Samurai vs. Knight

vibius wrote:
In college, with the SCA.

Based on my experience, I think the knight would easily win.

And you did this for fun? :google: I have no idea what the SCA is, but I'll concede to the point about getting behind the knight. But how many skilled samurai have you fought to support your argument?

Let's not take this thread too serious. :D

Kijinnmaru wrote:And you did this for fun? :google: I have no idea what the SCA is, but I'll concede to the point about getting behind the knight.

SCA = Society for Creative Anachronism. For me the experience dispelled the myth that knights had low mobility.

But how many skilled samurai have you fought to support your argument?

I think one of the very long earlier posts by mooncaller sums up my feelings well. In particular the story about Mr. Clements beating all challengers
in an open tournament.

vibius wrote:
In college, with the SCA.

Based on my experience, I think the knight would easily win.

i agree.. even though i love the samurai.. alot of ppl have this idea that european knights moved like walking robots from theanimatrix.. that isn't true... .. go to ur local Renaissance Fair and look at the jousting knights..

vibius wrote:

I think one of the very long earlier posts by mooncaller sums up my feelings well. In particular the story about Mr. Clements beating all challengers
in an open tournament.

"The "Way" cannot be learned through frivolous contests in which the outcome is for the name of a school or a large trophy. It can only be realized where physical death is a reality." --Musashi

There's a world of difference between a competition mindset and a kill-or-be-killed one. Anyone who's had to train to kill another human being could tell you that. The only way to solve this is pitting a knight and a samurai of equal skill in a battle to the death, and that's not going to happen. Like I said, let's not take this thread too serious.

Kijinnmaru wrote:There's a world of difference between a competition mindset and a kill-or-be-killed one.

The only way to solve this is pitting a knight and a samurai of equal skill in a battle to the death, and that's not going to happen.

You make it sound like the only way to gain knowledge is through direct experience. I disagree that's the only way. There is obviously a value in theorizing about "what if" situations. Lots of people have jobs that depend on that ability. And in cases like this thread, it's fun :)

Like I said, let's not take this thread too serious.

I don't. But I do think that there have been some misconceptions (such as the low mobility of knights) which ought to be debunked.

Kijinnmaru wrote:
"The "Way" cannot be learned through frivolous contests in which the outcome is for the name of a school or a large trophy. It can only be realized where physical death is a reality." --Musashi

There's a world of difference between a competition mindset and a kill-or-be-killed one. Anyone who's had to train to kill another human being could tell you that. The only way to solve this is pitting a knight and a samurai of equal skill in a battle to the death, and that's not going to happen. Like I said, let's not take this thread too serious.

idk how on topic this is but....at my university, i hear that there is a fairly prominent professor of japanese history who teaches that the "way of the warrior" or "bushido" is one big uso.....never took his class but im interested in what he has to say about that....

forgot...i vote for the samurai :applaud:

There's a world of difference between a competition mindset and a kill-or-be-killed one

i do agree there for the knight only tho, the samurai on other hand will think of it same either if it was competition or kill or be killed, samurais mind like i said b4 is more "trained" , whereever he has to use his skill he'll use it the way he was thought and in a most deadly way, game or no game. (they can not stand shame of defeat in both cases)
but i dont think the knight would think of both same. my opinion anyway

for the armour issue do some reasearch just for the hell of it, and u'll see that weight between 2 was not whole lot different, samurai was slightly more mobile than knight



The Ronin are Besttt!!! :hehe:

I voted for the Samurai. There Armor may have been about the same weight but the night has the advantage on armor quality. I think the biggest advantage is sword speed which the Samurai had a huge advantage over a traditional knight.

one slash by a Samurai's sword will slice through a knight's armor...

noV wrote:one slash by a Samurai's sword will slice through a knight's armor...

From all the experts I've read, that is just a myth. In fact, high quality plate armor would be virtually impervious to the relatively low-mass katana.

Did you read mooncaller's post? And the J. Clement's article?

Even ordinary (unarmored) Portuguese sailors are known to have consistently beaten samurai:
http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showpost.php?s=c746e231422e9afa9acb626bb4deb368&p=103077&postcount=15

noV wrote:

one slash by a Samurai's sword will slice through a knight's armor...

that must be some katana when it can slash tru metal armour [ i must get one of those], katanas were sharp yes but they werent light sabers, i mean if they could cut tru such armour wouldnt the europeans try to adapt such quality of a sword.
katana is more sharper than longsword but longsword is more durable.

dont get me wrong I'm for samurai [just because of thier skill], but katana cutting tru plate armour thats just a myth


VII_Samurai Out

How 'bout this then: who'd faire better: the samurai (of the time in history that is being discussed in this thread) in an invasion of the European continent (which would include knights and everyone else living there); or knights (of the time in history that is being discussed in this thread) in an invasion of Japan?

