Seen this discussion elsewhere on the net. It never ends. Aiiee!

Most people who comment one way or another have a vision of the European knights and/or samurai that is not really accurate. (actually a samurai is a kind of knight too isn't he?)

The medieval knights (gaijin yo) had plenty of skill in their swordsmanship; analogous in fact to kenjutsu. Don't laugh, I'm studying right now from medieval manuscripts. I don't think the samurai sword was the magic item that most people make it out to be; certainly a marvel of metalworking, yes, but not enough. They both did what they could to slaughter as many peasants as possible.

The knight might just have a shield to fight with, and no samurai would have had experience getting around that. On the other hand the knight would have had experience with two-hand swords used in a similar style. In fact the knight would have had experience with a lot more variety of techniques than the samurai, including horse archers.

No more! Can't take any more! May the best man win! Although I'd give the edge to the knight.
_________________

Itazura ichiban wrote:

Seen this discussion elsewhere on the net. It never ends. Aiiee! Most people who comment one way or another have a vision of the European knights and/or samurai that is not really accurate. (actually a samurai is a kind of knight too isn't he?) The medieval knights (gaijin yo) had plenty of skill in their swordsmanship; analogous in fact to kenjutsu. Don't laugh, I'm studying right now from medieval manuscripts. I don't think the samurai sword was the magic item that most people make it out to be; certainly a marvel of metalworking, yes, but not enough. They both did what they could to slaughter as many peasants as possible. The knight might just have a shield to fight with, and no samurai would have had experience getting around that. On the other hand the knight would have had experience with two-hand swords used in a similar style. In fact the knight would have had experience with a lot more variety of techniques than the samurai, including horse archers. No more! Can't take any more! May the best man win! Although I'd give the edge to the knight.

Itazura ichiban, this is some great info' (as is the past info' of this thread by others) . . . maybe someone can give us a timeline; when the knights were at their "strongest"; how 'bout for the samurai? A timeline's important because, as we know, at the samurai's "twilight," Europeans and Americans were already attuned to gunpowder; no knights, then, in armor at least to compliment the last of the samurai.

In fiction, cripes, you gotta give the knight the upper hand -- King Arthur, Tolkien, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons legends allowed for magic.

Itazura ichiban wrote:

Aw, that would be chu-baka.

*not a starwars fan* but i stilll got it!!! U SIR ARE HILARIOUS!!! u could write for leno or jimy kimel... I"M SO ULTRASERIOUS!!!... (seriously it was a funny joke )

speaking of european knights... I hate Richard the Lionheart... damn traitor and thief

The Man wrote:

Itazura ichiban, this is some great info' (as is the past info' of this thread by others) . . . maybe someone can give us a timeline; when the knights were at their "strongest"; how 'bout for the samurai? A timeline's important because, as we know, at the samurai's "twilight," Europeans and Americans were already attuned to gunpowder; no knights, then, in armor at least to compliment the last of the samurai.

I know that for the medieval knights, the 15th century would be about the zenith. Plate armor was very sophisticated (there are stories of knights doing somersaults etc) but the gun hadn't really made its mark on the battlefield yet.
I think that both warriors would be interested in having roughly matched weapons, at least when it came to single combat. A knight would probably drop his shield and pick a two-handed sword, to make the fight more chivalrous... Probably the samurai would have the same concerns.
_________________

- Douglas

I think it ended before the 15th century. Don't forget places like Acingcourt, the english fortified, brought up their longbows and the french knights got butchered like lambs. Steel crossbows and english longbows, bad things, no armour from back then can withstand those, add some armoured knights on horseback (which are definitly not maneuverable compared to real cavalry) to that and you have a nice BBQ.

bmwracer wrote:

But the samurai could quickly get behind the knight and stab or cut him in the non-armored areas... Like I said, tough call...

ditto

ntlover000 wrote:

ditto

Baloney!

I fenced for 2 years. It is real, real, hard to "get behind somebody" holding a longsword.

I don't care how quick you are.
swords move much faster.

Sooooo . . . the samurai in the 15th century could compete, then?

. . . a 15th century or earlier samurai could hold his own 'gainst his knight counterpart in the same era, then, I should say? I mean, that should settle it, no? If one were less skilled than the other in their respective "peaks." Whoops, sorry for the double post.

Yup. Mostly down to the skill of the individuals involved...
_________________

personally I'd just pull an Indy Jones and shoot both...

It would be interesting to see a feudal european army clash with a feudal japanese army

well aint that funny i started out searchin for katanas and samurai armour and the search engine came onto this so i took a peak

first of all my heart goes to the samurai but the knights are not to be underestimated, some1 said b4 that the samurai had better training true but the knights as well had to go tru years and years of training,tho samurai had better "mind" training, they learned for their mind and body to be at one and that does count, i mean if your fighting some1 with swords and your not well focused, and not at peace, that aint gona help you, plus even if the knight strikes the samurai and hes at his death samurai will use last of his strength to deliver a deadly blow (when 2 samurais fight each other, 99% of time they both get killed) the knight on the other hand when injured will switch to defense mode,

oh and yeah about the shield, true japan dint have enough reasources to make metal shields but wat about the wooden ones, vikings used wooden shields (well 80%wood 20%metal for the skeleton of the shield) but the samurai did not believe in shield, they did not believe in hiding behind sumethin as shiled in the face of battle

i have no doubt that if a well trained knight and well trained samurai went against each other in nothin but their shorts, armed only with their swords that the samurai would win (nomatter if kinights sword is whole lot longer dint u hear the size does not matter but it's how u use it)-- thats wat i think anyway

"the way of a warrior does not lay on the battlefield, but within himself, within his own heart." the quote i live by


The VII samurai: Ninja<Shaolin Monk Warrior <Knight<Cowboy<Indian<Aztec Warrior and the Samurai
and i bet u thought they were all the samurai

SAMURAI

if the knight is on horse why aint the samurai shouldn't the knight then go against Ronin [some1 said they didnt wear armour not true, ronin did wear armour, they had a very good armour]


heres a thought Darth Vader vs Sephiroth [both powerfull yet both lose at the end] "the clash of the titans" wat if they go against each other, who do u think would win?



VII_Samurai Out

VII_Samurai wrote:

if the knight is on horse why aint the samurai shouldn't the knight then go against Ronin [some1 said they didnt wear armour not true, ronin did wear armour, they had a very good armour] heres a thought Darth Vader vs Sephiroth [both powerfull yet both lose at the end] "the clash of the titans" wat if they go against each other, who do u think would win? VII_Samurai Out

Hmmph. Light saber that can cut through metal vs. big sword. Verdict: aloha, blue eyes and long grey hair.

And, hasn't someone resolved the knight vs. samurai issue via "Age of Empires" scenario yet? Yuk yuks!

Knight Vs. Samuri

Sir Ringo Starr

Vs.

Musashi

I guess I gotta go with the Samuri here.

I'll go with samurai. Armor is lighter, and he can always run around and kick the knight down, then let the guy's weight suffocate him.

Quote:

I fenced for 2 years. It is real, real, hard to "get behind somebody" holding a longsword

When was the last time you fenced with 45 - 60 pounds of clunky metal on you? And using a heavy sword?

Guess it really comes down to the skill of each fighter. Don't forget that much of what we've seen of European knights is dramatized. Their skills and tactics were usually developed for strategic warfare, rather than duels.

The Man wrote:

Hmmph. Light saber that can cut through metal vs. big sword. Verdict: aloha, blue eyes and long grey hair. And, hasn't someone resolved the knight vs. samurai issue via "Age of Empires" scenario yet? Yuk yuks!

Traded in my AoE II but as i remember the samurai were fast and had good hp attack slash dont remember how they did in a duel vs knight



oh and yeah Darth Vader vs Sephiroth --- tru light saber can cut tru metal but Sephirots sword was no ordinary sword and he had amazing powers, but then again Darth Vader brought balance to the force therefore being strongest of the jedi (stronger then master yoda too yes indeed)

"Quick to judge are u the ways of the force?" - yoda





:p wish they would make fighting game with 2 of them

Kijinnmaru wrote:

I'll go with samurai. Armor is lighter, and he can always run around and kick the knight down, then let the guy's weight suffocate him.

samurai armour is not much lighter then knights if he only wears traditional keikogi and hakama yeah sure but thats no armour -- before samurai puts his armour on he 1st puts on 3-4 layers of other clothing than comes the armour can u only imagine how hot they would get phew but stil i say samurai would come out as victor [the ronin wore much better armour than samurai]

Kijinnmaru wrote:

When was the last time you fenced with 45 - 60 pounds of clunky metal on you? And using a heavy sword?

In college, with the SCA.

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