Samurai vs. Knight

[quote] PSDOL
"i like both of them but i prefer samurai's i like the honor thing"

Yes i agree that they were both grate fiters but Knights had had honor too
the honor code is calld Chivalry.

Oh and WasabiSniffer Knights were more mobile then u think.

And 1 more thing how do u put pic on any posts? I cant copy and paste.

Thanks for your help. :woot:

Roman Legion wrote:KNIGHTS vs SAMARAI

i have to go with the knights on this for several reasons


1- the knights armor was a lot lighter than ppl think- ranging from 30-60 lbs. not to mention its flexibilty, as the armor was pretty much a metallic mold of the knights body.

2- the armor was strong. the first FIREARMS could not penetrate the armor. neither could crossbows, regular bows, swords, etc could penetrate it, very far from easily

3- the knights could also adapt farely well to warfare- they had MANY enemies everywhere, where as the samarai faught themselves and were not used to any other fighting styles.

4- the knights also had formation warfare. unless kamakazi was a type of formation, then forgtet wut i said.

5- the samarai armor was bulky, weak, infelxible, an heavy- ranging anywhere from 45-77 lbs.- but none of this is new info of course

thats all i have to say for now

I'm not going to get into the whole one vs. the other thing. I'm just going to address these points.

1. It seems the weight and protection of armor vary depending on when the argument is about weight or protection. You're not going to get full coverage and protection when you use 30lbs of armor. Likewise, a full plate suit that guards against most weak points and attacks is not going to squeak by at low weight. To this day, we still can't create that level of protection vs. weight vs. movement. You will take a hit in movement. You want protection, you cover more. More cover means finer movements are inhibited.

2. It's doubtful if any of the armor plates that were proof marked in those days against firearms were done while it was being worn. Stopping bullets were not just about preventing penetration. If there's no penetration, then trauma comes into effect. That is why metal plates aren't used in modern body armor design. They're very poor in spreading out the force of impact. No penetration would still have meant the knight took all the energy into his body. I'm not an expert, but that's roughly how it works.

3. The knights fought many battles, but most were against similar enemies. Knights fought knights using the same tactics. When faced against the Muslim armies, they performed mediocre. When faced against the lightly armored Mongols, they were completely outmatched and slaughtered.

4. Formation warfare isn't saying much. In the knight's case, it was pretty much just facing each other and sending the men in. In fact, the knights didn't really employ formation warfare. Like the samurai, the knight's battle was geared towards individual combat, leaving the infantry, which was considered beneath them, to fight in the mass. Maneuver warfare, which Ghengis Khan created and is the backbone of today's warfare, was far more effective.

5. Again the weight fluctuates. Japanese had varying armor, including chain mail. Which one are we talking about? Is it the less protecting wood armor that weighed less, or the metal plated ones that weighed more?

quote by Kijinnmaru :

I'm not going to get into the whole one vs. the other thing. I'm just going to address these points.

1. It seems the weight and protection of armor vary depending on when the argument is about weight or protection. You're not going to get full coverage and protection when you use 30lbs of armor. Likewise, a full plate suit that guards against most weak points and attacks is not going to squeak by at low weight. To this day, we still can't create that level of protection vs. weight vs. movement. You will take a hit in movement. You want protection, you cover more. More cover means finer movements are inhibited.

2. It's doubtful if any of the armor plates that were proof marked in those days against firearms were done while it was being worn. Stopping bullets were not just about preventing penetration. If there's no penetration, then trauma comes into effect. That is why metal plates aren't used in modern body armor design. They're very poor in spreading out the force of impact. No penetration would still have meant the knight took all the energy into his body. I'm not an expert, but that's roughly how it works.

3. The knights fought many battles, but most were against similar enemies. Knights fought knights using the same tactics. When faced against the Muslim armies, they performed mediocre. When faced against the lightly armored Mongols, they were completely outmatched and slaughtered.

