who would win: samurai or knight?

RedDragonX · Sep 06, 2009 12:31 AM

I feel bad for all those Knights stuck fighting in the Crusades. They would be cooked inside their armor long before the Saracens took out their horses hooves beneath them.

cheesypower · Sep 06, 2009 9:39 PM

Neotyguy40 wrote:

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?

I think it is agreed that the "knights" we are talking about are the knights in platemail from the middle ages.
also, there has been evidence discovered that some smart cookies from the medival times in both areas would load their guns with arrows! yikes not the most inventive of people, where they? this, by the way, caused some people in the midwest a few centuries later using antique guns would make accusations of "someone's been smugglin' guns to the indians!" big_smile

Live long and prosper.
if you do, I may let you be my slaves when I inevitably take over the world. :devil:

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 06, 2009 10:08 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).

Hard to say really. Knights are known for their heavier armor which would be great for protection except against weapons like maces or flails. A samurai's armor is more lightweight and such. Meanwhile a katana is far more effective for slashing and cutting than a regular longsword, claymore or zweihänder. And the larger Japanese weapons such as odachi and nodachi can cut through the armor of a knight.

And actually Neotyguy, the bow and arrow was not invented until the end of the middle ages and led to the END of knights.

Knights typically use a lance as their primary weapon (while on horseback) and when the lance shatters they switch to their longsword.

A Guy · Sep 07, 2009 12:59 AM

RedDragonX wrote:

I feel bad for all those Knights stuck fighting in the Crusades. They would be cooked inside their armor long before the Saracens took out their horses hooves beneath them.

The armor got so hot, that pouring water on it made the water steam. That must suck.

Seriously, though, that was horrible planning. Why didn't they get transporters?

Blaze The Dragon wrote:

Meanwhile a katana is far more effective for slashing and cutting than a regular longsword, claymore or zweihänder.

As I said before, katanas weren't made for the heavy armor that knights wore.

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 07, 2009 10:51 AM

Indeed a katana isn't effective against a knight's armor. However, like the knights, they don't use only one weapon. An uchigatana was actually able to stab, because its blade wasn't as flimsy or fragile as a mere katana's. A stab can actually be very effective against the thick armor of a knight, as well as the chainmail underneath, being able to pierce the rings of the chain.

midget_roxx · Sep 08, 2009 3:03 PM

samurai cos of the awesome skillz

A Guy · Sep 09, 2009 8:38 PM

midget_roxx wrote:

samurai cos of the awesome skillz

...Wow. Samurai may be trained better, but as Neotyguy40 said, knights are trained longer. Also, you have to consider equipment.

Blaze The Dragon: To stab with the blade, compared with quickly unsheathing it and slashing, would require a small amount of time - and with a samurai's inferior armor, it would be dangerous to get struck during that time.

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 10, 2009 1:55 AM

Perhaps. However samurai also used naginata, a polearm type weapon. Those types of weapons were immensely effective against knights. And they are built for stabbing as well as slashing. And the nodachi is known as the field sword. And, translated literally, it means "horse-slaying sword." It's immense size allowed it to cause armor to fold underneath its weight. Sephiroth's weapon Masamune is a perfect example of an odachi. An odachi is larger and heavier than a nodachi. If a nodachi is capable of cutting through even thick armor as well as the bones of a horse, which themselves are very durable, an odachi could be particularly effective against a knight's armor, even with a slash.

cheesypower · Sep 10, 2009 2:08 AM

you know, I am really getting a kick from having all you people sit down and have a serious conversation (or at least as close to that as possible) on this discussion, but there are a few things I would like to say.
one, a knight's armor wasn't nearly as inpenetrable as it looks. think about it. the armor has to have gaps at the joints. gaps are weak spots. guess who's entire fighting style was built on outsmarting your opponent and finding their weak spot.
two, the matter of training. now, a certain individual posted that samurai are trained better, but knights are trained longer... well, the fact is, the samurai's training was never really complete. he spent every day training, either to defeat a new type of weapon, or work out a weakness he has found in himself, and so on. that being said, a knight's training followed pretty much the same guideline...
three, there is no wrong answer here. the outcome is entirely dependent on the circumstances. if it was in thick forest vegetation, for instance, a samurai's greater mobility would make him most likely emerge victorious. in a field that recent rains have turned to mud, however, the samurai would get bogged down, and the knight would most likely be the winner.
lastly, it's more than a matter of armor, training, and weapons, it's also a matter of the mindset. the knight went into battle, not to kill other knights, but to take them hostage for the ransom. however, according to the code of bushido, which (for those who have been hiding under a rock recently) the samurai followed, an opponent was not defeated until he was dead. thus, the knight could knock the samurai down, think him defeated, let down his guard, and boom!

keep the luverly posts coming! big_smile

A Guy · Sep 10, 2009 9:44 PM

...I believe that a knight would be smart enough to disarm his target, at least. Also, knights also trained quite frequently - they wouldn't let their training slip. Again, while a knight has weak spots in a few places, the samurai had weak spots all over the place, and they didn't have any longsword with which to cover a great amount of area in one swing with.

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 11, 2009 1:47 AM

A katana, by definition, is a longsword, albeit with a curved blade.

A Guy · Sep 11, 2009 9:48 PM

It's a longsword that's made for slashing, which knight armor is resilient against.