Also . . . c'moooon, folks, where are those Age of Empires samurai v. knight results?

Also, part II . . . as I understand it, the current Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players' Handbook includes the "samurai" class. Probably variations of "knight" as well. Anyboty know? 'Cause that'd might be good modern-day way of resolving thangs.

VII_Samurai wrote:I'm for samurai [just because of thier skill]

A Knight would have easily been as skilled in using his weapons as a Samurai, having trained from an early age (like 6).

vibius wrote:
Did you read mooncaller's post? And the J. Clement's article?

Competition vs. life-and-death. They're not even close.

Even ordinary (unarmored) Portuguese sailors are known to have consistently beaten samurai:
http://www.fencing101.com/vb/showpost.php?s=c746e231422e9afa9acb626bb4deb368&p=103077&postcount=15

Samurai, or men with swords? Sword battles, or shoot him then stab him? How many undocumented cases of samurai defeating Portuguese? How much embellishment, or even outright made-up stories? 'Cuz we all know that's never happened in history. :hehe: Only a dozen cases doesn't prove anything. Sidenote-mentions of beating a few Japanese, mixed in among fashion and architecture recordings is not a reliable source. If we went through Japanese archives, how many "recorded" cases of samurai cutting down foreigners would we find?

Kijinnmaru wrote:
Samurai, or men with swords? Sword battles, or shoot him then stab him? How many undocumented cases of samurai defeating Portuguese? How much embellishment, or even outright made-up stories? 'Cuz we all know that's never happened in history. :hehe: Only a dozen cases doesn't prove anything. Sidenote-mentions of beating a few Japanese, mixed in among fashion and architecture recordings is not a reliable source. If we went through Japanese archives, how many "recorded" cases of samurai cutting down foreigners would we find?

But, where can we find Japan's own accounts regarding this issue? Euro-side has their history. Why's Japan seemingly reluctant or short of "samurai" vs. "the other blade-wielders" history?

Related "blade stories" issues: remember Kubai Khan's attack on Hakata and the islands of Tsushima and Iki, somewheres in the 1200s (as a by-product, Mongol representatives ended up strolling through the New York City of samurai, Kamakura, like they owned the place)? Yeah, the Mongols eventually got defeated, but it wasn't thanks to katana; if it weren't for the "divine wind," I don't think you woulda' seen a 1300s (and beyond) version of samurai, you dig?

Kijinnmaru wrote:Competition vs. life-and-death. They're not even close.

Baloney. The entire foundation of military practice is based on training and competition. Because, you know, those who are well-trained and do well in competition tend to beat the other guys. Why does the US have those silly "top-gun" training missions for their fighter pilots? Hell, according to you, they are entirely useless for real combat. Better write your congressperson and tell them how much money they could save by getting rid of those useless competitions.

I contend that the results of martial competition are meaningful and is THE reason why they held.

You don't have to believe it. After all you have previously entirely dismissed any possibility for reasonable argument on this subject when you stated: "The only way to solve this is pitting a knight and a samurai of equal skill in a battle to the death, and that's not going to happen". If that's the only evidence you'll accept, then what more is there to say?

Only a dozen cases doesn't prove anything

It's a dozen more cases than any evidence you have come up with :)

Oh well, I did make an effort to find some evidence of "real life or death" combat. But instead of just merely denying the evidence I presented, feel free to find some counterevidence. At least that would make this a real argument.

vibius wrote:
Baloney. The entire foundation of military practice is based on training and competition. Because, you know, those who are well-trained and do well in competition tend to beat the other guys. Why does the US have those silly "top-gun" training missions for their fighter pilots? Hell, according to you, they are entirely useless for real combat. Better write your congressperson and tell them how much money they could save by getting rid of those useless competitions.

Training and competition based on lessons learned with blood, and conducted with the mindset towards killing the enemy. You need to step back from the Tom Cruise DVD. The competition is for skill development and bragging rights. They DON'T PROVE anything beyond that. All the muscle flexing goes out the window the moment you hear your bud screaming in pain in reality. I am well aware of the value of the training having conducted, administered, and used it since before some of the members here started noticing the opposite sex.

I contend that the results of martial competition are meaningful and is THE reason why they held.

