Japanese Samurai VS. European Knights

[MIZILUS]

Heh...Miz has a nice katana

[Vanya]

Quote Originally posted by BakaGaijin:
Never underestimate the power of one who believes that he is a martial arts master, even if he isn't.

[/QUOTE]

ASOOOOO!

Christopher Reeves has announced in an interview on CNN that he has just recently obtained his blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do yesterday. He is in 'high spirits'. (ie, Stoly... me thinks...). He said in the interview he 'aspires to face Chuck Norris in the ring' soon.



Chucky better watch out... the 'Man of Steel' is gunning for him! If you listen carefully, that faint pitter-patter of little feet just might be Chucky fleeing like a whipped dog already!

[BakaGaijin]

Christopher Reeve could easily beat Chuck Norris any day. You think Chucky's ever fought a man in a wheelchair before? I think not! He would be so confused that Chris Reeve would have plenty of time to destroy him with his X-Ray vision!

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Irving]

don't get me started on CHuck Norris and his damn freakin slow motion from every possible quick repeat moment of impact replays...

if anything makes ME reach for the remote it is this or i'l watch it if i want to mock someone

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Peter C]

Well, British archer was probably the best in Europe, Longbow's performance was better than the short hunting bow and crossbow at the time.

In European history, Huns, Turk, and Mongol archer also have successful record in battles that comparable to the British.

Turk archer and bow held the best record that witness and recognised by the British at the time. These records was held until the late 1950's. until a British bowyer uses modern composite material to construct recurve bows based on the Turk technique.
http://www.ericvance.addr.com/recurv..._main_page.htm http://www.utoronto.ca/archery/faqlist.htm

As for the jap bow itself, it is as long as the british longbow, it is a composite recurved bow. Japanese Kyudo archer generally uses 3' longer arrows as their draw style draws longer.

I doubt the british longbow archer would have any advantage over the japs

Quote Originally posted by 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.[/QUOTE]

[Tac]

*BUMP*

The Japanese wouldve won if they had warred vs Europe in teh 1500's and up.

Why? Very simple reasons.

1) Superior weapons. Yes, the Japanese swords were made of VERY good metal. They rivaled, most were of even better quality than damascus steel.

2) Training. Europe only had mercenaries and filthy rich knights as anything remotely resembling a trained force.

3) NUMBERS. Tokugawa Ieyasu had, after the Taiko's death, more MEN AT ARMS than the entire POPULATION of France and Britain combined. And Ieyasu was ONE of the major leaders of the time after the taiko battling to become shogun.

The only, only field that the Japanese lacked was naval power and Cannon. FYI, the Japanese got guns and in less than 20 years after getting this new technology, they had SOLVED the MAJOR problem of the guns: Their refire rate in the battlefield. Oda Nobunaga is usually credited with solving the issue by making firing ranks (1st row shoots, steps back, 2nd row comes foward and shoots, etc., keeping a steady flow of lead at the enemy). Although he really learned of this technique when the Ikko-Ikki monks used it against him, and he just refined it.

The europeans only had cannon as an advantage in the field, but that was sure to be copied and perhaps even improved by the Japanese soon enough.

[Red Peasant]

Yeh right, you said it. Europeans are shite aren't we.....we should have stayed in the Iron Age!! Or Bronze Age!! Or Stone Age!! Or Whatever, As Long As It Isn't The Europeans' Age!! LOL!! Isn't history a bugger! GET OVER IT!

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

[Tac]

Kindly post something on the topic, not some half assed rant.

[Catiline]

The problems I see with the argument are

1)Yes the swords were very good, but not every samurai was equipped with one so excellent, just as every knight was not equipped with damascus steel. Good weapons do not a warrior make, it's the training, the motivation, the will to win, and probably in this kind of combat the sheer blood lust. European swords weren't the refined weapons samurai one's were for the simple reason that they were'nt designed to do the same thing. They worked on the principle of being something longhard and heavy to hit someone much softer with. That they happened to have an edge is really a side issue. The european sword evidently worked very well, or they'd have developed something better, humans have a great propensity for developing new and more efficient ways of dispatching each other. The fact is whichever you get hit with it's going to be dangerous. You go for exposed areas and attacks that will incapacitate. European warfare didn't work on a system of ritualised one on one duels, it was all out brawling and hacking, combat was brief and bloody, and oneside lost it's nerve and ran. Our perceptions of both samurai and knights is polluted by hollywood, who extol all sorts of virtues that nenver existed, and give all it's actors the skills of uber swordsmen to allow for five minute sword fights whilst hanging off the walls. Most of it with lightweight aluminium swords that weigh nothing.