Also, a katana was on average shorter than a longsword.

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 12, 2009 2:52 AM

Except for one fatal flaw in the knight's plate armor. You see, where the helmet falls over the head... there's a gap. It never locks perfectly with the chest armor. All one would have to do is angle the katana properly, where the blade slips through the gap, and the knight would be decapitated. And a samurai can move faster. They can rain blows, and the knight would become weary from trying to block/parry the slashes.

Erza · Sep 12, 2009 3:15 AM

knights wear chain mail underneath their plate armour, chain mail is resistant to to slashings/stabs but doesnt protect arrows. thats why knights wear plate armour, so they are protected against arrows and what not.

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 12, 2009 10:05 AM

Okay... a question The New Age of Cynder; if arrows have a single, narrow point, how can they pierce chainmail, when a sharp tip of a blade cannot? An arrowhead, it could be considered, is stabbing through the chainmail.

Scaily · Sep 12, 2009 11:34 AM

Blaze the Dragon wrote:

Okay... a question The New Age of Cynder; if arrows have a single, narrow point, how can they pierce chainmail, when a sharp tip of a blade cannot? An arrowhead, it could be considered, is stabbing through the chainmail.

ok this is a lil interesting but the arow could peirce depending on the design

A Guy · Sep 12, 2009 2:26 PM

Blaze the Dragon wrote:

Except for one fatal flaw in the knight's plate armor. You see, where the helmet falls over the head... there's a gap. It never locks perfectly with the chest armor. All one would have to do is angle the katana properly, where the blade slips through the gap, and the knight would be decapitated. And a samurai can move faster. They can rain blows, and the knight would become weary from trying to block/parry the slashes.

Again, samurai have weak points all over - much easier to hit than a knight's weak point.

Scaily · Sep 12, 2009 2:43 PM

you for get that ounce dismounted a knights armor dramaticly slows thim with a samurias is light and sturdy earther the arow would kill or cause him to fall off thin hes a slow moving jduck in a aligators pond

~cornys~ · Sep 12, 2009 3:01 PM

Well..... If I'm the knight I'm going to make this a westling match.... literaly.... I think I have the advantage there smile

For that.... Knight smile lol

A Guy · Sep 12, 2009 3:19 PM

darkspyro <3 wrote:

you for get that ounce dismounted a knights armor dramaticly slows thim with a samurias is light and sturdy earther the arow would kill or cause him to fall off thin hes a slow moving jduck in a aligators pond

It doesn't take them 2 seconds to get a good swing with a longsword.

Also, may you please improve your spelling and grammar?

Scaily · Sep 12, 2009 10:15 PM

actuly the armor thay were is exstreamly heavy so if the first swing is dodged there open for a fatal blow and lay off my spelling this is the enternet yull see it alot

cheesypower · Sep 13, 2009 1:03 AM

darkspyro <3 wrote:

actuly the armor thay were is exstreamly heavy so if the first swing is dodged there open for a fatal blow and lay off my spelling this is the enternet yull see it alot

um, dude, not to be condesending or anything, but...
you're eighteen and you spell like an eight-year-old.

something just doesn't add up there, even on the internet.
sorry, dude, someone had to say it.

Scaily · Sep 13, 2009 1:15 AM

*sigh*im 18 and it adds up i type how i wish thats all that needs to be said. if i were to type as every one els i wouldnt be true to my self plus some times i correct things latter when i have paceints[if thats how its spelled] another thing is im my self not you nor anyone els there for to be me i must act like me and no one els thus meaning i do as i am as i wish [ if that confused you the simple version is i simple dont care what othes think of my typeing]

Blaze the Dragon · Sep 13, 2009 1:48 AM

And actually A Guy, samurai weren't just skilled swordsmen. They were also renowned for their skill in mounted archery, surpassed only by the Mongols. And, as we know, the archers eventually brought about the end of knights. Ergo, a samurai would still be an even match for a knight.

Scaily · Sep 13, 2009 1:52 AM

untill both are dismounted thin the lighter fighter wins its ben prooven in history

#26 Sep 06, 2009 12:31 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#27 Sep 06, 2009 9:39 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#28 Sep 06, 2009 10:08 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#29 Sep 07, 2009 12:59 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#30 Sep 07, 2009 10:51 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#31 Sep 08, 2009 3:03 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#32 Sep 09, 2009 8:38 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#33 Sep 10, 2009 1:55 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#34 Sep 10, 2009 2:08 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#35 Sep 10, 2009 9:44 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#36 Sep 11, 2009 1:47 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#37 Sep 11, 2009 9:48 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#38 Sep 12, 2009 2:52 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#39 Sep 12, 2009 3:15 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#40 Sep 12, 2009 10:05 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#41 Sep 12, 2009 11:34 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#42 Sep 12, 2009 2:26 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#43 Sep 12, 2009 2:43 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#44 Sep 12, 2009 3:01 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#45 Sep 12, 2009 3:19 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#46 Sep 12, 2009 10:15 PM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#47 Sep 13, 2009 1:03 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#48 Sep 13, 2009 1:15 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#49 Sep 13, 2009 1:48 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

#50 Sep 13, 2009 1:52 AM

Re: who would win: samurai or knight?

Board footer