They are. They are skill developers, and allow one to push their abilities. I, myself, have participated in competitions to push my abilities. But make no mistake about it. Competition is not kill-or-be-killed. For you, it's about dressing up in a costume and a bruised ego if you take second place. For me, the second place is a tri-folded flag passed to the family.

It's a dozen more cases than any evidence you have come up with

Oh well, I did make an effort to find some evidence of "real life or death" combat. But instead of just merely denying the evidence I presented, feel free to find some counterevidence. At least that would make this a real argument.

If you've ever done testing of any theory, technique, or equipment, you would know that using questionable evidence on an extremely limited scale is of no value. Twelve "samurai" killed would be low even for the amount that statistically should be killed. What is the validity of the "evidence"? What's in question here is your "better than nothing-no need to verify the evidence" approach to proving your point. Works for a Michael Moore film, but not in a real debate.

I, on the other hand, really don't care to look for proof, because I took this whole thread in the humor it was meant for. I have no real desire to prove that a samurai can defeat a knight, a rapier expert, or King Kong. However, I wanted to correct the common error that competition for sport is the determinant of skill in life-and-death. Too many have learned that the hard way.

TheMan wrote:Related "blade stories" issues: remember Kubai Khan's attack on Hakata and the islands of Tsushima and Iki, somewheres in the 1200s (as a by-product, Mongol representatives ended up strolling through the New York City of samurai, Kamakura, like they owned the place)? Yeah, the Mongols eventually got defeated, but it wasn't thanks to katana; if it weren't for the "divine wind," I don't think you woulda' seen a 1300s (and beyond) version of samurai, you dig?

I am well aware of that incident. In fact, the proliferation of sword skill began because of what was learned from there. The samurai, as we know them, did not exist before then. You have the right idea though. This argument should be proven in a video game, because that's how serious we should take it.

Vibius, lighten up. It's not worth mudslinging or getting riled trying to prove a theory of absolutley no use.

OK. I think I have the some answer here.

From one of the links at "Samurai Archives": http://home.earthlink.net/~steinrl/care.htm:

"Do not try to see if the sword will cut things - it will. The Japanese sword was designed to cut only one thing - FLESH! Cutting hard objects like weeds, scrubs, tree branches, etc will damage the sword, usually beyond repair."

And I'm sure the author will nod if you ask to add "metal" to that list.

So, the samurai sword, as layered and thick as it was and still is, was designed to cut flesh.

As far as we know, it's untested against European armor. We do see that the samurai sword wasn't meant to cut through metal armor, but flesh. What's the battlefield samurai armor made of? Bamboo? Some metal, but certainly not as much metal as a suit of plate armor (with chainmail -- a type of armor, when hit, basically to "confuses" sharp weapons -- behind that armor?)? Doesn't the samurai helmet expose the user's face?

The knights knew they'd face other knights protected by armor.

So, knights knew tactics on how to fight other armored knights.

If they were asked to fight an unarmored army, even if that unarmed army had the access to the same weapons as the knights, the knights, in question, would comment, "hooo-hooo. Cherry. So, they're not wearing armor? This should take 1/2 hour at the most, get the mead ready."

So . . . so, what?

Kijinnmaru wrote:You need to step back from the Tom Cruise DVD.

LOL! You dismiss me with such utter disdain there!

For you, it's about dressing up in a costume and a bruised ego if you take second place. For me, the second place is a tri-folded flag passed to the family.

And you continue to try to belittle my position.

The competition is for skill development and bragging rights. They DON'T PROVE anything beyond that.

Your opinion on this matter is quite clear. But, like I said, I disagree, and would like to see support for it.

My position is that someone who is better trained and more skilled is more likely to prevail in a real duel. I don't think this is just me, it's been expressed by others in this thread too. Furthermore, I contend that a competition duel is a reasonably good means of determining who has more skill.

If you've ever done testing of any theory, technique, or equipment, you would know that using questionable evidence on an extremely limited scale is of no value.

"If *I* have done any testing of (theory/technique/equipment)?" I've done loads, but this argument isn't about me, is it?

I still think the evidence I cited is interesting. Of course it isn't conclusive! I never said it was. At least it gives some hope that somewhere in some dusty archive, someday, someone may find some well-recorded accounts of east/west duels that may shed some light on this topic.

Vibius, lighten up. It's not worth mudslinging or getting riled trying to prove a theory of absolutley no use.

LOL! Please set a good example!

You put forth an argument that leaves no room for reasonable debate. You call into question the other guy's argument and evidence without providing but your own opinion, and then you condescendingly tell your opponent to lighten up!

I'm just here to discuss a topic I find interesting because I think it's fun. If you really feel like there isn't any use to this discussion, why are you here?