4. Formation warfare isn't saying much. In the knight's case, it was pretty much just facing each other and sending the men in. In fact, the knights didn't really employ formation warfare. Like the samurai, the knight's battle was geared towards individual combat, leaving the infantry, which was considered beneath them, to fight in the mass. Maneuver warfare, which Ghengis Khan created and is the backbone of today's warfare, was far more effective.

5. Again the weight fluctuates. Japanese had varying armor, including chain mail. Which one are we talking about? Is it the less protecting wood armor that weighed less, or the metal plated ones that weighed more?

me Roman Legion says :

Well ferst of all modern body armor have metal plates under the carlivar.

There are knights or other European's armor that can stop a Musket in till the 1680s. The Europeans made longer berals for ther Musket for more power to go threw armor.

Depending what country knights did stay in formations wan fiteing.

Organized warfare and formations can make a big deferens. For example the Knights can have a formations were the kamikaze attack can be a death trap for the Samurais.

And one more thing Ghengis Khan Was a Made man he did not Decker war!!! :crazy: Ghengis Khan was a barbarian!!! Alexander the great made maneuver warfare before him. And a nother thing my tercher from last yaer was in the West Point and they study alot of Roman, Greek, knights and ww2 warfare he said that the modern infantry dapt ther Organized warfare and formation warfare.


The funny thing is that the Knights took land from the Muslim armies for 88 yaers. (before 88 yaers and after) Every time the Knights went fase to fase with the Muslim armies they killd them or sloterd them.

And for the the lightly armored Mongols they never culd Conquer Europe they got so beet they never came a gan.

Damn, this sort of typing reminds me of Loveless emotion. :sweat:

Your fingers must fly across the board, ne?

Roman Legion wrote:
me Roman Legion says :
Well fers of modern body armor have metal plates under the carlivar.

No, they don't. They're a composite material, not metal.

There are knights or other European's armor that can stop a Musket in till the 1680s. The Europeans made longer berals for ther Musket for more power to go threw armor.

Again, penetration was not the only way for the bullet to kill. A basic understanding of how kevlar protects will show you that. Body armor has to also stop enough trauma from getting passed into the body.

Depending what country knights did stay in formations wan fiteing.

Organized warfare and formations can make a big deferens. For example the Knights can have a formations were the kamikaze attack can be a death trap for the Samurais.

First off, kamikaze isn't a formation. It's a big storm. Kamikaze as you are referring was a suicide tactic used in World War 2. Knights carried standards into war so that one knight could fight another, while the infantry and other lower class slaughtered each other. The best description was that knights were warriors, but not soldiers. There is a HUGE difference.

Formation warfare-think battle level. Maneuver warfare-think strategic level. Big difference and amount of influence.

And one more thing Ghengis Khan Was a Made man he did not Decker war!!! :crazy: Ghengis Khan was a barbarian!!! Alexander the great made maneuver warfare before him. And a nother thing my tercher last yaer was in the West Point and they study alot of Roman, Greek, knights and ww2 warfare he said that the modern infantry dapt ther Organized warfare and formation warfare.

That's the common attack of Ghengis Khan, but it's dead wrong. His development of military order, discipline, and tactics were well beyond anyone in the world for a long time. This included structured military units and communications, as well as pyschological warfare. It was just easier to pass him off as a barbarian than admit someone like him handed both the advanced Muslim and European armies their heads.

The funny thing is that the Knights took land from the Muslim armies for 88 yaers. (before 88 yaers and after) Every time the Knights went fase to fase with the Muslim armies they killd them or sloterd them.

And for the the lightly armored Mongols they never culd Conquer Europe they got so beet they never came a gan.

Muslims held much of Europe for a long time also. And the Crusades went back and forth.

As for beating the Mongols, that is one of the greatest lies of European history. Only two things saved Europe from Mongol conquest.

1. The Mongols never intended to take more than Hungary. That was always their plan. Further battle after that were simply for security purposes.

2. Shortly after the Battle of Liegnitz, the current Khan died, and by their law of succesion, all the princes had to return for his funeral. For one reason or another, they lost interest and never went back.

Poland spins this lack of further attack as a victory, and declares that Mongols won by superior numbers. The truth was that the Mongols took an outnumbered diversionary force (by at least 10,000) and destroyed two European knight armies, and forced a third one to flee back to Bohemia. Europe was left in ruins. In fact if you did some research, you'll probably not find a single instance where the Europeans "beat the Mongols so badly", because they didn't.

Three thing thow I was being sarcastic wen i sead kamikaze was a formation. WW2 kamikaze Came from the Samurais back in the day its calld divine wind.


Thats why Ghengis Khan was so Succefull he did not Decker war so contrys did not know what hit them, yes he did have good tatiks but if you do not Deck War well thing will go in you faver if you tack the avantige. Too me Ghengis Khan is a barbarian just my opion.

That was not a lie were they beat the Mongols. And yes some body armor sitl use metal plates under the carlivar not all of the thow. (ther was a SWAT guy in School that told us this 2 yaers ago.) talk too you later this is a good Dibate Kijinnmaru. :applaud:

Roman Legion wrote:Three thing thow I was being sarcastic wen i sead kamikaze was a formation. WW2 kamikaze Came from the Samurais back in the day its calld divine wind.

Divine wind because it was talking about a storm. When the Mongols invaded, they had beaten the samurais, but returned to their ships to wait for the next move. A storm destroyed their fleet, and saved Japan, like an Act of God. That is where the term kamikaze came from during the time of the samurai. It was never a military term until used by the suicide pilots of World War 2.

Thats why Ghengis Khan was so Succefull he did not Decker war so contrys did not know what hit them, yes he did have good tatiks but if you do not Deck War well thing will go in you faver if you tack the avantige. Too me Ghengis Khan is a barbarian just my opion.

Formal declaration of war began during the Renaissance, long after the Mongol invasions and the Middle Ages. Like Bushido and Chivalry, it came about during a time of peace. Idealism tends to be a luxury of peace. Any advantage only serves the first battle. The Mongols tore through Asia, and Russia, so the Europeans had plenty knowledge of them coming. Even if declarations of war existed back then, there is no true advantage gained by attacking without it.

Some information about Ghengis Khan. He created a communictions network throughout the empire similar to the Pony Express of the American 19th Century. His army consisted of well-disciplined and trained troops. He had developed a decimal based unit organization(10's, 100's 1000's) similar to fire teams, squads, platoons, etc of modern militaries. He employed a longbow unmatched by European, or anybody's, standards and only bettered by firearms. He promoted men AND women based on their abilities and performance, instead of their birth. He created an extensive network of spies for intelligence. He created a highly effective system of battlefield communication using flags that allowed control and timely decisions to be executed. He employed skilled people, like architects and siege experts, from conquered land. He was also known to NOT kill those he saw that would not oppose him. His use of psychological warfare was very effective, which shows in how people today see him as a beast. Still think he was just a rampaging barbarian?

That was not a lie were they beat the Mongols.

You can keep saying it, but history proves otherwise. Can you name a battle where this happened? Can you even name a location, country, whatever? The fact is that the Mongols tore through Asia, the Middle East, defeated Russia, then soundly defeated a larger combined European army with a diversionary force. Once they secured Hungary, their objectives had been met, and they no longer continued their conquest. That is what stopped the Mongols from taking Europe. They didn't keep going because they never wanted to.

And yes some body armor sitl use metal plates under the carlivar not all of the thow. (ther was a SWAT guy in School that told us this 2 yaers ago.) talk too you later this is a good Dibate Kijinnmaru. :applaud:

Composite plates provide better protection and lighter weight. This is what is used today because it's better. The hard plates I used were not metal, but could take multiple hits of 7.62mm and were much lighter than a plate of steel.

Hold that thought cant really tipe rite now got a football game tomorrow. But I have this to say.



The Mongols conquer week central states.

There were civilizations that decker war like the Persian Empire they
decker war on the Greeks also the French with the British and Romans and the gals they all decker war.

Roman Legion wrote:Hold that thought cant really tipe rite now got a football game tomorrow. But I have this to say.



The Mongols conquer week central states.

There were civilizations that decker war like the Persian Empire they
decker war on the Greeks also the French with the British and Romans and the gals they all decker war.

There's not really a point to continue this much further. It's obvious you'll just continue making things up without backing up any of it. Here are some maps of the Mongol Empire:

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/9/90/Mongol_dominions.jpg
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/mongols2map.jpg
http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T012840A.gif

As you can see, it encompasses:
The whole of China - not a weak central state
The useful parts of Russia - not a weak central state
The useful parts of the Muslim Empire - not a weak central state
Eastern Europe - not a weak central state

After entering Europe, the Mongols were only interested in taking Hungary and consolidating their empire. To ensure that there would not be a European threat, they sent out a 20,000 man diversionary force against a larger combined European army. The diversionary force was part of an army that had already been victorious over other Polish armies.

The first European army to face them at Liegnitz consisted of:
Polish knights - not a group of weak knights
French knights - all French jokes aside, not a group of weak knights
German knights - not a group of weak knights
And the footsoldiers. This was an army of 30,000 of Europe's finest knights facing a Mongol army of 20,000. Records show that 25,000 of the 30,000 Europeans were killed, and the remaining sent in retreat.

After that defeat, a combined European army of 70,000 was sent to face the 20,000 Mongols. Of this, 65,000 were killed, and the remaining retreated. Even the Grand Master of the French Knights Templar wrote that there was nothing stopping the Mongols from going to France. With no European threat any longer, the Mongols had achieved their objective. Soon after, Ogadei, the current Khan, died. Tradition mandated that the princes of the Mongol army had to return for the funeral so they took their forces and headed back.

Another tidbit. It was the European armies who chose to confront the Mongols that were approaching. So:
1. The Europeans knew the Mongols were coming
2. They were not at war with the Mongols, but chose to face them and did not issue a declaration of war

As you can see, there was no advantage taken by the the Mongols for not declaring war. And Europe's knights fought an army five times smaller and was decimated.

Please tell me were you get those numbers from all you give me is pictures of a map I've seen before. :banghead:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I never heard those knights befor fighting them.

Let me show you the info I got.

The Mongols were a nomadic people who in the 13th century found themselves encompassed by large, city-dwelling agrarian civilizations. However, none of these civilizations were part of a strong central state.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/m/mo/mongols.html

My studies
China did not have good troops, they did not train that much becase they thoght the wall will protect them from any body and if there were an Empire
it was not a good one. I saw a video in school about them. Russia, ok wow they did not have good tech or a leader. And Turky they were stong but at this time they were still bilding ther Empire.

I stil think Ghengis Khan was a barbarian!

And as for heavy armor: The Persian could not Defeet the Greek becase of
heavy armor. Becase of heavy armor the Romans conquer the none World
Because of heavy armer Spain conquered most of the Americas and the world.
Because of heavy armer Alexander the grate conquered the lite armord Persian. Because of heavy armer the Isrealis Defeet there enemies in the BCs.

Roman Legion wrote:Please tell me were you get those numbers from all you give me is pictures of a map I've seen before. :banghead:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: I never heard those knights befor fighting them.

The map is to show you the size of the Mongol Empire and who they conquered. Under your definition, there was no strong central state that existed. Do some good research on the Battle of Liegnitz. Modern, unbiased research has proven that three armies, each considerably larger than the attacking Mongol force went up against them. Two were completely destroyed, and the third refused to fight and fled.

You've never heard of the Teutonic Knights? The Knight's Templar? Polish knights? German knights? French knights? Are you sure you should be commenting on the abilities of knights or European battle history then?

Let me show you the info I got.

The Mongols were a nomadic people who in the 13th century found themselves encompassed by large, city-dwelling agrarian civilizations. However, none of these civilizations were part of a strong central state.

http://www.campusprogram.com/reference/en/wikipedia/m/mo/mongols.html

Yet none of this still supports your argument that Europe "beat the Mongols so badly". The fact remains that a small nation controlled all of useful Asia, and Eastern Europe.

My studies
China did not have good troops, they did not train that much becase they thoght the wall will protect them from any body and if there were an Empire
it was not a good one. I saw a video in school about them. Russia, ok wow they did not have good tech or a leader. And Turky they were stong but at this time they were still bilding ther Empire.

One school video and and you're ready to argue with such faulty logic about China? China was a unified nation by this time as well as being the most advanced in the world. They had an army that numbered over a million troops. That had developed steel technology for swords long before Europe had. They created the world's most powerful crossbow in 4BC. They had armored soldiers and horses in heavy calvary units. They had also created gunpowder, and in turn, rockets and mines. The common fallacy of the Great Wall is that it was to stop invaders. The intent had always been to slow attackers, and use it as an early warning system. So as you can see, China was far from being in decline, or having a poorly trained military.

I stil think Ghengis Khan was a barbarian!

And as for heavy armor: The Persian could not Defeet the Greek becase of
heavy armor. Becase of heavy armor the Romans conquer the none World
Because of heavy armer Spain conquered most of the Americas and the world.

The Mongols had no problem defeating European heavy armor in battle. Or Chinese heavy armor. Or Persian heavy armor. By the way, the Romans conquered much of Europe and Asia not because of heavy armor. They did it because they had the most professional military in the world at the time. And your comment about Spain and the world is the just ridiculous. By the time Spain had created a world empire, they had long discarded heavy armor.

Hold that thot I have a football game today but I have o say this for now

:banghead:
Ill give you a plase and a date Wen they got beet so bad. I know it hapen you know it hapen but i red obut this long ago and saw the history canla a wile back it did saed that the Mongols hade ben difeted badly in a time.

yes i know thise Knights befor but i ment that i nevre herd them fiting the mongal but il check on that some ather time.

The spanish had heavy armor wen they conquered most of the Americas.
yes Guns halpt but wen u go Face to Face heavy armor will help, and a nother thing there were other contrys with guns but no armor and they had a very hard time fiting wen the nativs went face to face.

That was the mane reeson that the Romans had conquered the none world is heavy armor and Sege. I study a lot of Roman History.



Like the tertal gave the Romans to avans up to fortiyfide places, rocks, Arows, speers, ect cud not stop Roman heavy armor avanses. Il give more exampals later.

China had los of trobals in its borers too many sival wars and Kings, yes they did not have a well trade army ok and like i sead befor ther was armor that can stop the ferst fierarms. :banghead: (i saw 2 school Vidows of the History of China and the History canal and ect.) only if i can put pictures heer. HELP ME SOME ONE how to put pics.

Roman Legion wrote:
Ill give you a plase and a date Wen they got beet so bad. I know it hapen you know it hapen but i red obut this long ago and saw the history canla a wile back it did saed that the Mongols hade ben difeted badly in a time.

So this whole time you're going off something you faintly remember from something you saw a long time ago? No, despite you saying it, I don't know if it happened. The fact is that Mongols fought into Europe, destroyed anything that opposed them, and stopped when they were done with what they wanted. They returned to Mongolia and did not return after that. You've been claiming this for days, yet you still haven't brought up a date or place.

The spanish had heavy armor wen they conquered most of the Americas.
yes Guns halpt but wen u go Face to Face heavy armor will help, and a nother thing there were other contrys with guns but no armor and they had a very hard time fiting wen the nativs went face to face.

The Spanish didn't start taking land in the American continents until the 1500's. They had armor, but it wasn't what you were thinking. Firearms and disease had more to play with their conquest than armor.

That was the mane reeson that the Romans had conquered the none world is heavy armor and Sege. I study a lot of Roman History.

Like the tertal gave the Romans to avans up to fortiyfide places, rocks, Arows, speers, ect cud not stop Roman heavy armor avanses. Il give more exampals later.

It's obvious you know little of military technology, tactics, or military history. The Roman empire had a very professional, disciplined, and well trained army. This was why they won their battles. When the discipline of the armies declined, so did they Roman Empire, despite being more advanced and having good armor. Armor is only one part of the equation, and you can't see that simple fact.

