I found this to be an interesting read and so thought to post it here for your enjoyment:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
Printable View
I found this to be an interesting read and so thought to post it here for your enjoyment:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
I haven't read the article yet, but I just wanted to slip in and say that every single debate I have seen on this topic, was almost unerringly begun by European Medieval enthusiasts, and there has been an almost unavoidable pro-Knight bias to every discussion I have seen. I'm yet to see a compelling, seemingly objective examination of the topic, usually it's just people screaming at each other that their football team (err, warrior) is better. So I hope this is a good read. ;)
It's just one guy's take on it. Indeed, he's a European medieval enthusiast.
I find the subject amusing, but avoid engaging in pointless debates about it. Reading the first few posts in the thread at the TaleWorlds forum where I found the link was enough to remind me how silly folks can be over a hypothetical topic like this one. I just thought others here might find it interesting. It's come up in past threads.
I skimmed over it, and it seems a bit better than the usual knights vs samurai article.
I think that the article is good, but has an inheritent problem. It takes a standing that the fight would be a fencing match, while Katana was always a side arm for the samurai, while it always was not for the knight. pairing Katana against plate armour gives a distinct advantage to knight, while in reality a late samurai of the "plate" era would have fought with some variety of Yari spear as his main armanent and those spears vary from simple long narrow tipped spears made for puncturing armour to halbeard or billhook like weapons, which all would have been lot more practical against opponent in plate armor.
I was wondering about that (whether later samurai had a different primary weapon). If, as per the premise of the article, both opponents had some knowledge about each other (and the knight was wearing plate mail), it seems to me that the samurai would make sure to procure a some type of spear or halberd for the very purpose of being able to get through that armor. For all that the Western world has romanticized the samurai as being brave to a fault, I can't imagine that most real-life samurai would be too proud/stupid to set aside their katana in favor of a weapon more effective against their opponent.
It is a fine article. Quite cleary the Katana is one of the worst possible weapons for armoured combat while being an excellent one for unarmoured combat. Kagemusha is right when he outlines that a Yari or Naginata would be a far more likely weapon for the Samurai. A knight could have used against a Samurai a wider set of tools, but IMHO the knightly poleaxe and the late longsword would be good choices with a huge variety of attacking angles and uses. Both were widly used in armoured combat. With a high degree of skill on both sides it would have truly been a interesting fight, ending possibly with wrestling moves which enjoyed high esteem in both martial styles.
BTW: Hardened Plate has a very high chance of deflecting a strong thrust of a narrow point, so it is all about finding the gaps or getting into grappling distance.
Don't forget that the samurai swords were not entirely practical items. They were works of art and highly prized. Samurai who fell on hard times are recorded as having sold one of their swords the same way you'd read today about someone selling their car or all their stock or something. It was a considerable part of an individual samurai's net worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
And, it goes without saying, that the samurai did not evolve fighting against heavily platemailed opponents. So it's sort of an unfair comparison from the word go, isn't it? I think it would be far more interesting to compare the ROLES that each type of warrior played in the type of warfare, and type of society, in which he existed. And then to compare perhaps how well or poorly they could have adapted if they exchanged places. But I think simply an argument about the katana vs. platemail or the broadsword vs. splintmail or whatever, is where these arguments tend to be born and die, with people usually just picking the side of whichever culture and history they find more interesting.
i think its meant to compare and analyze what would happen if a knight somehow stumbled upon a samurai. the samurai wouldnt have years to adapt to that type of warfare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
the samurai would generally be alot more mobile, than a guy with heavy armor on.
but would have an extremely hard time killing knights IMO.
while if the knights got anywhere near the samurai, like a regular battle or something and not a guerrila run away and around type of warfare, the knights would tear through the samurai.
Well this brings me back to my very first point, these arguments are usually begun by pro-knight European Medieval history enthusiasts, and usually doesn't amount to much more than "lawl my knight would pwn the samurai." So I just fail to see where the interesting comparison is when people are setting up an unfair contest and just patting each other on the back that the knight would win, you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
This is a common over simplification of matters yet again. Again what time frame are we talking about? The knights you mentioned, would they be 12th century normans fighting against mounted and bow armed samurais, who fought against mongols for example, or are we talking about the plate era, which would mean that the knights would be facing Japanese armies which would mostly consist of Nagae Yari, which was a pike like spear and teppo musket armed Ashigarus, supported by some mounted samurais? Just for the trivia, during the time of Sekigahara near year 1600 Japanese warfare had turned so much in the direction of gunpowder warfare that there was about ten times more muskets in Japan then in England for example at the time. So saying that the charge of heavily armored knights would tear through samurai, while in reality they would face infantry armed with pikes and muskets, which gives hardly good odds for the knights is falce statement. Like Koga No Goshi, said the comparison is very hard to make and over simplifications should be avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by cambovenzi
Always a wise postion. When we think of a duel it all becomes a simpler yet still very complex affair. Saying that "these arguments are usually begun by pro-knight European Medieval history enthusiasts, and usually doesn't amount to much more than "lawl my knight would pwn the samurai." is of no help in such a debate.Quote:
This is a common over simplification of matters yet again. Again what time frame are we talking about? The knights you mentioned, would they be 12th century normans fighting against mounted and bow armed samurais, who fought against mongols for example, or are we talking about the plate era, which would mean that the knights would be facing Japanese armies which would mostly consist of Nagae Yari, which was a pike like spear and teppo musket armed Ashigarus, supported by some mounted samurais? Just for the trivia, during the time of Sekigahara near year 1600 Japanese warfare had turned so much in the direction of gunpowder warfare that there was about ten times more muskets in Japan then in England for example at the time. So saying that the charge of heavily armored knights would tear through samurai, while in reality they would face infantry armed with pikes and muskets, which gives hardly good odds for the knights is falce statement. Like Koga No Goshi, said the comparison is very hard to make and over simplifications should be avoided.
The article is very evenhanded IMHO. Note that he talks about a duel.
Should we frame this topic better?Quote:
The Scenario
First of all, we must ask where is it these two lone warriors would meet? Under what circumstances? Since the conditions of this imaginary fight could play a major factor, it can be proposed that such an encounter would best take place on a flat, firm, open field with no cover and plenty of room to maneuver. Though each is an accomplished horseman, it would also be conducive to have the single-combat duel occur dismounted, alone, on foot and without use of missile weapons. Interestingly, the same climate and weather for each would be just about right.
There are a great many intangibles to consider here. The ability of each combatant to read or size up their opponent and the threat they posed would be an important consideration. Are both to be briefed on the nature of their opponent and his armaments? Or will the encounter be a blind one in which neither knows anything about their adversary? We might want to just assume that each of our ideal combatants has been informed to some degree regarding the other and therefore mentally prepared and composed.
Of course, if we are supposing a clash between two "typical warriors", we must also ask exactly what will be considered typical? The knights of circa 1100 and the samurai of circa 1200 were roughly evenly matched in equipment. But the same comparative warriors during the 1400's for instance, were quite dissimilar. Each of the two historical warriors in question did fight with equivalent technologies, under fairly similar climates and terrain, and for similar reasons. But it's difficult to think in terms of a "generic" Medieval knight or a "standard" samurai warrior. With respect to a European knight, it's not easy to choose what nationality, and what type of warrior from which portion of the overall Middle Ages. With the samurai though, we are dealing with a single, homogenous culture and one in which versions of their historical martial traditions have survived, in one form or another, fairly intact. Thus we have a somewhat better idea of the average samurai's training and ability through the centuries than compared to contemporary European warriors. Then again, it's sometimes argued that today's version of modern civilian budo ("war ways") is not equivalent to the historical military bujutsu ("war skills") of the samurai. At the same time, while we may not have an extant tradition of knightly martial arts any longer, we however do have volumes of actual training manuals from the era describing in technical detail for us just what their skills and methods at the time were all about.
As for the knight, are we assuming he will be a maile clad Norman with sword and kite shield from the year 1066? An English or French chevalier of 1350 in partial plate with arming sword ready for duel in the champ clos? Will he be an Italian condottieri from 1450 resplendent in full regalia? Or will he be a Teutonic knight of circa 1400 in a head-to-toe suit of articulated Gothic plate-armor and bastard sword? Will the samurai be wearing the older box-like Muromachi armor and armed with a tachi blade? Or will he wear the later close fitting Kamakura period do-maru armor and use the more familiar katana? For that matter, would the samurai be allowed to use both his long katana and his wakizashi short sword together? These are significant matters that get at the heart of why such a question as who would "win" or who is the "better" fighter (or even whose equipment was better) really is unanswerable.
Of course, for the sake of engaging discourse let us hypothesize just what would happen if these two comparable individuals, each highly trained and experienced in the respective fighting skills of their age, were to meet on the battlefield in single combat to the death (!). As an amusing historical diversion we can at least make an educated guess to what would possibly be, not the result, so much as some of the key decisive elements of such an encounter.
OA
i read the article.
i know there are lots of variables.
but in general i think most "good" types of knights would win.
yes, its extremely simplifying it.
obviously not counting guns...
you have to simplify things if you are summarizing or trying to draw a short conclusion.
im thinking like "standard" relatively heavily armored knights against samurai with katanas.
even if they have spears, they still would be in trouble IMO.
if a medieval knight faction stumbled across the samurai during the middle or most of the era the samurai nations would be crushed on an open battle field. i dont think its really even all that debateable.
even if you send drones of spear/yari samurai, the knights still have much better armor, and other things.
it would be like sending smaller light infantry against heavy infantry.
its just not going to work out.
i know its much to simplified.
but you cant cop out of everything b/c of variables.
say we did a diff comparison.
me vs. bruce lee in combat.
i could always say, "well, i could use a machine gun, so i would win, so you cant say either one is better".
not really any point in discussing it.
in general, bruce lee would win.
and in general, the knights would win.
(yes, i admit again, its really simplified, but they hold the advantage IMO)
As was already more or less stated, the notion that samurai sort of waded out into the battlefield as solo warriors with a sword is not correct. Samurai warfare always evolved around the cavalry charge, and the fact that this tactic was used so much is why Nagashino and the mass annihiliation of a mass cavalry charge at the hands of massed musketeers became such a prolific, tide-turning event in samurai history. Setting up stakes and palisades and fighting with muskets became standard practice after 1580 or so. The lone knight vs. the lone samurai, with the knight in platemail? Not only an unfair comparison, but an unrealistic one as well. And the fact that these discussions always focus on individual warriors rather than the tactics and roles they fulfilled in actual overall combat is the reason the argument is always framed to call the knight the winner. So, again, I don't see the point if we insist on framing it that way.
Just gotta laugh at topics like this:laugh4:
Being a WWII history buff, it'd be like comparing a flying tank like the P47 Thunderbolt to a WWI Fokker D.VII.....and you know how that's turn out:idea2:
The reality of the situation, as has been pointed out would be like the scene in Indiana Jones where the swordsman jumps out in front of Indy making a big show with his swords...........until Indy pulls out his gun and shoots him:laugh4:
So much for the superiority of the Medieval Knight:inquisitive:
On foot Knight samurai would have advantage. On the other hand on horse samurai would be dead.
Katana is better than sword to meele fight but plate armour, shield and morning start give advantage when fighting on saddle, when you can't do so wide wariety of moves.
I frankly don't understand the last two posts. The Katana was never the choice of the Samurai against armoured opponents, given that Yari and Yumi were the main weapons of the samurai in times of war. A longer bladed weapons, usually called Tachi was also very often worn, as well as the Aikuchi or other Tantos. The latter was especially important, because given the ineffectivness of cutting swords in general against metal armour a fight would often involve various techniques of unarmed combat with both sides trying to finish the other of with the dagger. As in Japan, serious students in Europe would be given in-depth lessons in unarmed combat in and without armour.
Plate armour can allow for swifter movement that mail. Far more techniques are possible with the long sword than with the katana. A Katana is a excellent swift cutter with good thrusting ability, while a longsword is usually an excellent thruster with a wide range of cutting techniques. Halfswording and Mordschlag are attacks unknown in the japanese martial arts, which arose because of the challanges of (plate)armoured combat.
Every unframed comparision will poisened to fail.
Even in the plate era, if the knight and Samurai stumbled upon each other, would the knight really be plated up, and would the Samurai happen to have their Yari? More probably surely would be a battle between two unarmoured men - ending three seconds later as the Samurai chopped through the knights kneck while being run through by the point of the knights sword...
If they had time to get 'glammed up' as it were, then we'd find the true meaning of the words culture shock...
There are actually half-swording techniques in Kenjutsu as well, especially in (but not limited to) armoured combat. It is true, however, that European sword arts have a far greater repertoire of half-swording techniques. And katana are not suitable to Mordschläge at all. This distinction aside, though, dress up a Western and Eastern martial artist in the same clothes, give them a stick each and let them have at it, and you might find it hard to tell which is trained in what.
The importance of the knight needs to be looked at. England repeatedly defeated French armies because French knights lacked discipline and would charge Longbowmen who were behind stakes. One of the reasons France eventually won was because they started ordering their knights to dismount and preventing them from charging. Cavalry remained important but well-drilled pikemen could always at least hold them off. (I do know I'm simplifying a lot here in case you're wondering :) )
Extensive heavy plate armor use never took root in Japan. One reason was the introduction of firearms during the Sengoku period which - like in Europe - rendered very heavy armor obsolete. However Daimyos on the battlefield used European heavy plate armor cuirasses (breast plates) for bullet protection. Ieyasu was actually saved by his armor when a bullet struck him as he was fighting the local Mikawa Ikko-Ikki (warrior monks).