But would a Samurai be able to kill the legendary Grendel?

Would a Knight be able to circumcise a fly? (read below)

The Last Jewish Samurai

Once upon a time a powerful Emperor of the Rising Sun advertised for a new Chief Samurai. After a year, only three applied for the job: a Japanese, a Chinese and a Jewish samurai. "Demonstrate
your skills!" commanded the Emperor. The Japanese samurai stepped forward, opened a tiny box and released a fly. He drew his katana and swish, the fly fell to the floor, neatly divided in two.
"What a feat!" said the Emperor. "Samurai Number Two, show me what you do." The Chinese samurai bowed, stepped forward and opened a tiny box, releasing a fly. He drew his katana and swish, swish, the fly fell to the floor neatly quartered. "That is skill!" nodded the Emperor. "How are
you going to top that, Samurai Number Three?" The Jewish samurai stepped forward, opened a tiny box, releasing one fly, drew his katana and swoooooosh, flourished his katana so mightily that a
gust of wind blew through the room. But the fly was still buzzing around! In disappointment, the Emperor said, "What kind of skill is that? The fly isn't even dead." "Dead, schmead," replied the Jewish samurai. "Dead is easy. Circumcision . . . that takes skill!"

Hello everybody, umm..... I would like to point out that a knight has trained all his life too. and, a knight was also agile, his armor is surprisingly light. First off I would like to point out that you should not get your assumptions of Knights by watching Braveheart or Black Knight. First off, a real knight used a very sophisticated fighting system, just as sophisticated as any Kendoist. They did not randomly hack and slash like in the movies. The movements of the longsword are very similar to Samurais. A knight�fs sword wasn�ft heavy at all, it only weighed 3 pounds. Hollywood portrays knights so inaccurately its not even funny. a Knights armor made him almost impervious to sword attacks, but it weighed only 50 pounds, the SAME weight as samurai armor, which is much weaker.

check out the knight doing doing the form (Yeah, that�fs right, a FORM)in full body armor, he is moving just as fast as any kendoist.




http://www.thearma.org/Videos/TPVideos.htm

Here's a quote I got from someone else:


"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.

There's a great story about a Mr John Clements, who is one of the top practitioners of Historical European Swordsmanship....

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. "

And this was without armor. What if the Knight was wearing his Impenitrable armor?

(But anyway, if there was a ninja he would win because all he will have to do is use his ninja power and shoot a fireball, hehehehe.)

Ohh crap, I scrolled up and it looks like someone already beat me to it, and that was the same person i quoted from too.

The Knight On Horse Issue:

I Read That A Great Deal Of Knights Could Mount Their Horse (Even When Fully Suited) By Simply Leaping On To The Horse (ie Not Requiring Any Assistance)

So, Unless You Could Keep Him From Regaining His Mount, I Would Think That Simply Knocking The Knight Off Would Not Give You Anything But A Momentary Advantage.

wow i've been avoiding this thread for so long... ok here we go first thins is i accidentaly voted for the samurai when i wanted to vote for the knight... so -1 vote samurai
as much as i love the samurai and its culture ...deep down i troughly think a european knight would win...

moonchild sure does know his stuff...ALOTTA of weapon stuff...WOW

so about the horse issue; a samurai was an archer on horse back.. and i have no idead those arrow were...but i remeber that european arrows could pierce even the tougest of armor..that's why bowmen where so feared... then again i doubt that the quality of japan's arrows were that good..simply put japan's iron is that great like moonchild said.....
i think the vid that JDemick posted is a good example of a knight's mobility a knight should not be underestimated for his armor... that armor was the best in the world for a reason... (IMO that guy on the vids looks like he can kick anyones @ss! )

bmwracer wrote:

Tough call, but a knight has that freaking armor, neh? 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... On the other hand, the samurai is much more mobile/maneuverable than the guy in the clunky armor...

use hitten mitsurugi finishing moves,sure can hack through the armor
_________________

-=I LOVE BOXTORRENT=-

Hi All,
Thought I'd check back in and see how the discussion was going

Quote:

so about the horse issue; a samurai was an archer on horse back.. and i have no idead those arrow were...but i remeber that european arrows could pierce even the tougest of armor..that's why bowmen where so feared... then again i doubt that the quality of japan's arrows were that good..simply put japan's iron is that great like moonchild said.....

Well lovelesse...it's kind of iffy, some people say arrows penetrated armor, some people say they dont. The truth is, most people say "nay" and I am inclined to fall into that beleif aswell.

Archery was effective because of the "massing" effect. Not a few skilled archers picking off knight after knight like some kind of 15th century sniper. They generally had a TON of archers, probably at least a thousand for large battles. Possibly many more.

One soldiers description from a battle of the Hundred Years War described it as "the sky turned black with arrows"
As you can imagine, that's a lot of arrows!

So you could expect that at least a few would hit eye slits, or other open places. Plus, only about 10% of a fighting force was what you'd call "heavily armoured". Most of them were just grunts that would be lucky to have maille shirts and helmets. Often not even that. Knights were more like "special forces" then regular soldiers.

Anyways to help with your question, here's a forum post by a Mr Bob Reed, who is a very respected Arms and Armour expert.

Quote:

Hi All, Actually, Allan Williams (the foremost expert in the world on Medieval European metalurgy) and the Royal Armouries and some others recently did a series of tests in controlled circumstances, taking an 'average' thickness of plate , a mechanical press, and a bodkin point arrow - the metals of both corresponding to the normal range of tensile strengths for early 15th century armours and arrowheads. Then they figured out how many jewels of force were generated by an average warbow - using the Mary Rose bows as an example for a reconstruction. The flat plate was laid out in the press, so the bodkin point was given *optimum* conditions for penetration - a strike against a flat surface at 90 degrees. The end result was the bodkin failed every time. A snippet of the videos of these tests appears on the Series "Battlefield Detectives", the Battle of Agincourt episode. I'm sure the test will not convince the true believers however.

And the thread link is : http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27946

I hope this helps answer your question, oh and thanks for the compliments The tools of war are a passion of mine, and I spend a lot of time studying and playing with them.



By the way JDemick, you seem like a man who's famliar with WMA, are you another one of those types that likes to look for "samurai vs knight" discussions and help out?

Ok I truely believe the knight would win for several factors. First of all the Sword the knight carries is considerably heavier then the katana this is a good thing because it renders the samuri's armour almost useless because of the crushing wieght of the knights sword. A katana is a very impressive weapon but it has the same armour piercing as a common rapier which is next to nothing. For the samuri's environment the katana was great but if samuri's had heavy armour like the europeans they would have to adapt by making blunt weapons or heavy sword (which they did much much later). The katana would only be effective agianst the knight if it was struck in a chink in the armour which would be very very difficult if the knight was on his horse, Plus slashing at a chink in the armour isn't usualy effective you normaly need to stab into an unarmoured section which the katana isnt effective at because of its curvature. Another factor against the samuri is if he trys to parry the knights blow, the katana bends while a knights swords is fairly stiff in comparison. So if the samuri hits the knights sword he will have huge vibrations going through his sword (ive seen this happen before). The knight only need parry the Samuri and strike him anywhere even in the armour to knock the samuri off balance then the finishing blow comes from the knight. I also believe knights only carried a long sword as a back up weapon and had either a lance or a great sword as their primary weapon which was the most effective sword (against armour and overall damage because of its size and weight) ever made, except for its speed in combat.

Overall each culture made their weapons based on their armour and vice versa. So they were good against there own enemies. But i believe the knights armour would give him the advantage to win in this case. I got some information off this site http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm i highly recomend you read this it talks about the katana and european swords as well as a lot of other swords.

I believe this poll is some what bias because of ... well i hate to pull the racial card but i think most people here are of Japanese decent and are acustomed to the katana and have not actualy handled or seen first hand the european weapons and armour. I have used both cultures weapons. Also this poll is bias because of the timelines set but im not to sure about that could you clear that up for me?

It all depends on the wielder of the sword. But I would want Samurai to win!!! hehe I wanna see Nito-Ryu battle against a knight parry & attack!

oh yeah I saw an episode last week in "Toribia no Izumi" where they had a Trivie which was Kendo VS Fencing, and Fencing won : (

I'd go with the samurai since their swords are durable and at the same time great cutting power (not piercing, because a samurai sword is for slashing) while the knight's sword is dull and heavy and not as durable as most people think

Knight vs Samurai, interesting, but first, I'm going to derail a few common mistakes concerning the european knight.

The suits worn by knights were neither bulky, nor as heavy as they said to be in most text books and the like.

This is a common misconception, due to the fact that nearly all serviceable suits of plate armor were destroyed through the ages, as they were used and eventually fell apart due to little upkeep, rotting away from moisture, and the like. Most of the suits we have on display anymore, are decorative suits, which were made for show and nothing else.

The average knight could have been knocked off of his horse and gained his footing again without major difficulty. Infact, using the various recipies that were left over and styles, from the era, there have been models of the armor made, which allowed the wearer to mount a horse on their own or even do a cartwheel, without major hinderance.

Why would someone wear something that would make them helpless? Mobility is much more important in combat than being able to shrug off one or two hits.

Quote:

Can Knights get up after they have fallen? A knight in armor for battle was very mobile. If he wasn't, he would be susceptible to attacks from behind or from a faster moving unarmored opponent. In fact it is recorded that some knights were able to leap into there saddles from a standing position beside there horse. It is completely untrue that an armored man was unable to get up after falling. The old story about a knight being winched up in a crane to get on his horse is a figment of Mark Twains imagination i.e. "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court".

http://www.armor.com/2000/info.html


BUT...

The samurai has the lighter armour and the european knight, even on horseback, has the problem, that he can't move as quickly. His suit is heavier than the samurai armour, thus he gets worn out faster than his opponent, who's also more used to fight on foot. The samurai has learned to master the sword, which is the best melee weapon on earth. It is superior to ANY european sword (some of them were made of 100,000 layers of steel). It can cut through basically any armour (except Mithril ) as long as you have the right force behind the blow.

Summarizing it has to be said that the samurai will most likely win. He is trained to fight with only a sword and has no shield, he knows how to move quickly, how to avoid strikes, how to strike back swiftly. The european knight has his strong armour, but that wouldn't help him much on the long term, in fact I'd say it would be a disadvantage (when you look at the 100 years war in france it's clearly visible that the heavy armoured knights had their disadvantages, especially against ranged attacks. Now imagine samurai archers with english longbows... scary thought).

Besides the fighting styles are extremly different. And while the samurai has a philosophy behind his training (I never managed to find anything similar to Bushido in europe), the european knight is basically a barbarian who just goes around smacking his enemies with his, poorly crafted (compared to master-made katanas) sword or flail.

The knight's main purpose on the battlefield in the ending Middle Ages was simple. He was the "tank", his job was to go into a charge with many other heavily armed riders to break through infantry lines. But that disappeared quickly once the ranged weapons turned out to be more accurate than ever before (english longbow, steel crossbows and later... firearms). In the end, the knights stopped being heavy cavalry and even cavalry made up of commoners didn't last long. Cavalry quickly turned into something new. They dropped the armour and became more mobile and faster.

On the other hand the samurai is a highly skilled swordman, there is no equivalent on the european battlefield. Even samurai cavalry was light and the samurai has the advantage of mobility.

Besides, the samurai armour is cooler and the swords just kick ass (they're extremly well balanced and a dream for any swordfighter... *looks forward to see the family sword*)

As for the length of the fight, well... Looking at how quickly points are scored in kendo (those are the times when I make my GF giggle like insane, cause I often don't see the hit) I'd say a real fight would be short. Fights lasting minutes is... Hollywood fiction.

Interesting would be a fight on horse back. But I'd say there the european knight clearly loses. He can't control the horse properly, his stirrups are too long and the saddle not made for accurate dressage. Sure he has the lance, but he has to hit with that first, and that's not easy. I tried it with a german WW2 lance and that was nearly impossible in the beginning. I'm quite good now. But I have to say, I think even I would be able to defeat a european knight on horseback. I'd be more mobile, I would be able to control the horse better, I can make moves with it (moves based on the renaissance cavalry which are still in use in modern equestrian and in classical formations like the Spanish Riding School in Vienna or the Cadre Noire in Saumur) which the knight wouldn't be able to counter. And if everything fails, I can always outrun him (and turn around and blast him with a rifle ), since my modern-bred horse would be lighter, better trained and more agile than his huge warhorse (same goes for the japanese warhorse. They were light and agile)

We also must not forget to consider the height of the 2 fighters. The european knight would be way taller than the samurai, which is, in martial arts, usually a disadvantage. The smaller one might not be as strong as the opponent, but that doesn't matter a lot. The smaller one can move faster, dodge and duck more quickly, etc, to make it short, he'd be more mobile. And mobility wins wars.

Anyway, I'd say in ~70 out of 100 duels the samurai would win. My GF says that it would be more like 99 out 100, but I think that's a bit too much (not to mention she's biased *blames her samurai ancestors*). Ok, I gotta run before I get smacked with her shinai... *RUNS!*

Good explanation ne Fenrir kun

just my curiosity ne fenrir kun But what do you think about chinese sword play if they compare to da style samurai use which one gonna win? THx before for da reply...ne

old90dayz wrote:

oh yeah I saw an episode last week in "Toribia no Izumi" where they had a Trivie which was Kendo VS Fencing, and Fencing won : (

yay for FENCING!

Hijikata wrote:

I'd go with the samurai since their swords are durable and at the same time great cutting power (not piercing, because a samurai sword is for slashing) while the knight's sword is dull and heavy and not as durable as most people think

have u read what mooncaller posted?.... -_-... i dun think u did .. go back and read it them u'll understand about the swords...

mooncaller is very knowledgeable

Fenrir wrote:

Anyway, I'd say in ~70 out of 100 duels the samurai would win.

honestly did u ppl read what mooncaller posted at all!?!?! i doubt u did... i think ur putting 2 much money on the samurai dude..... (i mean i like samurais.... and i hope he would win but come on 70-30.. no way)

it's good to see new members take initiative and dig up old posts. Glad other people are doing it as well.
_________________

Bsalez wrote:

Good explanation ne Fenrir kun just my curiosity ne fenrir kun But what do you think about chinese sword play if they compare to da style samurai use which one gonna win? THx before for da reply...ne

Chinese swordplay would win them all hehe haven't u seen crouching tiger hidden dragon... they can fly hahahaha... and they are as fast as light hahahaha well just kidding ne...

i guess it depends on a lot of aspects too... i mean even Chinese swordsplay there is quite a few kinds... and then there is aspects such as armors and mobility

someone in an earlier post said something about arrows piercing armor. from what i recall in reading about the hundred years' war, it wasn't the english who had bows that tough. it was the WELSH. they'd use a young yew tree which had great flexibility. supposedly, it was able to pierce field plate armor and could go through a thick wooden church door.

as for who would win - it depends on what kind of armor the knight was wearing. what each would wear and use isn't specified in the question, so we could go around and around with this. the heavier the armor, the slower the knight.

i think it was the swiss who invented polearms that would knock knights off of their horses, and then finish them off. this sorta ended the knights, i believe - which is great if you know about what was called the "great company", lawless knights who banded together and took out entire towns. the pope had to pay them off to make them go away. this was in the book terry jones (of the monty python troupe) wrote called "chaucer's knight" - NOT a nice fellow at all, quite the mercenary, in fact.

overall, i can't decide who i'd pick, assuming both are well trained and in good shape. it's fun to discuss, though. this is a very enjoyable thread.

the WELSH were mercenaries... and the english WERE FAMOUS for their longbowmen ... if i remember correctly i think longbows were six feet long!!! and could shoot the furthes out of any bow in the world.. it could even shoot farthere than a crossbow... but not as powerfully ....

u bring up good points!! also the fall of the knights had manny reason.. like what u mentuioned and the invention of the crowwbow which could tear up plate armor... and also the introduction of gunpower weapons like early hancannons .... which would dessimate knights ... i find this thread very enjoyable also! i like history! .. and science..... english and math on the other hand I HATE!

I think a samurai would win because a knight has all that armor on and I don't think he can move around as easily as a samurai would.
And a knight's sword is like freaking heavier than anything he is carrying.
A samurai's sword is very light and very sharp to pierce those hard places.
Well that's what I think, but you never know.
_________________

The samurai can easily kick down the knight, and stab him while the knight is down.