who would win: samurai or knight?

cheesypower · Sep 01, 2009 12:34 AM

Just an interesting question that entered my head. the samurai would be more agile, smarter, and have an awesome katana to cut through bone and muscle. however, the knight would be in a steel can, which would protect him, but impair his vision and agility.

what do you think?

Cynder is cute · Sep 01, 2009 1:18 AM

I say samurai because they're much cooler.:P BTW, what the heck is a katana?

Stormy · Sep 01, 2009 2:10 AM

It's a Japanese sword. I know from my former manga-reading days. =P

A Guy · Sep 01, 2009 3:38 AM

Katanas aren't made for the heavy armor knights wear. I say knight.

But then again, if the samurai is using a bow...

Akon · Sep 01, 2009 10:19 AM

Even though a katana cant pierce a knight's armor, it doesn't mean a samurai can't win. It would take skill to strike at a knight's weak points. For that reason I would say a samurai would win.

A Guy · Sep 01, 2009 4:12 PM

But samurai don't wear armor as heavy as a knight's - it's much easier for a knight to hit a samurai's weak points. But, as I mentioned, if the samurai had distance, he could use his yumi to shoot down a knight.

Oh, yeah, by the way, the reason samurai didn't wear as much armor was because of an iron deficiency in Japan.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 01, 2009 7:54 PM

Knights are trained much longer...

Samurais are trained much better...

I've never really heard of a knight vs. samurai, I only remember ninjas vs samurais...

DarkMaster · Sep 01, 2009 7:58 PM

samari

ninja

cheesypower · Sep 01, 2009 9:51 PM

also, like I said, the samurai has less armor, but he also has more freedom of movement, so he is better able to dodge the blows.

keep the replies coming!

A Guy · Sep 01, 2009 10:22 PM

DarkMaster wrote:

samari
ninja

Samurai and ninja are completely different. Ninjas worked in disguise, to spy on, assassinate, or sabotage their targets.

Freedom of movement means nothing if you can't pierce the enemy's defense.

grievous16 · Sep 01, 2009 10:34 PM

I would say knight because even though the samurai could win, he still has to find the weak points of something he has NEVER seen before, so that gives the knight the advantage to kill the samurai while said samurai tries to find the weak points of something unknown to him. Unless the samurai lived in Europe and came to Japan and knew about the knight and his weaknesses, that samurai won't be slicing up anyone any time soon. smile

cheesypower · Sep 01, 2009 10:42 PM

grievous16 wrote:

I would say knight because even though the samurai could win, he still has to find the weak points of something he has NEVER seen before, so that gives the knight the advantage to kill the samurai while said samurai tries to find the weak points of something unknown to him. Unless the samurai lived in Europe and came to Japan and knew about the knight and his weaknesses, that samurai won't be slicing up anyone any time soon.

true, but you have to realize it would work both ways. the knight would be expecting a fight like he is used to, which would be pretty much two guys bashing each other until one passes out or their steel armor crumples. he wouldn't be used to an opponent who would actually dodge his blows. Not saying the samurai would win, but just realize it would work both ways.

3463 · Sep 01, 2009 10:46 PM

deleted

A Guy · Sep 01, 2009 10:48 PM

cheesypower wrote:

grievous16 wrote:
I would say knight because even though the samurai could win, he still has to find the weak points of something he has NEVER seen before, so that gives the knight the advantage to kill the samurai while said samurai tries to find the weak points of something unknown to him. Unless the samurai lived in Europe and came to Japan and knew about the knight and his weaknesses, that samurai won't be slicing up anyone any time soon.
true, but you have to realize it would work both ways. the knight would be expecting a fight like he is used to, which would be pretty much two guys bashing each other until one passes out or their steel armor crumples. he wouldn't be used to an opponent who would actually dodge his blows. Not saying the samurai would win, but just realize it would work both ways.

I must say, you have a good point.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 02, 2009 12:13 AM

cheesypower wrote:

grievous16 wrote:
I would say knight because even though the samurai could win, he still has to find the weak points of something he has NEVER seen before, so that gives the knight the advantage to kill the samurai while said samurai tries to find the weak points of something unknown to him. Unless the samurai lived in Europe and came to Japan and knew about the knight and his weaknesses, that samurai won't be slicing up anyone any time soon.
true, but you have to realize it would work both ways. the knight would be expecting a fight like he is used to, which would be pretty much two guys bashing each other until one passes out or their steel armor crumples. he wouldn't be used to an opponent who would actually dodge his blows. Not saying the samurai would win, but just realize it would work both ways.

But while the samurai has to find a weak spot, the knight just needs to swing his sword/spear/whatever.

And that bring me to ANOTHER thing, knights usually carry around 4 items, a shortsword, a shield, a spear, and a bow and arrows.

Usually a knights tactics are to use the spear and shield first, and if he becomes unable to use the spear, he uses the sword. The bow and arrows would be used if the samurai tried to avoid and evade (which will most likely happen).

dragon protector x · Sep 02, 2009 12:39 AM

A Guy even if the samuri used a bow they wouldnt do but dent the plate armor a knight would wear, thats what the invention of the crossbow was for. Shooting a bolt at them would be like takeing a knife and stabbing it in a soggy watermello. My thoughts are the knight would win because of the think armor he wear would protect him from the katana.

A Guy · Sep 02, 2009 12:55 AM

A yumi is a longbow, though, which are capable of piercing knight armor if pulled hard enough (as the French have learned) and with the right arrow. Whether a ya could pierce armor, though, is debatable.

I'm still with the knight winning.

dragon protector x · Sep 02, 2009 1:02 AM

Did you account for the chain mail under the plate mail? Still dont think it would deal any damage....

A Guy · Sep 02, 2009 12:22 PM

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that.

RedDragonX · Sep 03, 2009 12:44 AM

Honestly I have to go with the Samurai

36IStillLikeSpyro36 · Sep 03, 2009 1:55 AM

the knight, because of the stronger armor. the samurai will have to come close to the knight to attack it eventually, and then the knight could just make its move then. it'd also be protected from basically anything the samurai could do to it.

Starscream · Sep 03, 2009 7:37 PM

Samurais are HORRIBLY overrated!

Knights for the win!

They also have cooler armours tongue

cheesypower · Sep 03, 2009 8:59 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

But while the samurai has to find a weak spot, the knight just needs to swing his sword/spear/whatever.
And that bring me to ANOTHER thing, knights usually carry around 4 items, a shortsword, a shield, a spear, and a bow and arrows.
Usually a knights tactics are to use the spear and shield first, and if he becomes unable to use the spear, he uses the sword. The bow and arrows would be used if the samurai tried to avoid and evade (which will most likely happen).

um...dude, I think you're thinking the greeks. see, in medival Europe, there were guys called archers whose sole job was to shoot arrows at the enemy. the knights never used bows when in plate armor, as plate armor would make it impossible to draw the bow back. if and when they did use bows, they would be in more flexible chainmail. however, this would mean their armor would be pretty much the same as the samurai's armor, thus removing what seems to be considered their main advantage. also limiting the use of the bow by knights is that even if they used crossbows to avoid the hassle created by drawing a bow back, they would have to keep their visors up, as with the visors down they were as close to blind as you can get without being blind. this also creates the problem that if they have the visor down, they might have a hard time seeing the samurai, while if they have it up, they are pretty much giving the samurai a great big bullseye.
also, consider the fact that samurai had spears, too, and, more importantly, as I found out while doing some research on this, at around the time when the samurai and the medival knight both existed in the same time period (in other words, the most likely time for them to have this clash), the samurai had started using some of the first guns. so, something more to consider.
note that I'm not being predjudiced against the knight, it's just that the majority feel that the knight would win, so I am doing my best to make sure it remains fair on both sides so that nothing breaks the codes of either chivalry or bushido. big_smile

keep 'em coming!

A Guy · Sep 04, 2009 9:59 PM

Actually, more people voted for samurai, it's just that those of us that voted for knights gave reasons.

These are all good points you make - however, early guns were very hard to use at close range. Maybe at a distance, they'd be effective, if they could get past both plate and chain mail.

Neotyguy40 · Sep 04, 2009 10:34 PM

cheesypower wrote:

Neotyguy40 wrote:
But while the samurai has to find a weak spot, the knight just needs to swing his sword/spear/whatever.
And that bring me to ANOTHER thing, knights usually carry around 4 items, a shortsword, a shield, a spear, and a bow and arrows.
Usually a knights tactics are to use the spear and shield first, and if he becomes unable to use the spear, he uses the sword. The bow and arrows would be used if the samurai tried to avoid and evade (which will most likely happen).
um...dude, I think you're thinking the greeks. see, in medival Europe, there were guys called archers whose sole job was to shoot arrows at the enemy. the knights never used bows when in plate armor, as plate armor would make it impossible to draw the bow back. if and when they did use bows, they would be in more flexible chainmail. however, this would mean their armor would be pretty much the same as the samurai's armor, thus removing what seems to be considered their main advantage. also limiting the use of the bow by knights is that even if they used crossbows to avoid the hassle created by drawing a bow back, they would have to keep their visors up, as with the visors down they were as close to blind as you can get without being blind. this also creates the problem that if they have the visor down, they might have a hard time seeing the samurai, while if they have it up, they are pretty much giving the samurai a great big bullseye.
also, consider the fact that samurai had spears, too, and, more importantly, as I found out while doing some research on this, at around the time when the samurai and the medival knight both existed in the same time period (in other words, the most likely time for them to have this clash), the samurai had started using some of the first guns. so, something more to consider.
note that I'm not being predjudiced against the knight, it's just that the majority feel that the knight would win, so I am doing my best to make sure it remains fair on both sides so that nothing breaks the codes of either chivalry or bushido.
keep 'em coming!

Well here is the thing, the first guns used rocks and weak iron (due to Asia having poor production of iron at the time). If the gunpowder exploded, it would have heated the small rock to high temperatures. Which could make it weaker in certain areas. Even if the samurai was somehow able to hit them with alot of luck, the iron or rock would not make much more then a minor dent, especially since early guns didn't have much strength.

And if you don't classify the roman soldiers as knights, then you are going to need to be ALOT more specific on what kind of knight you are thinking of. Teutanic knights? Templar? Mythology?

#1 Sep 01, 2009 12:34 AM

who would win: samurai or knight?

#2 Sep 01, 2009 1:18 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#3 Sep 01, 2009 2:10 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#4 Sep 01, 2009 3:38 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#5 Sep 01, 2009 10:19 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#6 Sep 01, 2009 4:12 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#7 Sep 01, 2009 7:54 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#8 Sep 01, 2009 7:58 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#9 Sep 01, 2009 9:51 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#10 Sep 01, 2009 10:22 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#11 Sep 01, 2009 10:34 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#12 Sep 01, 2009 10:42 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#13 Sep 01, 2009 10:46 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#14 Sep 01, 2009 10:48 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#15 Sep 02, 2009 12:13 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#16 Sep 02, 2009 12:39 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#17 Sep 02, 2009 12:55 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#18 Sep 02, 2009 1:02 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#19 Sep 02, 2009 12:22 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#20 Sep 03, 2009 12:44 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#21 Sep 03, 2009 1:55 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#22 Sep 03, 2009 7:37 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#23 Sep 03, 2009 8:59 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#24 Sep 04, 2009 9:59 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#25 Sep 04, 2009 10:34 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

Board footer