suggests still something along the Greek lines. THe system of cohorts and or maniples alllowed battle lines to rotate and fresh troops to be brought up easily without disrupting the battle line.
as to projectile support that was primarily for sieges and the like, there was some use of it on the battlefield, but people like to exxagerate, Romans didn't have the same concept of artillery support we do. What gladiator shows is more akin to a WWI battle than a Roman one. No Napalm i'm afraid, and though if the next game is Roman and has these weapons in I'll buy it, but i'll never use them."


For more of my thoughts on this topic go here.

[solypsist]

christ this topic again?

[Khan7]

Well put about the historical accuracy, or rather the near total lack thereof, of Gladiator, which for some reason people like to worship (go figure). It wasn't even that good period IMO.

The Romans made limited use of archers, and the vast majority of them were captured enemy. Of course due to the difficulty of acquiring captured enemies with the special skill of archery, the auxilliary skirmishers were more often given javelins, or slings with which to hurl a wide variety of implements in the direction of the enemy. But I believe they trained very few, if any at all, archers of their own.

Two things though--

The Roman legion does not resemble a phalanx in any way. Not one. All of the things that are characteristic of the phalanx, the legion lacks, and vice versa. Plain and simple. In fact, the Roman legion can almost be said the be the very antithesis of the phalanx. I hope I will not have to lengthily explain this.

.

PLUS-- THIS IS NOT EVEN THE TOPIC!!!! We are supposed to be discussing European knights, an almost PURELY *POST-ROMAN* phenomenon. Perhaps we shall now get back on track.

Matt

[whyidie]

:lol while I'd like to take credit for my post above, those are actually the words of another user.

OT I was! Romans are not knights...

[Idaho]

I think the Japanese would have been superior in skill to the Europeans - but I think they would have been cut to pieces by the English longbow, as so many others were.

[Chiyonofuji]

This topic is analysed at graet length in this very interesting article:-
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

Read and enjoy!


------------------
I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as a member!.

[Catiline]

Whyidie those are my thoughts

To remain OT the Legion was not the antithesis of the phalanx Khan, it was a development of it. The system was effectively hte phalanx massively loosened and given a ranged capability. Compared to the Macedonian phalanx the difference is marked, but I htink htat's because we can see two different developments. The Roman legions were developed from the Italian and Etruscan formations htat were in turn developed from hte systems htey met in Greek Italy. They developed the looser formations to fight enemies like the Samnites in terrain where looser formations were needed. But follow the development and there are IMO a series of clear steps. The Romans had an ability to take what was best of other military cultures and then to refine and blend it.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[RyuRatta Yamamoto]

It is a huge myth that all samurai were expremely well-trained, master swordsmen. It is aqn even bigger myth that there was no "martial art" in medieval europe. The difference is that much of the training and skill sets have been maintained in Japan, while the Europeanslet their arts die out as they moved on to other methods of warfare. There has been quite a renaisance lately in the study of medieval arms manuals, and trying to recreate the medieval martial art. Contrary to what hollywood would have us believe, European armed combat was much more than just a couple of dudes in gargatuan tin suits banging on each other with dull iron bars.
I would posit that the average skill level of professional warriors on either side would be roughly equal. Assuming equal leadership (there were exellent and miserable commanders everywhere), the contest comes down to miltary technology, and I believe that the superior armor of the euros would tell.

[Red Peasant]

Quite correct Ryu, part of the Royal Armouries' work in England is to interpret what is left of European manuals on fighting with a variety of medieval weaponry. I've seen reconstructions and re-enactions on a BBC programme that where very interesting, and even compared it in detail with samurai methods of single combat. The skills were extensive, intricate and complex, and so must have taken years to perfect through rigorous training regimes. But I can't remember what the damned prog was! I keep meaning to go to the Armouries to see the re-enactments live when I get round to it.

------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[This message has been edited by Red Peasant (edited 10-11-2001).]

[Tachikaze]

One-on-one, a samurai would clean a medieval knight's clock (kick his ass, mop the floor with him, dust his butt, defeat him). Not only was he a better hand-to-hand fighter, he was often trained in archery on foot or on horseback, and unarmed combat. His armor was lighter, and his sword quicker and sharper.

Samurai were equipped to fight on horseback or on foot. Knights were equipped mainly for mounted warfare.

In a large battle, the Europeans would outclass the Japanese until the Sengoku period. At that time, I think they would be roughly equal, with the win going to the best leadership and training.

[Vanya]

BUT... European Knight vs Samurai vs Palestinian Jihadi...?

The Jihadi will die for sure, but invariably 'win' by gaining access to heaven if his confrontation with the knight and samurai was in Allah's name, whereas the infidel knight and samurai are condemned to hell no matter if they live or die. But then, if the Jihadi survives (ie, *wins* the battle) then he has failed in his overall mission of sacrificing his life for God.

[solypsist]

i dunno, i guess the jihaadi would win post-death, but it's hard to battle against dynamite strapped to one's chest and deadman switch.
kinda makes swords silly. lol

[MIZILUS]

Well EA needs to make a game of it. Call it "Good vs. Evil" or "bush family private war vs. Terrorism" or "The end of the world as we know it". Just think what a good investment this game would be, you'd never finish it!!

[RyuRatta Yamamoto]

Horsepucky. Why do you think he was a better trained hth fighter? Because you know the word karate, or Bushido? Could a Japanese war arrow penetrat the European armor? The arrows of the Arabs during the crusades weren't too effective at that; One of the chronicles of the crusades tells about Richard riding back and forth in front of the enemy lines, taunting them, as hundreds of arrows were fired at him. When he rode back to his own lines, there were many arrows sticking into his clothing, but none had penetrated his armor (or his skin).
Knights WERE trained to fight on foot as well as on horseback, to believe otherwise is to be a victim of myth. As far as Samurai armor being lighter; again, myth. Chainmail is chainmail, and weighs the same whether it is made in Japan or Germany. As far as European plat goes, which we could assume a good deal of if we are talking about a late 14th or 15th century campaign; that stuff is NOT nearly as heavy as you think it is. I have two different sets of armor; one 11th c lamellar (leather plates laced together), and a late 15th c set of partial plate. The overall encumbrance of each is about the same. The myth of the Euro knight having to be hoisted onto his horse is just that, another myth.

Scripsit Tachikazi:
Quote Originally posted by Tachikaze:
One-on-one, a samurai would clean a medieval knight's clock (kick his ass, mop the floor with him, dust his butt, defeat him). Not only was he a better hand-to-hand fighter, he was often trained in archery on foot or on horseback, and unarmed combat. His armor was lighter, and his sword quicker and sharper.
Samurai were equipped to fight on horseback or on foot. Knights were equipped mainly for mounted warfare.
In a large battle, the Europeans would outclass the Japanese until the Sengoku period. At that time, I think they would be roughly equal, with the win going to the best leadership and training.[/QUOTE]
edited for Soly



[This message has been edited by RyuRatta Yamamoto (edited 10-11-2001).]

[solypsist]

to whom it may concern: learn to use the UBB codes properly and judiciously if you're going to use them at all.
thx

[RyuRatta Yamamoto]

whoops, my bad. So sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.
I actually thought I had acidentally deleted the quote command.

[Tachikaze]

I've read descriptions of knights falling from horseback and not being able to defend themselves properly on foot. I've seen suits of European armor specifically designed for protection while mounted, but which did not adequately cover a standing soldier.

As far as arrow penetration, you would have to specify the era. Mongol horse archers had a field day versus European knights. Later knights had heavier and more-deflective armor to counter arrows, but that was even more cumbersome. Anti-arquebus armor (like Maximillian) was extremely thick and heavy. A warrior on foot would tire very quickly trying to fight in that stuff. The joints are designed for only a limited number of limb movements, and, unlike samurai dô, the torso did not allow twisting at the waist. A man would look like an idiot trying to fight on foot in that armor. Do you want to talk about visibility?

European knights were much more specialized than samurai for mounted warfare, which is one of the reasons Europeans would probably win a large field battle versus pre-Sengoku Japanese.

[MIZILUS]

About mounted warfare, has anyone ever seen "the Seven Samurai?" The scene where an archer and a spearman (both mounted) are allowed through the defenders lines...While a European lance is longer the expertise in which the japanese spearman used his yari was nothing less than inspiring I am not sure how the japanese would have handled a charge of heavy cavalry though.
As far as armor is concerned I dont imagine that either side would have all that many "well armored" soldiers.. peasants on either side wouldnt have all that much in the way of armor and I imagine both sides would have many peasants as soldiers.

[Khan7]

Well, we do know for a fact that Knights (or, as is more appropriate, "men-at-arms"), did fight on foot. This was a tactic used throughout the Hundred Years War. For instance I remember specifically that in the first big battle, "[insert name here]", the English dismounted their men-at-arms and had them stand in the front in a trench and fight with their lances. French charge, archers on the wings blacken the sky, and the men-at-arms are decisive when the French dash foolishly upon their rock-solid line. You get the picture-- French defeat so bad it's almost funny.

Of course the next big battle, "[insert name here]", I believe the French, seeing how well it worked for the Enlish, dismouted THEIR men-at-arms and went to fight. They just didn't quite realize that this only worked when **DEFENDING**. Another pathetic and amusing French defeat..

Anyway, I can't comment any more except to provide these excerpts, and to comment that I know for a fact that Knights and men-at-arms were at the least TRAINED extensively in un-mounted combat..

Matt

[Catiline]

During the Wars of the roses the English Knights fought almost exclusively on foot, hence in many cases the terrible casualties among the nobility after their defeat, they couldn't flee fast enough, eg hte Earl of warwick cut down after Barnet. THis also accounts for the Halberd formation, the chopping weapons hugely efficient against a foot opponent, not so effective, though still relatively so, against mounted.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[TakaRatta Yamamoto]

As a person who has personally fought in plate i can assure you the accounts you speak of are exagerations. Period authors had a way of stretching the truth to almost a point of absurdity. The armor the Lionheart fought in during the early crusades did not, in fact, deflect the arrows. A felt gambeson underneath a chain shirt has amazing arrow stopping qualities, as a few people i do re-enactment with have demonstrated to each other by making a dummy, putting a felt gambeson then a chain shirt, like they wore in period, and shooting, both directly and indirectly. You would be amazed at the results. Most likely, the arrow gets stuck in the chain, and lodges itself into the felt jsut enough to be stuck, but no penetration. We (my group of re-enactor friends) have some very heated discusions over this, so it drives them out to see how effective arrows actually were against chain and felt. If you think, for a moment that the Europeans would have fought in armor so restrictive as to not allow hip movement, which you MUST have to properly swing a sword, you are gravely mistaken. Try it, grab a stick, and just use your arm to throw shots. You will soon discover that it is not the best way to go about it. I did, although it took me a while (i still have a tendency to not use my hips, and my shoulder lets me know about it the next day!!)i have unlearned that particular habit.

I am not saying that i feel either one had an advantage, just relaying what my research has shown me...

[Khan7]

Anyway, a little more of the OT discussion..

Well, Catiline.. the basic jist I've gotten from my own sources is sort of--

"Hoplites! Hoplites.. formed into 'phalanxes', of course not true phalanxes.. so ON TO THE MACEDONIANS! The Macedonian Phalanx, the one true Phalanx.. blah blah *five pages later*.. and that's the deal with the Macedonians.. on to the ROMAN Era!"

So the way it has been constructed with me pretty much ruled out other units that were *called* Phalanxes (but didn't operate in the Macedonian manner) as inferior and insignificant. I don't know much of anything about these other, early Greek "phalanxes", but I can guess that perhaps they were essentially hoplites packed together more closely and more densely than normal..

Anyway, the line of reasoning I base my perception of the disparity between a Legion and a Phalanx, is based on my knowledge of the Macedonian Phalanx, and goes about like this--

What defines a Phalanx?

-Long Spears
-Well-armoured
-VERY tightly packed
-VERY rigid formation
-16 ranks, first five point spears forward

Hence--

-Frontally impregnable (almost) wall of spears
-Difficult maneuvering, and severe flank vulnerability

Now lets do a more brief overview of Legion characteristics--

-Sword and Pilum
-Well-armoured
-Formation that was designed to be fluid and adaptable
-Emphasis on offense, feared for their charge (especially the more primitive forms, before Scipio Africanus et al)

So, let's see.. the only real similarities we can see here are the quality of the armor, their dominant nature, the fear they inspire and their lasting fame.

If a Phalanx in any way tries to be fluid or flexible, it dies. If it even *TRIED* to charge, you would basically end up with a whole lot of tripping and trampling, which would lead to more tripping, and more trampling, with probably some accidental stabbings and general chaos enough to pretty much rout the entire lot of them to halt their movement and make their emminent rout a foregone conclusion. Not that Phalanxes didn't advance or execute any offensive manuevers, but they certainly *did not* charge.

Plus the Phalanx doesn't have that nice Pilum..

A further analogy can be made thus-- take one legionaire out of a whole legion and you've got a guy with a Pilum to chuck, and good armor and a shield and sword, still ready to go kick some A. Take one Phalangite out of a Phalanx and you've just got a guy in nice Greek armor, standing there looking very stupid with a comically oversized spear.

So, a Phalanx wins by impregnable defensive qualities and sheer mass, whereas a Legion, though not overly vulnerable to an enemy charge even if caught flat-footed (they worked it out nicely with their shields), is most effective when trotting up to 50 yards of the enemy line, hurling their Pila, and charging into the resulting chaos.

Ehh.. me believes I have spoken perhaps too lengthily.. well anyways, hope that makes evident my reasoning here :-) Sorry if I hurt your feelings before, Catiline :-( hehe

Matt

[solypsist]

hey that's great. i guess the topic has changed from samurais vs. knights into samurais vs. roman legionnaires.
next question: samurai vs. mongols. no wait, that's been done. okay, what about samurai vs. samurai? ha! yes, against each other! oh no, that's been done, too. okay! i know! samurai vs. mother nature! haha! a tsunami against the superior sword craft of japanese masters! yes. that's it. um, well...not really. okay...so much for this. samurai vs. cartoon samurai? digital samurai vs. other digital soldiers from other games....?
nevermind.

[LordTed]

How about samurai v counter strike bots or something....

[Koga No Goshi]

Even individual skill level aside, just take a look at how efficiently and with what frequency even relatively small clans could put huge armies into the field versus the relatively small and poorly equipped armies of feudal European kingdoms. Even relatively "minor" clan battles in Japan involved armies of up to 20-30,000 on each side, not to mention the "major" ones.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Hokusai"
Now as a spirit
I shall roam
the summer fields.

[Red Peasant]

It is a common misconception, but the troops of the Macedonian Phalanx were not heavily armoured. However, the elite Hypaspist regiment of Alexander's army probably had more protection than the rest. The 'classic' Macedonian Phalanx relied more on its density, weight, cohesion and 'hedge' of very long pikes. Hence, when the better armoured Roman legionary got in amongst them with his superior armour, lethal short sword and body-shield he could wreak havoc. The Legion was more adaptable than the Phalanx as it could operate in dense formations OR in open order as the situation required. A big failing of Alexander's successors was that they generally neglected the more mobile aspects of Phillip/Alexander's tactics in the usage of light and heavy cavalry as well as competent auxiliaries.

------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[Khan7]

Hmm.. I suppose then the Phalangite would rely on the dense vertical hedge of spears over his head to protect him from missle fire?? Interesting point RP.

Yes, Alexanders successors did manage to bumble it up rather throgoughly, and not just for the reasons RP mentioned. By the time of the Roman conquest they also had scrapped the uniform 12-ft. Sarissa model. Now they were using an intruiguing but fundamentally flawed arrangement-- 9ft. Sarissas for the first rank, with gradually increasing lengths up to the fifth rank with their massive 23-footers, so that all the spearpoints came out and made one fearsome wall.

..which is all fine and good if everyone keeps in good order and gets attacked from the front. But the added rigidity in the Phalanx's 'evolution' in reality detracted from its overall effectivess..

Matt

[Tachikaze]

While a man can swing a sword without twisting the hips much, a samurai is reasonably agile in armor. The hips and legs are fairly free of encumberance. I would not call a knight in more than a chainmail hauberk (i.e. addition of a significant amount of plate) "agile". I'm not really thinking about the ability to use a weapon as much as to mobility.

The samurai is certainly not as well armored as the later European knights, especially for mounted fighting. But in a one-on-one confrontation, I think agility has advantages over protection, hence the development of the rapier and cuirassier by the 17th Century. By the 13th-14th Century knights were becoming increasingly specialized, in armor and weaponry, towards being mounted shock troops.

For all of you arguing for dismounted men-at-arms, a knight is either a baron or a cavalier (chevalier, horseman). A men-at-arms is not neceassarily either of those. In fact "men-at-arms" is often used to distinguish professional soldiers from noble knights.

I don't know what Mizilus had in mind with his original question, but I am comparing a medieval cavalier (lance, shield, full armor, sidearms) to a samurai (yari, tachi, bow, full armor).

[MIZILUS]

Yeah I was thinking along the lines of "knight in shining armour" vs. "Bushido Samurai".. I dont think Phalanxes or legions would fare very well against against either.