Knights and Samurais and who would win?

Question

I see a lot of dumb answers here regarding the two types of warriors so I will clear this up for the people who have been watching too many movies.

First and foremost samurai were not these magical warriors that people in hollywood make them out to be. They were highly skilled archers and when need be used their samurai sword.

Next off the samurai sword was a very brittle blade and not the super fancy blade as seen in movies or video games.

Next off comes the knight- knights were also trained in the bow but were heavily trained in melee weapons and were also master swordsman. Longswords weighed about as much as katanas and were structurally stronger. Plate mail custom fit did NOT hinder a knight's movement and easily stopped most bladed weapons.

Answer 1

Actually, the PRIMARY weapon of a European Knight was his LANCE. Riding a giant warhorse and carrying a lance, which could penetrate any armor a guy on foot could logically wear, they counted on mobility to get the job done. Once pikes were widely adopted, knights became OBSOLETE; pikes had more reach than lances, and could fend off medieval knights.



So basically, your Samurai would have to use his bow to hit the Knight from a distance. Not so easy to do in the 14-15th centuries, esp. since the Samurai didn't use Longbows with Bodkin arrowheads (designed to punch through plate armor). Once they closed, the Knight would try to run his lance through the Japanese dude. Knights had excellent lance skills, and practiced using them all the time.



In a sword duel, the European has the advantage, since the Katana is a SLICING weapon, with lesser armor penetration capability. The Knight was armed to take on other heavily-armored foes, and had a heavier sword capable of hacking through armor. He also carried a shield, typically.

Answer 2

Do you actually believe half of what you wrote, and if so where did you get that information?



The samurai would win simply due to their mentality towards combat. The samurai followed Bushido which taught them to fight to the death rather than face dishonor; whereas European knights were usually hired-swords that local nobles employed.



The samurai were indeed skilled archers, but the yumi was in no way their primary weapon. The katana was, so yes Hollywood did get that one right.Samurai never went anywhere without their katana. Bushido taught that the katana was the samurai's soul and some when so far as to name their swords. Samurai received their first real sword at the age of thirteen and trained with it everyday from then on. And if you have issues with the katana don't forget that samurai were trained in other weapons. Nodachi, naginata, bo, jo, and yari just to name a few. A bo studded with metal would be just the weapon a samurai would need to defeat a knight's plate.



While the Katana could be very brittle if not made right, it was also much much much more flexible than any European sword and would probably bend before breaking.



Plate mail does indeed hinder movement. Carrying all that weight will invariably make movement harder and slower, as well as tiring the wearer out faster. Samurai armor was not made of entirely of steel and was more open in the joints making movement easier and quicker. Lets not forget about Jujutsu either. Most, if not all, Samurai were trained in Jujitsu which was specifically designed to defeat opponents wearing armor.



The deciding factor here would have be modern technology though. You forget that Samurai had access to firearms, while European knights did not. By the end of the 16th dentury Japan had more guns than any European nation.

Answer 3

it would really depend on the type of combat.



the two cathegories are actually very similar- both were professional warriors who trained with weapons all their lives.



In an individual combat on foot the samurai would have a slight advantage in mobility- they generally wore lighter armour (often bamboo, laque and silk) and the katana was lighter (faster to use) than the longsword or the hand-and-half swords. That being said, the fully armed Knight was almost invulnerable in heavy armour and especially if protected by a "norman" type shield. A slash from a katana would not have made much impression on armour made to withstand blows from battle axes



On horseback and especially in a mass battle the Knights should win easily- except in Agincourt like conditions (having an idiot for a commander being the main requirement)



long distance- definite advantage to the Samurai. Their weapon of choice was always the bow- which was definetly secondary to a Knight.



You have a similar situation in combat between Mameluks and Knights- in close combat the mameluks lose heavily every time. However if they manage to keep their distance (and the knights don't have crossbowmen/bowmen handy) then they eventually win (like at Hattin) while if the Knights had an able commander (like Richard Lionheart) they would crush the enemy (Arsuf)

Answer 4

Ill try to give you an historical accurate answer , my history studies didnt go deep in asian war culture , but in roman, greek and medieval european.



Lets take a real war situation , there is a Hill and a battle between the Japanese Samurai and the British Knights will be fought (which is most unlikely but i like the idea).



History tells us that most Knights and Warriors spend the night in a camp not far from the Battlefield.



I guess the Samurais Reconnaissance would know the exact location and send out Ninjas to kill them in their sleep.



But in a fair fight both armies running up a Hill , meeting in the middle , numbers matched , fully equipped. I guess the Knights would have an advantage due to superior , more resistant Armor and Weapons.



The Samurais long Ranged weaponry i give the advantage to them. They are said to work more precisely , not so much with volleys like a medieval archer battalion.

Answer 5

On horseback, the knight would win.

An armoured man on an armoured horse, armed with an 18 foot lance and charging is going to skewer the Samurai every time.



On foot, I'd take the Samurai to win.They generally fought in a looser, more open order on foot than Western European knights, so I take this as an indication they would be more nimble on foot.

Further,assuming the knight is wearing a closed helm, vision is limited to just straight ahead, a disadvantage against Samurai, whose helmets allowed a greater rang of vision.

Samurai wielding yari or naginata rather than sword would have no problem dealing with even the heaviest plate armour worn by knights.

Answer 6

On spike TV Warriors, who would win, viking vs samurai, who would win....samurai won. Reason being the Umi bow with it accuracy. Also to contradict you, the Katana was not brittle. The iron was mixed with carbon, then rolled iron beaten, then the process was done 1000 times. Also the Katana also had a soft iron core with a hard iron, almost steel around it. Also SAMURAI would also have lighter weapons that could find its way into a chink of amour. Also Karate, hand to hand combat was developed to get around armour. Also the mentality of the SAMURAI is something, they had the concept that A WARRIOR IS already dead before going into battle, to die in battle there is no greater honour......so they were fierce in combat combined with zen meditation to focus their minds.

Answer 7

Chuck Norris.