2)I'm not too crash hot on the organisation of much of Europe, but in England there was certainly a great deal of training. Itwas legal riquirement for everyone to practice archery on a Sunday, indeed IIRC it still on the statute book, so I should be out in the peeing rain with my 6ft of yew as we speak. Plus by the 14th century the feudal system had given rise to massive standing armies in the hands of the lords, not of the king. For politeness sake they were called retinues, but they wre armed and trained and took to the field with their lord, often against the King. They'd kill Frenchmen as a first choice, but failing that why not practice on each other. Mercenary troops arer less reliable, it's in their interests to protect their investment by staying alive.

3) were these all samurai? not by any stretch of the imagination. Just as Europe wasn't fielding armies entirely of knights.

Guns of course changed everything on the battle field, but not because they killed Knights and levelled masses with the nobles. That's bollocks propogated by people who want to see the common man get one up on the aristocrats. That fact is it's much easier to train someone to fire a gun than a bow, or to use a hand to hand combat weapon effectively. You loads, you point, you fire. You start over. The wounds caused by lead shot are horrendous and much harder to treat than many others. When lead shot impacts it flattens and rips through the body in a cone shape, small entry hole, big exit, if it gets that far. It's usually cited as the reason for the demise of the medieval knight. It's rubbish. heavily armed cavalry continued well into the 17th century. What did for the Knight was the changing political and social situation in Europe. feudalism was killed off as the modern state developed. Knights needed lords, and overmighty subjects such as these were precisely what the Kings of Europe were trying to eradicate.

Ultimately the two are incomparable, but I don't think there would hav been much difference. The samurai have a myth attatched to them suggesting they were all wise noble masters of the art of war who lived only for honour and battle. That's rubbish but it's a nice ideaIn theory the code of chivalry provided something similar here, but it certainly didn't have much impact on reality. And at it's root what did it mean. Simply someone who was rich enough to provide a horse. Wealth has never been a terribly good qualification for rectitude.

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur

[Sir Chauncy]

I have always been intriguiged myself about the things people believe they can achieve in the East. Even now people think that they are some sort of mystical masters that are wonderful in just about every respect. Well, they aren't. If the Japanese were so brilliant and great, why did they lose any battles at all? Sure they should have fought all day and all night until they got a bit tired and stopped for tea and then started up again. Combat is brief and over more quickly than that. One flash of that sword and it is all over. That's it, gone. There is nothing you can do about that. As someone already said, fighting is not like it is in the films, all of this stuff about sword saints is just ruubbish and I am sure that you all know it too. If you are very very good, you might be able to fight off two people, but that is about it.
he thing is that people seem to want to believe in the fantasy that the Far East is a place of unparalleled joys and discipline, unassailable and unrivalled in everything it does. It just isn't the case.
There are tales of how unkillable medieval knights were in full plate and I will not belive that they could jump around easily or could get up once they fell over, I will also not believe that a sword could actually get through that armour, that is why they made Axes and Warhammers to actually do some damage, swords just wouldn't get through. that is not to say that it didn't hurt if you were hit. Just that you wouldn't die. I believe that the Japanese almost thought it unsporting to defend yourself to such a degree. Maybe I'm wrong but to be honest, they never net up on the open field and shockingly, never will.

[Catiline]

They could get up quite easily, provided other people weren't ontp of them in which case they could suffocate. The weight is relatively evenly distributed, and even full harness isn't that restrictive for a fit man. Whilst fresh I've seen people turn cartwheels and somersaults in plate. The problem is you get knackered and overheat very quickly.

