Samurai vs. Knight

[lilis]

I have to say.. that Samurai wins, (in my view).


Samurai's abilities with "katanas(a.k.a. sword)" is greatly pictured on Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe movie, "Last Samurai", and as you see it, they can penetrate very narrow opens.


So I vote, Samurai win.

[vibius]

The Man wrote:

We do see that the samurai sword wasn't meant to cut through metal armor, but flesh.

That's one of the reasons why I think the Samurai would be at a disadvantage. Without being able to cut the armor with a slashing stroke, he would have to limit his repetoire to thrusting strokes. When your fighting technique is limited you are at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, the Knight's sword is designed to hit armor, it would be a little more flexible, and less brittle, and it's edge would be sharpened to a less acute angle to avoid chipping when striking hard objects.

I don't think it's come up yet, but I wonder what a Knight's mace would do to samurai armor. It would probably be very effective, since it didn't have as much of the ability to distribute a blow as plate.

[ahochaude]

Wow. Had no idea there was such a serious debate going on here....
_________________

[The Man]

ahochaude wrote:

Wow. Had no idea there was such a serious debate going on here....

Certainly. You know, at first, I was quite convinced that the samurai would make sashimi out of the knight, complete w/a nice, tasty metal-covered shell.

But, now . . . when I consult other sources (many of which I've not yet mentioned here) . . . you consider stuff like how the knight might be taller than the samurai, not being able to discover any empirical evidence as to whether the katana can cut through knights' armor, the myriad of weaponry to which the knight had access, that the knight has had battle experience against enemies from other lands, etc., etc. . . . I'm beginning to sway more toward the knight side.

Which is fine with me because aligning myself with that view's akin to the thing I yell, "GO ENGLISH LIT'! YEAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!"

O.K., sorry for the esotericism there.

[ahochaude]

I will just watch from the sidelines......
_________________

[The Man]

ahochaude wrote:

I will just watch from the sidelines......

I dunno, I'm pretty much done too. Unless some revelation-post comes onto the scene.

Or maybe I'll end up contributing more to this one Saturday night, hahahaha!

Hey, hardly anyboty when answer my "Who would win, Wookie vs. Klingon?" question awhilie back.

[ahochaude]

The Man wrote:

I dunno, I'm pretty much done too. Unless some revelation-post comes onto the scene. Or maybe I'll end up contributing more to this one Saturday night, hahahaha! Hey, hardly anyboty when answer my "Who would win, Wookie vs. Klingon?" question awhilie back.

Wookie. (IMO)
All about the hair..... Trust us Okinawans, we know when it comes to hair power.
_________________

[brad2]

Hi Man,

I started to read this thread from the beginning. Got to K.Johnson , I think, and decided to find where you were. Well here I am at the end of the thread. I was getting all steamed up for awhile. How can we possibly put apples against pears. We love the samurai, esp. if we watched our Musashi and my beautiful Kojiro. It didn't take M. long to split Ks head did it. So these battles would not last long since each would be trying to kill the other. I think it would be the same if samurai were pitted against knight.
It might seem that the knight would be clumsy in his cumbersome armour. However depending at what stage of history we put him, then the time came when armour was beautifully designed and made. Frankly I'd like to give it to the samurai just because I have that one samurai in my mind. However, in the days of King Arthur they were pretty brutal fighters and would definitely fight to kill with every skill they had. The knights of the Round Table were not the pretty Camelot guys at all. They were imbued with Roman discipline and probably a lot of Celtic wildness. They would not back down from a samurai. Therefore I give it a 60-40 in favour of the knight...I think....maybe...

I don't know if this thread is played out so if I am a day late and a katana short...forgive me Man.

Peggy

[The Man]

brad2 wrote:

]However, in the days of King Arthur they were pretty brutal fighters and would definitely fight to kill with every skill they had. The knights of the Round Table were not the pretty Camelot guys at all. They were imbued with Roman discipline and probably a lot of Celtic wildness. They would not back down from a samurai. Therefore I give it a 60-40 in favour of the knight...I think....maybe...

O.K., then, YAAAAYY!!! We agree. Also, I've read l'orignal Le Morte Darthur. Yes, the Winchester version. Twice. I am now on the more definitive, recently published offering from W.W. Norton.

Nice to see you here, Brad2x.

[JAH]

Hello! seriously, havent you people seen kenshin?

i mean, a knight is a wuss with armor and a dull blade.

a samurai is cool, has a long slim blade, no armor (to avoid attacks better).

i mean, the knight would just give up in there mere sight of the samurai.


if it was a viking vs samurai on the other hand... that's another story

[Geezer]

There was a line in "The Last Samuri" that said the original meaning of the word Samuri was "Servant".

To the Japanese speakers... is this true?

If so, I find it interesting because if you look in the Oxford English Dictionary, the original meaning of the word Knight was, a young servant.

Knights from the 4th century on were the young male servants the King took with him onto the battlefield.

Over the next 6 hundred years or so the title changed to include a well armed, well schooled servant of any age.

A Knight was a servant fit for a King, and fit for the Battlefield.

(Go a bit further back and you'll find that they got the term from Ancient Rome. Knights were mounted soldiers from poor or less than impressive families. If a boy showed ability, he could be sponsored by a rich guy. If he did well as a Knight, he could raise his social status, and maybe even enter politics. The goal being a seat in the Senate.)

Around the 12th century most of the great Military Orders were founded:

Knights of the Hospitalers
Knights Templars
Teutonic Knights
Knights of the Sword.

Orders like the Knights of Lazarus had been around since the 4th century, but in the 12th Century even they became Military Orders.

They were the top Rank of the military caste, and they were trained from early childhood in the Disciplins of the Martial Arts, Service, Religion, and Spirituality.

Knight. Samuri. Same guy. The parallels in their development is spooky.

And those who say things like the Knight wasn't incredibly mobile, or that his sword was dull, really are clueless.

Now, in terms of fencing. The Katana vs. the different fencing swords the Europeans used from the 16th to the 18 centruy.

Truth to tell, I was kind of shocked when I found out that the European style of fencing almost always wins.

But it's not because the Japanese fencers aren't talented, or well schooled.

It's because in fencing, the point always beats the edge.

That's why the Europeans (except for the Cavalry) gave up on their slashing weapons around the 16th century. They found out they couldn't beat the guys who killed with the point.

The Samuri probably would have moved on to the same sort of weapons if the Tokogawa hadn't ended warfare in Japan, freezing the Samuri's fighting techniques in time.

[Geezer]

Welcome to JDorama, JAH

I wish I could say it in Norwegian... but I've forgotten what little I knew.

And you're right. The Vikings were a scary bunch of pirates.

Confronted by either a Knight, a Samuri, or a Viking, one would find me high-tailing it for the hills.

[vibius]

Geezer wrote:

It's because in fencing, the point always beats the edge.

That's a good point! (ha ha ha)

I think the cut vs. thrust camps will always debate that, but I would trust in thrust. It's the reason why the deadly rapier became the duellist's weapon of choice in Europe.

[JAH]

seriously... japanese swords got the best reputation in the world. i wonder why. while europeans swung iron slabs the japanese sword was slim and built for perfection. anyhow, a knight vs a samurai is a stupid match. it's like " who would win if it was a gorilla vs a polar bear "

well, enough said, i still mean that a man wearing 20kg of armor is less mobile that a man without. don't you think?

[JAH]

oh, an by the way geezer, it's "velkommen hit " in norwegian, if u wanted to freshen up your norwegian

[vibius]

JAH wrote:

seriously... japanese swords got the best reputation in the world.

Our ideal Knight could conceivably have a Damascus steel sword, which were quite legendary.

Quote:

a man wearing 20kg of armor is less mobile that a man without. don't you think?

Samurai wore armor into battle too, y'know. Perhaps about 17kg of it

But I'm sure a Knight would be more than happy to go against an unarmored opponent

[JAH]

yeah yeah.. they wore armor. but they didnt weigh so much as the full plate armor of the knights. anyway. i think the polar bear would win.

[Geezer]

JAH

"velkommen hit ". Cool.

Amazing. My mom's from Grimstad Norway. I grew up listening to the language. And about all I can say now is; I want cheese -- thanks for the food -- Merry Christmas... and now Welcome.

Man, I need an upgrade on my memory.

[vibius]

JAH wrote:

i think the polar bear would win.

Pfft, Bears are wussies. I'd take one on in my "bear proof suit"!
http://www.nfb.ca/grizzly/troy.html

[vibius]

Geezer wrote:

My mom's from Grimstad Norway.

Somebody traced my family tree back to 16th century (I think) Norway.

Go vikings.