China had los of trobals in its borers too many sival wars and Kings, yes they did not have a well trade army ok and like i sead befor ther was armor that can stop the ferst fierarms. :banghead: (i saw 2 school Vidows of the History of China and the History canal and ect.) only if i can put pictures heer. HELP ME SOME ONE how to put pics.

You still haven't brought up any facts or details. You continue to say they had an ok (now it's ok when before you said they had a poorly trained army) army, but you don't say how. China had long periods of political stabililty, unlike what you claim. They had a huge army. The army was well trained and technologically advance. They knew well what the Great Wall was far, despite your ill-informed claim.

You keep changing your answers, and you never support any of it. You've had DAYS to present any evidence and you haven't done so. The only things you've posted are either poor opinions, or information that is just flat wrong.

Dear Kajinnmaru :applaud:

You must be..or .should be.. a teacher. I applaud you for your patience

Peggy

To be honest, many of you may or may not understand the presept behind the bushido code. A knight yes has an advantage with very strong armor. But many of you may have over looked the fact that samurai were not afraid to die. while the whole purpose behind armor was to live. so when and if ever a samurai and a knight ever fought, if the knight was aiming to live while the samurai would try to kill you at all costs then who do you really think has the advantage? a knight may yes stab or cut a samurai first, But what if the samurai fliped open mr. knights face mask to stab his face. then this would only mean that there is no win or lose. they both die but the purpose behind the death will truly determin the victory! that is what a true understanding of a warrior should be. A samurai was willing to do anything to furfill his masters command. while a knight tended to act on personal preferance. and also you should also remember how do you know a samurai wouldent grab a knights sword and a knights chest plate to even things out? not only that but samurai had jujitsu which was made to fight unarmed against swords. which gave the samurai an advantage too. but most importantly, this is truly the only thing that matters. the personal skill of the swordsmen, and his determination to win.

I just wanted to respond to (oh, also, welcome to the board, Katsumoto):

Katsumoto wrote:To be honest, many of you may or may not understand the presept behind the bushido code. A knight yes has an advantage with very strong armor. But many of you may have over looked the fact that samurai were not afraid to die. while the whole purpose behind armor was to live. so when and if ever a samurai and a knight ever fought, if the knight was aiming to live while the samurai would try to kill you at all costs then who do you really think has the advantage? a knight may yes stab or cut a samurai first, But what if the samurai fliped open mr. knights face mask to stab his face. then this would only mean that there is no win or lose. they both die but the purpose behind the death will truly determin the victory! that is what a true understanding of a warrior should be. A samurai was willing to do anything to furfill his masters command. while a knight tended to act on personal preferance. and also you should also remember how do you know a samurai wouldent grab a knights sword and a knights chest plate to even things out? not only that but samurai had jujitsu which was made to fight unarmed against swords. which gave the samurai an advantage too. but most importantly, this is truly the only thing that matters. the personal skill of the swordsmen, and his determination to win.

Katsumoto wrote: . . . so when and if ever a samurai and a knight ever fought, if the knight was aiming to live while the samurai would try to kill you at all costs . . .

Go research accounts of campaigns where knights were involved; I think you'll find many examples of knights with the same spirit you describe for samurai in the above quote.

Katsumoto wrote:But what if the samurai fliped open mr. knights face mask to stab his face.

Maybe a few times, in close quarters, but, how likely is this act to happen on a grand scale?

Katsumoto wrote: . . . and also you should also remember how do you know a samurai wouldent grab a knights sword and a knights chest plate to even things out?

So, are you saying that the samurai sees the value of knight armor? Because, I thought you said that

Katsumoto wrote: . . . samurai were not afraid to die.

and that

Katsumoto wrote: . . . the whole purpose behind armor was to live.

Ergo, samurai wish to live and would resort to using knight armor to do so? Are they not afraid to die? Which is it?

Katsumoto wrote:A samurai was willing to do anything to furfill his masters command. while a knight tended to act on personal preferance.

What? Explain this one, because a knight had masters too.

Katsumoto wrote:the personal skill of the swordsmen, and his determination to win.

Well, I agree with this one. I'm glad you stated "swordsmen" and not solely "samurai" or "knight."

Knights has a honor code too is calld Chivalry. Most Knights had face-mask and a lock on it or some helmets were a face mask/helmets (I meen that it was atached as one). It was important for the Knight to make sure that he was protected, but of course this did not mean that he would be completly safe. The point that I have always tried to make is that given the choice, any one person who would face the enemy, would always prefer to be better protected by better technology, this including ARMER. If it was me, I definitly would use ARMOR. This might not garranty vitory, but it would shorely make ME feel a whole lot more confident. This confidence would help inflict more casualties to the enemy. As long as there are wars, the improvement for better technology in Armor will never end.

I think a knight would usually win.
I practice martial arts and love samurai but I also love war history so even tho I have a soft spot for the the samurai I think the odds favour a knight.
Most of what I say will be based on the 2 at their heights (sengoku and a 15/16 century knight) and that the 2 are fighting on foot.
In close combat on horse a knight on his much much larger horse would have been unstoppable as he was against most enemies similiar to the samurai (saracen, turk, mongol - these guys could and did beat the knights armies but in a 1 on 1 the knight prevailed).
Also the samurai would if armed with a bow be smart enough to stay out of harms reach and pepper the knight with arrows until 1 found a mark.

Armour
I think the western knight has the advantage in armour. To get a better understanding of a knight's armour read Ewart Oakeshott's book(s).
I have some samurai armour and it's not as light and mobile as it's made out to be (but it's still pretty good).
The knight's armour while heavier (plate) was made so the weight was distributed evenly and so much easier to bear. A well packed pack on a camping trip is 10 times easier to bear than a badly packed pack of the same weight. So the weight of plate armour should be considered with this in mind. Mail and a helmet was reasonably light (about 50 pounds) tho the weight wasn't as well distributed as plate armour.
The effectiveness of plate armour is well known.
Samurai armour is very strong but there are many weak areas. The elbow and lower arm(light mail and splints generally), armpits (mail usually if at all) fingers, face (often the face masks were not worn or only covered the jaw), hamstrings(uncovered), calves (splints) and feet (uncovered). A knight if he was wearing full plate has far fewer weak areas (armpits, elbows, inner thighs perhaps).

Fatigue.
A fight would not have lasted much longer than 20 minutes and could be over in a few seconds.
Both were superbly conditioned as both would have been well trained and practiced reguarly if not everyday.
Both would fight in armour they trained in.
Fatigue would not be a major factor over the time they would fight in.

Speed.
The samurai would probably have the edge here. The lightness of his armour is definitely a factor.
The weapons would probably be very similiar in weight so this is a negligible factor here.

Choice of weapons.
For foot combat a samurai would probably begin with a yari and have his secondary weapons being his swords.
The yari blade is similiar to sword blade and doesn't appear to be meant for armour piecing (I don't know for sure on this and it'd rock if someone was able to fill me in the use of the yari).
He may use a no daichi (2 handed sword- I don't know the effectiveness of this against japanese do and kabuto). There are other weapons but these seem like the most likely in the sengoku period.
For foot combat knight would probably have had a poleaxe or some other form of polearm (these were designed to split, pierce and crack plate).
I don't know whether knights used those huge 2 handeded swords much. Bastards swords were defintely used by a knight frequently enough.
A sword and dagger would be the secondary weapons.
There are quite a few weapons for the knight to choose from but these may have been more commen.
The quality of a samurai's weapons are well known but they had weaknesses such as less flexible blades.
The samurai knew this and his style of fighting took these into account (blade to blade contact wasn't too nice on a katana).
Western weapons /metal gets knocked but it was still very very efficient and I don't feel this is a factor. Read some sites dedicated to these weapons and you'll quickly discover the quality of these weapons was very high.
A western sword weighed roughly the same as a katana (2-3 pounds).
A yari and a poleaxe are roughly equivelant in length. This would have come down to the length chosen by the particular warriors.
So reach of weapon is probably equal here.