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur

[james]

i care very much about the topic you are talking about in fact i love the idea.well anyway,i do agree that samuria had better hand to hand weaponry e.g. naginata,but you have to remember that knights and kings had better castles and siege weapons.just imagine it a team of knights being ambushed be an army of fanatical warrior monks (kinda funny) .thanks for bringing up the idea!!

------------------
know yourself and you will never be defeated

smillie.james@btopenworld.com

[Leet Eriksson]

Full plate armor can be cut in half if you swing the sword with full force whilst when swung lightly it should only bend it.nonetheless full plate armour was tough at its time.until of course the cannon was introduced to europe.the idea of the knights being undefeatable is just plain crap look at what the saracens,british and lithuanians did they just kick the crap outta knights with spears and bows.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

OK, allow my 2 koku worth. This is an interesting question. The answer lies in the first 60 seconds of combat, and the balance of the knight. This theory is based on the "tricked out" versions of both experienced foes. During this 60 seconds of time, both combatants would be sizing up and probing their opponents. If the European knight did not get a kill in this period, it is doubtful he would be able to do so. After this time period, the samurai would have learned that his opponent wore superior protection, but was also less mobile (but not "lumbering"). Remember - the greatest weapon a warrior has is his mind - and this was stressed in the training of Samurai. When orthodox methods are not effective - use unothodox means. The samurai would have used this mobility advantage to penetrate the range of his opponent and unbalance him. The European knight would not reasonably expect this action, and thus would not be prepared for it. Now, before people start again debating whether or not an armored knight could rise on his own or not, lets assume for the sake of arguement that he could get back to his feet by himself. With that being stipulated - one must consider that a knight could not do a "sit-up" to rise, but would be forced to roll over, and "push" himself upward. Doing so exposes the back, unguarded. An experienced samurai, having taken the action to knock an opponent to the ground via unexpected action, is not going to allow that foe to reach his feet. European mail did not offer 100% protection, and upon endeavoring to rise, would expose numerous openings where his foe could strike. Specifically, the neck, underarm, elbow and waist "joints" and overlaps. Again, the samurai would be lookin FOR these vulnerabilities, and would take any opportunity to avail himself of them.

Once the initial period of "probing" is done, the knight will see his obvious superiority, in protection - which on the face of things gives him a huge advantage - near impregnability. The samurai will also note this, and will consider how to use that against the knight. Thus the knight will not be prepared for the unbalancing attack, and then will be forced to open the door for a killing or maiming stroke in his attempt to regain his feet.

Only if the knight is lucky in gaining a damaging stroke early in the contest will he win the encounter.

Again - this is hypothetical - tricked out warriors on foot with no ranged weapons.
Feedback?
Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Catiline]

It all depends on equipment but even for tolled up Knights in full plate the idea that they had any real restrictions in movement is nonsense. Full tournament plate, that used for jousting was heavy and difficult to wear, it was designed to protect the wearer participating in a dangerous sport, but has coloured our perceptions now as to what all medieval full plate was like. War plate was not. The stuff will wear you out over time, mainly from heat exhaustion, but combat is brief. It takes lunacy or desperation to fight for long.

Even if you were going into combat with armour you know would prevent you from being injured easily if it so restricted you that you couldn't stand up easily having fallen? I damn well wouldn't, and nor would our ancestors. The idea that people would invest the resources needed to get full harness in order to be kitted out in such a way that if they fell over they were sitting ducks is laughable.

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur

[Nelson]

Cat is absolutely right about the armor. Who indeed would wear it if you couldn't get up if you fell? That's absurd. Armor saved lives. It deflected missiles and all but direct heavy blows but a hammer smack to the helmet and out go the lights. Japanese armor and weapons reflected the enemies and technologies they faced which mostly were themselves. They were not equipped to deal with so well protected a foe. Nor were they all some sort of Zen warrior with spectacular skills who could easily strike a tiny opening. Besides, knights trained for combat too. Blows practiced to land on another similarly accoutered knight would surely badly injure a samurai in his yoroi. In this confrontation I believe the technically superior plate clad European would prevail.

Battles were not single combat but confused melees. In a samurai vs knight battle in the 16th century the samurai have a tough job IMO. If mounted, the knight rides in plate with armor on his likewise armored horse. He will charge stirrup to stirrup with a couched lance that will annihilate the samurai on impact. The knight then uses mace, hammer or sword. The samurai would have to make do with a yari that is too light for the armor he faces or his katana which he must use single handed.

On foot, the plate clad knights have a pole arm of some sort while the samurai again bring their yari. I don't see the Japanese doing well here either. Advancing side by side, I can't see samurai stopping the knights. Ashigaru drilled with the yari in formations but not samurai AFAIK.

Tokugawa Ieyasu himself owned a plate cuirass. Samurai were not to proud to protect themselves to the maximum degree possible. They were very pragmatic regarding combat. They were prepared to die but wanted to live.

[Leet Eriksson]

Remember the saracens kicked the crusaders outta the holy land so why can't the japanses kick them out too?considering japan is much more defensible than the holy land.

[andrewt]

Japan is not more defensible than the holy land against knights. The main defense against the crusaders are the fact that the Middle East is one big desert. A horse carrying such a big load on its back wouldn't survive long there and knights in full armor wouldn't either. Samurai would also lose there. The Saracens used camels, which were suited for that kind of environment.

Also, most of the skill of Japanese samurai were exagerrated. Some of the stuff they believed they can do, they simply cannot. Even up to World War2, they were conducting experiments on trying to deflect or stop bullets using their hands.

Remember that the typical European Knight was mostly a century or two earlier than the Sengoku period samurai. From the European Dark Ages to the Crusades, Europeans have a slight technological advantage in weaponry than the Japanese. After that, the gap widened. Contact with the Muslims gave the Europeans much, much more advanced technology than the Japanese.

Samurai from the Sengoku period would have easily beaten European Knights. However, the equivalent time frame in Europe was the Renaissance. In an all-out war, Europeans would be using artillery and explosives which they already have at that point.

The Philippines, the country where I was born, was conquered by Spain during the 1500s, same period as the Sengoku. They mostly used guns and a superior naval fleet. Also, the late British longbow had very thick arrows and were very big, allowing them to kill a fully-armored knight.

The Japanese during that time were also schooled by Korean guerilla tactics.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Cat, Nelson,

I agree that the knight could get up - in fact - I stipulated as much. However, its a question of HOW he would do so that is the issue. Look at modern (American type) football players - under most circumstances they rise after a hit by pushing upward, very few stand with a sitting up motion. Football pads are not as restrictive as armor. Having worn them many times, they don't weigh as much as an armor set either.

I totally agree that a knight could get up on his own - the point is that once losing his feet, his ability to defend himself and avoid being slaughtered while on his arse is severly limited. In regaining his feet, he will give the samurai small window's of opportunity to strike that cannot be defended against due to the knights position and posture. The samurai - being swifter than the knight, would be able to take advantage of these temporary vulnerabilities to weaken, cripple or kill the knight, any of which actions end up in the end giving victory to the samuria.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Cheetah]

Quote Remember the saracens kicked the crusaders outta the holy land so why can't the japanses kick them out too?[/QUOTE]

Yes, they do kicked out the crusaders but not becasue they were able to beat them in a pithced battle. It was more a war of attrition style victory. Even Hattim was not a "fair" pitched battle (if there is such thing at all), it was a trap, a result of foolish leadership on the part of the crusaders. As far as I remember Saladin's trick to beat the crusaders was to awoid HTH combat with the mounted knights. Instead they tried to separate them from the rest of the army and ambush them or shoot them down.

[Cheetah]

BTW, to answer the original question, I think that the knights would win the FIRST battle. Why? Not because of the superior armour or the superior longbow but because of the cavalry charge. The charge of the mounted knights was utterly devastating esp. againts an unprepared opponent. The reason why the knights were not invincible is that most of their opponents were very well aware of the deadly nature of the cav. charge and thus were well prepared. Just think of the english vs. french knights at Agincuort. So, the only question is whether we assume the japanese to be prepared for the charge or not. If not they lose, that is why the knights would win the first battle. If yes, they might win but then it is a pure guesswork.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Actually - that logic makes sense, but has a glaring flaw. The samurai were used to facing mounted, armored charges - thus the widespread use of Yari troops. a mounted contingent of European knights charging into a group of samurai would be roughly the same as the samurai facing a heavy cav or nagi cav charge. Horseman vs Spearman 9 times out of 10 = dead horseman.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Leet Eriksson]

mind yo hattin was a pitched battle its simply the crusaders were very dumb to charge through a wall of spears.other than mounted knights the crusaders were utterly crap when on foot.

[Cheetah]

hmmm... as far as I know they were out in the desert for two days without water in full armour. You might call it a as pitched battle but ... hmmm

btw, if they indeed charged into a wall of sprears this shows
a) that the leaders of the crusaders were either stupid, or arrogant, or in a desperate situation.
b) that their opponents were prepared to receive the cavalry charge.

[Cheetah]

Quote Actually - that logic makes sense, but has a glaring flaw. The samurai were used to facing mounted, armored charges - thus the widespread use of Yari troops. a mounted contingent of European knights charging into a group of samurai would be roughly the same as the samurai facing a heavy cav or nagi cav charge. Horseman vs Spearman 9 times out of 10 = dead horseman.
Qapla![/QUOTE]

I don't know the exact detail but as far as I can tell a european knight in armour were more heavier, more robust, more well protected then its japanese counterpart. So, I not sure whether a japanese cavalary charge (even Takeda!) could be equated with the charge of the mounted knights. As a consequence, I am not sure whether the yari used in japansese armies was long enough and the formations they used were deep enough to stop such a charge. For example, think of the swiss pikemen. They used a very long pike (5 or 6 meter long) and deployed in a very deep formation. Now, THIS IS the formation that was designed to withstand a cavalry charge. Did the japanese have the equivalent of it? If so they might win, if not I maintain my prediction.

[the Count of Flanders]

Quote Originally posted by Cheetah:
I don't know the exact detail but as far as I can tell a european knight in armour were more heavier, more robust, more well protected then its japanese counterpart. So, I not sure whether a japanese cavalary charge (even Takeda!) could be equated with the charge of the mounted knights. As a consequence, I am not sure whether the yari used in japansese armies was long enough and the formations they used were deep enough to stop such a charge. For example, think of the swiss pikemen. They used a very long pike (5 or 6 meter long) and deployed in a very deep formation. Now, THIS IS the formation that was designed to withstand a cavalry charge. Did the japanese have the equivalent of it? If so they might win, if not I maintain my prediction.[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt that any Japanese unit can stand up to european heavy cavalry charge. The japanese had nu such thing as purely yari units: some samurai used a yari some katana some something else. The whole point is: Japanese samurai warfare is individual. They spent no time on training how to operate as a unit. And this is essential in stopping a cavalry charge and the Flemish and Swiss were the first (after the Romans) to use unit-based (as to individual based tactics) tactics.

[Cheetah]

thx the Count of Flanders! So, the first win goes for the Knights!

[the Count of Flanders]

Japanese samurai fought individually, there is no way they could stop a european heavy cavalry charge. Only the Flemish and Swiss worked out a system to stop such a charge, and these were tactics based upon the entire unit working as one. Japanese samurai never trained on unit tactics only on individual combat. You need to have an organised, tight formation to stop such a charge, samurai just couldn't do that. They would go splat if the knights smashed into them.

[Nelson]

I agree with the Count. Japanese yari varied in length and could be very long but AFAIK only ashigaru were sometimes trained to fight in formation with them. Samurai were not big on rigid formtions at all despite what the game portrays. In fact, mounted samurai often had attendants on foot near them as they fought which would preclude any sort of formation at all. Regardless, the yari was the dominant weapon in 16th century Japan, at least according to Turnbull.

[Catiline]

Mixed foot and cavalry units can fight very effectively in formation actually, as a side note. In the C4th BC the Greeks used hammipoi, which were cavarly units with light armed infantry who either rode into combat with them or ran along clinging to tails and mains, dismounting to fight whilst the cavalry engaged. effective against other cavalry units, they did a good line in slicing open horces bellies and slashing hamstrings whilst the enemy was occupied fighting the opposing cav.

The Romans carried on the idea with important mixed cavalry infantry auxiliary units - cohors equitatae I think,

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur