View topic - Samurai vs. Knight

Hello,

If I might be so bold as to revive this topic for a moment I have a few things I'd like to add to the conversation at hand, bear with me, this will be a little long, but hopefully informative.

First off, a little about me.

I've been studying historical arms and armour for well over 6 years now. I have been practicing swordsmanship, since I was 13 years old, when I got my first sword, a japanese style katana. In addition to practicing Wado Ryu Karate and a (very)little brazillian jiu-jutsu as taught by Rickson Gracie (who some of you martial artists may have heard of, as he's well known in the full contact circuit).

But I have always, and will always, be enamoured with the sword.

Since my beginnings I have had the opportunity to train with many martial artists who have studied both eastern and historical european martial arts, I have conducted hundreds of cutting sessions involving katanas and western swords made to exacting historical tolerances. Weight, shape, sharpness, everything historically accurate, against targets providing resistence that approximates human flesh and bone (Tatami mats wrapped around bamboo)

I have also sparred with training weapons approximating swords of both types as closely as possible, both in and out of armour. Including full harness (plate armor) samurai style armor, maille (commonly called "chain mail", and hardened leather.

And quite honestly, there is no easy answer for this question (although it comes up a lot).

Both knights and samurai began training at a very young age. Typically around 5-7. And trained to adulthood.

Contrary to popular belief, Early europe had it's own brand of martial arts that are AMAZINGLY similar to eastern martial arts, and fairly well documented by various historical manuels, the earliest known being a text called 1.33 which dates from the 13th century.

It is fair to say, both combatants would be extremely well trained.

Now, getting beyond misconceptions about the knights martial prowess, which can be assumed to be on par with a samurai, we get to the truly fun stuff. Their equipment, lets assume quality equipment throughout, but historically quality varied largely in both cultures.

For the purpose of this exercise, lets use a 15th century knight in full harness, and a samurai armoured to the nines in his cultural equivilent.

To get down to business, I'd like to address a few quotes from other posts.

Quote:

Unless the samurai can make his cut in the right place (like the joints, etc.) I don't think his sword can hack through that armor...

You're quite correct, no sword from any culture is going to be penetrating quality armour from europe. To even attempt it is quite simply, stupid, and asking to get killed. While you're striking the armour, the wearer will be striking you.

The katana, is a fine example of a sword. A well made one is an object of great beauty and exacting tolerances. But being a sword, it's made of steel, and steel, no matter how fine, chips, bends and breaks. It's inevitable, and even the extremely sharp katana cannot cut through plate armor, and wouldnt even do meaningful damage to chainmaille (Blunt force would still hurt, however, but not kill) and in fact, the katana is likely to take severe damage if you even attempt to. (more on that later)

Quote:

On the other hand, the samurai is much more mobile/maneuverable than the guy in the clunky armor...

Another common misconception, full harness is not clunky by any streatch. It's a little restrictive, but still allows for plenty range of motion, and a fair bit of speed. It was not uncommon for an armoured knight to be able to hold off 6 or more men who were unarmoured. (and could theoretically move much faster). The protection to restriction ratio is well worth it. If it was so simple as going around the knight, then the armor we all know would never have been used on the battle field because any peasant with a dagger would be able to kill the knight.
I've seen men preform cartwheels and other gymnastic feats while wearing full harness, and done it myself in partial armor. The knights armour only weighed about 60 pounds, and was distributed all over the body, really not that much weight when distributed like that. A samurais armour could be expected to average about 10 pounds less. Obviously the weight differance is not as wide as a lot of people think.

Quote:

But the samurai could quickly get behind the knight and stab or cut him in the non-armored areas...

Thats how armoured martial arts, from both cultures, work. You never attack the armour, you try to go for where the armour is not, The visor slit, the armpits, the inner legs. Any place where soft bits are less protected, is where you try and get to (ussually by engaging your opponent in a grappling contest, and trying to stick your knife through open areas, to get into these vulnerable parts with a sword is extrmely diffacult while standing and facing a moving opponent. (And often these "vulnerable parts" were protected by chainmail, which was worn in conjunction with plate armor)

Also, you must remember that it only takes a split second for someone, even wearing full harness, to turn around, but it takes a good second and a half-2 seconds to get behind them even if you're wearing no armour at all. It is not so simple as ducking behind someone and cutting the back of their knees. Otherwise armour would never have developed like it did

Quote:

Yeah, but the armor worn by a knight is considerably more heavy duty than a samurai's armor...

This is true, Japan as a nation, didnt have anywhere NEAR the iron resources they would have needed, and what little steel they did have, was often of poor quality (Making necessary the infamous "folding" of the steel to make the katana, more on that later) Europe however, was rolling in iron, Thus they could afford to use it for weapons and armor. While the japanese used as much steel as they could for armour, but used most of it for weapons, as it takes considerably more steel to make armour then to make swords.

But samurai armour is quite tough, there are stories of warrior walking off the battle field looking like porkypines from having 10-20 arrows sticking out of their armor, while the men underneath were fine. Samurai armour is not to be underestimated. It's not the equivillent of plate harness, But it's extremely tough, and the chances of cutting through it are low for ANY sword. Once again, necessitating the "strike where the armor is not" strategy. Common to both cultures.

Quote:

The lightweight armor allowed for greater freedom of movement and was light

Samurai armour was not considerably lighter then it's european counter part. It was more flexible, but conversely didnt offer quite as much protection either. Had japan had the resources the europeans had, you can bet the japanese would have developed something more akin the knights armour. The more encompassing protection was deffinitly worth the very slight reduction in movement.

Quote:

The knights of Europe though, wore a lot of armor, and eventually they wore an entire �emetal�f suit, which gave them a lot of trouble in movement, and was much, much heavier than what the samurai wore-plus, it must have literally killed some of them during the summer due to so much heat. After all, the medieval knight wore a lot of layers of clothing AND armor. So, yes, BMW, the knights armor is stronger, but allowed a more restrictive flow of movement.

Movement in full plate is not, repeat, not, as restricted as commonly thought. You can move plenty fast and fight plenty well, and the more you wear the armour, the more accostumed you will become to it, and eventually it will make little differance to the wearer. Plus armour was typically custom made to the knight, and fit close to the body, allowing for much more freedom of movement. More then enough to do your job.

Quote:

Boy, this is a tough, but intriguing duel.

Isnt it though? It's one of my favorite conversations. (Re:Archery...the english long bow was one of the most feared weapons on the battle field, they often had draw weights of upwards of 100 pounds, some as high as 150 pounds, england had a law on the books mandating practice, every day, for it's archers, they were quite excellent)

Quote:

I will vote for the samurai ONLY because of their workmanship and excellent work on their katana, their bread and butter weapon. They are so sharp, they can literally slice a man in two (which was one of the way they use to execute prisoners) and very light. Very close indeed.

I have owned several japanese style swords. One of which was custom made by one of the top sword smiths (The Excellent Howard Clark, his work can be seen at http://www.bugei.com under the "Custom Swords" section)
Mine was one of the "forge folded" varieties. Layered like a traditional katana, albeit made out of superior steel, so the folding was for asthetics only (it makes an awesome pattern in the steel). As you can see, a katana of this quality will cost upwards of $6,000. And his L6 Bainite katanas are the absolute toughest swords known to man. Bainite is amazing stuff.

Anyways, I am getting off track.

As I was saying, The katana is a great weapon, and honestly, it is my favorite sword. But the traditional katana has several flaws.

Tamahange, the steel katana's are traditionally constructed of, is notoriously poor quality, and very inconsistent. The folding process that the smiths are famous for was necessary to make the steel more homogenous. Otherwise you would have parts of the sword that were excellent steel, and parts that were shitty steel. Obviously the poor steel will probably break. By folding the steel (ussually about 9-13 times, as every time you fold it, you remove carbon from the steel, which is what makes steel steel, and not iron) some people will tell you katanas were folded hundreds of times, this is not true, as doing this would result in an iron sword, which is a step back from what you want. (Also, for the record, the Vikings were using folded steel swords around the same time the japanese started, and possibly about a hundred years before)

On top of that, the heat treatment given to the katana, which results in a harder edge, and a softer spine. Makes the edge prone to chipping when struck against other hard objects. There have been several stories of people who while rich, were ignorant. They would buy antique katana's, fully expecting them to be able to cut through trees, gun barrels, and other swords in a single stroke. The result? Priceless works of art hundreds of years old were destroyed by one idiot who had watched to many movies. The blades wound up looking like saws from so many chips being taken out.

The soft spine of the katana also made them prone to bending, and staying bent. Whereas european swords were not quite as hard at the edge, but were springy throughout, and would tend to spring back into shape in the event of a botched cut. This is why japanese swordsmanship stresses perfect technique. Anything less and you could destory your sword, even against straw mats, which are traditionally used for cutting practice.

The infamous sharpness of the katana also made the edge prone to damage (think about it, thinner= sharper, but also means weaker). European swords however, far from being dull and heavy, were about the same weight as the katana, and ussually a little longer, they were not quite as sharp, but a good blow could still split a man from skull to scrotum. Or cut them completely in half. Sharp steel against flesh, european or japanese, is DEVESTATING. I cannot stress enough the absolute awe of watching real swords cut in the hands of competant practitioners. I wouldnt want to be on the business end of either of them.

But in all honesty, the cutting effectiveness comes down to the user, if you give Joe Blow a $20,000 antique katana and tell him to cut a tatami mat in half, he will probably bend the sword into unuseability. But if you give a competant swordsman that same katana he could probably cut a boat oar in half.

The same with a good european sword. Albeit a botched cut probably wouldnt be so devestating with the euro sword.

The very slight trade in sharpness is made up for in the inherant toughness of the european's higher quality steel.

It's sort of like this. An AK-47 is a tough reliable gun. They almost always go "bang" when you want them to. But because of that, they also are very inaccurate.

The M-16 is a precision machine, it has superior ergonomics and tighter tolerances, because of this, it's slightly more prone to jamming (still quite reliable, however) but because of those tight toleances it has superiour accuracy at greater differances.

A european sword is more like an AK-47. It is more then suffcient to get the job done, it is tough, not prone to breakage, but not quite as pretty or precise as a katana.

A fine katana if taken care of will also serve the wearer well, but if you let matienance go, use poor technique, it will bend, chip, and break. It's a weapon that will reward it's user if taken care of.

Both are great, but they each have differant advantaeges.

Katana sharper, Euro tougher, Katana slices cleanly, Euro gives more reach. Both weigh between 2.5 - 4 pounds on average.

Quote:

The knight's armor is solid, if cumbersome. And his sword is big, heavy, and not particularly sharp... More for hacking than cutting.

This is not true. The euro sword is NOT big, NOR heavy. Unless you get into weapons like the claymore or two-handed war sword like an XIIIa. Which weigh about 4-6 pounds, but are devestating and still plenty quick. But the japanese have an equivilent in the No-dachi, which is like a katana on steroids. The average katana weighs around 3 pounds, as does the average european hand and a half sword. If you use weapons and armour that was "average". Then the equipment was pretty well balanced.

Quote:

The samurai's armor is lighter and allows him to be more nimble, but also more vulnerable, particularly to a heavy sword like the knight's... And yeah, the katana is super-sharp...

Not quite. The Katana is VERY sharp, but a european sword can be very shap aswell. Not quite as sharp as the katana. But more then sharp enough. The weight differance between the two is almost non-existent. In both swords and armour.

Quote:

Now that I think about it some more, I'd give the nod to the samurai, 'cause of his mobility... He could tire out the knight in his heavy armor, then go in for the kill...

I disagree, real sword fights are over in a matter of seconds. If you're fighting more then a minute, you're doing something wrong. The most likely scenario is the two will close the distance, engage in hand to hand, go to the ground, then go for their shorter back up weapons, and grapple till one gets the advantage.

Quote:

I pick a samuari for their skill in combat especially with sword. I should have pose the question this way "if the knight and the samurai were both naked and all they have was their sword which will win over the other?" In my mind there is no doubt that the samurai would win.

Of course, in this case the knight would be cut in half even before lifting his own sword

I dont mean to be rude, but that's silly assumptions based more on movie-fu then martial arts. The katana is not a super fast sword, and in-fact is on average 5-10 inches shorter then an equvillent euro sword. I can tell you from experiance, 5-10 inches in a sword fight feel more like 5-10 feet. This is a game where inches kill, one mistake gets you dead. Accidently lean to far in during the fight? To bad, your hands are off. Even a light strike will split flesh and sever tendons rendering your arms, legs, hands, worthless.

I've trained for years, and I still feel fear at the thought of a real fight with real weapons. Facing down a sword from either country is scarey as hell.

Quote:

I think you're seriously underestimating the power of a katana. They're considered the worlds best swords! The Katanas are made by folding the metal in multiple times so the result is a thin yet incredibly strong sword.

Actually, you're over estimating it. Even my multi thousand dollar custom katana was still just a sword, it was a great sword. No doubt, and I still am sorry that I had to sell it. But even the finest katana is only steel, and steel can only do so much.
The folding really doesnt make steel any stronger. Just homogenous. But as i said, it does result in a beautiful pattern in the steel.
Also, katanas on average are a little thicker then european swords. Due to the steel quality, this is necessary to prevent bending, and is why a signifigantly shorter katana still weighs about the same as a European hand and a half. The katana is, in my opinion, the worlds most beautiful sword, it is also one of the most mysterious, these two things combined, also make it one of the most hyped swords in the world. But the fact is. Steel is steel, and all the hype in the world doesnt make it stronger. Modern swords made of bainite steel are signifigantly stronger and sharper then anything our ancestors had. But they will steel bend and break if abused, and they wont cut through armour.

Quote:

Also while a Knight's armor (typically either full plate mail or chainmail) are good against resisting slashes they are not so good against pierce attacks and a Katana can do a pretty devasting pierce.

True, Chainmail is somewhat more prone to being thrust through, it's diffacult, but possible. And both chain and plate are nigh impossible to cut through with any sword. But the katana isnt designed to thrust, and certainly wouldnt make it through plate armor, and probably not chain either, the shape of the kissagi (point) being curved, would be prone to sliding off rather then through, armor.

Quote:

Of course I'm no expert on oriential and medieval swords and armor, all of this is taken from observation of historical accounts and books I've read.

Thats ok, neither am I, But I'm learning, and know a few real experts Wink

Quote:

btw here's someone with too much time on their hands -> http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

That article was written by John Clements, a very well known authority on western martial arts. He's not a 17 year old know it all with "to much time on his hands". He's a professional martial artist in the strictist sense of the word. He teaches swordsmanship for a living. In short, he gets paid to know all that stuff.

There's a great story about Mr Clements....One year he went to an "Open Martial Arts" tournement, which of course was completely packed with asian style practitioners, he entered the free sparing sword competition. Many of the other guys were extremely cocky, good, but to confident. They felt that asian arts were far superiour to anything this guy would know.

So when the matches start, he takes the floor, and wipes the floor with every single one of his opponents, and wins the tournement. Everyone was completely shocked. But take my word, this man is awesome. I would NOT want to fight him. I'd say his little experiance was as close as we'll ever come to knowing the answer to the "knight versus samurai" argument.

There are very few techniques that a samurai would know that a knight hadnt seen before. Europeans were constantly fighting, not just among themselves, like the japanese. But against other cultures, they were extremely adaptable and developed a wide range of weapons and armour. Far wider then Japan, which is a very traditionalist country.

The longsword is not my favorite weapon. It's not even the one I am best with. But it's much more versatile then a katana, and in my opinion, it is a down and dirty superior weapon. Not as sharp, not as pretty. But has a wider range of uses. And i mean without armour.

if you throw a shield into the mix, then my money would be on the european, the japanese never used shields and wouldnt know how to fight against such a thing. A shield is a force to be reckoned with in and of itself. Use it well and you're nigh invulnerable, even without armour.

I'm sorry if this sounds very anti-Japanese, I dont mean it that way, I study Japanese martial arts almost exlusively. But the fact is, European weapons and martial arts are some of the most put down on the planet. The misconceptions about them being heavy and dull are just that. And the idea that Europeans fought by just pounding the snot out of eachother till one died of exaustion is silly.

The epitomies of the samurai and of the knight would be very evenly matched equipment wise and skill wise. In short, there is no way to say who would be the victor. But the notion of either one wiping the floor with the other completely and consistently is just nonsense. They were both highly trained warriors, and they both knew what they were doing.

As for my wager? Well...I love Japanese culture and the Samurai, and my favorite sword will always be the katana. But If we assume two skilled combatants in full armour, and no shield for the knight. I'd say there's a 65% chance of victory for the knight. The combination of well made armour and a sword that is infact, designed to help the user bypass armour of any culture, is just to great an advantge to ignore.

If we remove armour from the equation. I'd say they're on even footing. The katana is extrmely sharp, which is a slight advantage for the samurai. But the long sword has techniques that apply for it that no katana could ever do and no samurai would ever expect. Half-swording, Using the pommel to smash the opponent in the face, using the quillions (guard) to hook limbs or even the neck, or useing them like a pick-axe.
The long sword is just so versatile..Its really amazing. if any of you have any intrest in sword combat I'd highly suggest looking into both eastern and western, they both have a lot to offer.

Sorry this is so long, I hope at least one of learned a little something you didnt know, and I'm sorry if it sounded condescending, this wasnt my intention. I have a great deal of respect for both cultures, and all martial arts. I just hate to see misconceptions influence opinions Smile

Sincerely,

Katherine Johnson