Height.
I study kendo in Taiwan (formerly a japanese colony so the standard is very high here) and I've found height is definitly an advantage and allows me to compete with much more skilled opponents. I am 6 foot 2 (190cm) and when I am facing opponents below 5 foot 6 (?cm) my ability to strike them makes the match much less competitive.
Look at boxing, reach is an advantage.
Same as the spear/naginata fighter will generally defeat the sword fighter, reach is vital and that is a bonus of
Going on skeleton remains from Towton and the Mary Rose the european men who fought were generally the more athletic of the population and were 5 foot 7 on average with 6 foot not uncommen.
Francis 1 and Henry VIII were both 6 foot 4.
Samurai were shorter than this on average and 6 foot was definetly not commen. look at WWII to see how even in recent times before the changes in the Japanese diet that western troops were markedly bigger and taller (If anyone knows where I can research this more please let me know, cheers).

Shield.
The knight had abandoned a shield the by the 15 century but if a shield was used it greatly advantages the shield fighter. Between research I am doing on gladiators, european use of the sheild and modern researchers on shields it is apparent they are truly formidable in defense and offense.
Facing a master with 2 swords in kendo is not easy and the first few times it's impossible.
It takes a while to work out where to strike and not get clocked in the process.

A samurai facing a shield fighter is in a similiar position and really up against it. He has to think very fast on his feet while having someone try to lop his head off.
The shield fighter is much more comfortable facing a new style because it will based on a single sword/spear, something he is well used to and each enemy he has faced will employ a few new tricks he's had to adapt to. The great defensive abilities (and fghting style) of the shield help to keep the advantage in his favour.

Skill.
Both the knight and the samurai can be assumed to be equivelant in skill, both armed and unarmed.
The purpose of both was to be a trained warrior.
It is mainly because of japan's isolationist policies that the martial arts of japan have survived the passage of time relitively unchanged since the sengoku period. The western arts have all but disappeared and we are aware of them mostly through manuels from the time.
The knight was superbly trained with weapons as was the samurai.
It was a knight's main purpose as was it a samurai's.
Both started their training at young ages and continued their education under various masters until adulthood.
I read that some European manuels remain of unarmed combat and some moves were all but identical to judo moves.
Unarmed combat was a vital skill for a knight and they were trained specically in it by masters.
Both Knowing this and with no real way to compare the 2 it seems that their skills would be comparable and no real way to find out which was superior.
Consider too that Japanese families had their schools and secrets were carefully guarded. Knowledge was not shared. The modern martial arts combine many styles and a modern day martial artists has easy access to many more skills and techniques than were available to the samurai when i special mtechnique greatly enhanced a samurais and clans ability to survive.

Fighting spirit, discipline, morale.
There are many stories on both sides that essentially show that knights and samurai had all these a plenty and that neither was superior to the other. Samurai ran away or fought to the end as much as knights did and seppuku (hari kari) wasn't as commen as made out in movies.

Period.
The knight and the samurai changed a lot over their time so each period is interesting in the different consideration. There are far too many myths about knights and samurai and exploring each as they changed helps to clear these up.

But this post is already too long.
If you read this far good on ya. I'd love to read any replies.
cheers
Antoni

this is copied from another forum

There is a interesting story about a Serb from Montenegro named Aleksandar Sajchic that is conected with this topic but this happened in 20th century.
When Russia declared war on Japan, Montenegro declared it too (funny i belive they signed a peace in early 90`s). Anyway one montenegrian squad went to Camchatka to fight with Russians against Japanese. But there was a custom that two soldiers from two armies must have a duel before battle starts.
One samurai steped out and no one from russian army steped out.Montenegrinians are famous for their heroism (serbian Sparta) and Aleksandar decided that he has to defend a honour of Russian Empire.
The duel were taken on horses and Aleksandar had no idea of samurai way of fighting and at start he got a nasty cut on his forhead.Then he lost his nerves and in next samurai`s atack "Lekso" cut of his head. Japanese army found themselves in a very emberasing position but that didn`t stoped them to win a battle.

Whoa. You put a lot of thought and time into this whole debate.. :sweat: