SA-X wrote:
Even a chain mail would be ample protection from a Katana, save the bruising.
you are 100% right als a Katana would not damage palte armor eith the Knights of Europe armor was made to defeat swords,also the Knights of Europe had their own systems of Martial arts that covered every aspect of comabt armed to unarmed armored to unarmoed Mounted to foot.
Most of the people here seem to ahve bought into the Hollywood and japanese movie verions of the Samuri,I highly recomend studying about the weapons and armor of the knights of Europe before saying they restrict your movement the armor of the Knights of europe allowed great feliability and move ment of ones limbs.
Anyone that would be interested in reconstructing the Combat systems of the Knights can contact me at the following address:
Joseph Perkins
186 Bo Loop
Pitkin,La 70656
check out this link it is a what if on what would happen if a Knight and Samurai did fight it is very well wrote out and researched down the the last dotted i on the types of armor and weapns both used.
we are talking about a trained samurai not some noob sam do you really think that a trained samurai is going to hit his sword wrong? if that it is even true do you know about the japanese folding there blades?
For any who are curious, there is a more in depth article at: http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
The article seems to advocate that both sides are equal.
However I believe the knight had an advantage.
This is because of several factors:
1. Both knights and samurai trained from a very young age (6-7 years old) in warfare, and both can be assumed to be equally skilled. It is a huge misconception that Knights and Europe in general had no such things as martial arts, in fact it is quite the opposite. Europe had Martial Arts on par with Japan, perhaps even better. Think about it, you don’t go through 3000 years of history merely bashing away at each other. You develop fighting systems to kill your opponent more efficiently (medieval examples being the German and Italian schools of swordsmanship). Considering Europe has a long history of warfare between themselves and many other cultures (Mongols, Arabs etc...), while Japan only fought on it’s own small island and occasionally with the Chinese and Japanese, it seems odd they would have Martial Arts superior to the Europeans. Also, physically Europe has the advantage. The average Samurai is 5’3” to 5’5”, while the average knight was a heavily muscled 6' to 6’5” guy.
2. Samurai armour is built out of silk with small iron plates interwoven into it, it is meant to allow maximum protection from sword slashes but isn’t that effective for thrusts. A Knight’s armour on the other hand weighs about the same amount as a Samurai’s armour (50 to 60 lbs.) and provides protection from practically EVERYTHING. In addition to this, it is well articulated for maximum freedom of movement and since the 50 to 60 lbs. are spread out over the body, making it easier to carry then the equipment of most modern armies. It can be guaranteed that whatever a Samurai could use against a Knight, full plate armour could probably deflect it, unless of course it’s a bullet. (a note to all those who beleive a katana can “cut through steel”: it can’t, it’s not physically possible for steel to cut through steel. European swords were made out of softer metal because they had to deal with full plate armour, a Katana on the other hand would probably snap from repeated impacts with full plate.)
3. Weaponry wise, knights most commonly used either a polaxe or a longsword when in dismounted combat. The typical knightly longsword is around 5' and weighs 3-5 lbs., is double edged and used in a two-handed fashion (Knights only used the arming sword and shield until the invention of full plate, which made a shield unnecessary). the average Katana is around 3' to 3’6” and weighs around 2-3 lbs, is single edged and also used in a two-handed fashion. I have personal experience in practicing with both weapons against my friends in our practice matches and it seems that between a man armed with a katana and a man armed with a longsword, with both being of equal skill, the longswordsman will win 9/10 times, usually due to the reach of a longsword. However, giving the Samurai a Nodachi however would probably even this up. Even so, the cutting ability of the Nodachi would not be useful against the Knight’s armour. However, the longsword’s double edges give a lot more flexibility to the knight; he can use false edge cuts and half-sword. Giving the Knight an advantage.
All in all, the Samurai and the Knight are almost evenly matched, but the Knight will win in the end, due to a combination of skill and armour.
To finish off this long post, I would like to say something to the person who owns the 25 lbs. Claymore: If your claymore weighs 25 lbs. then it is probably a cheap, unauthentic, “battle ready” (an oxymoron for this sword) version. So for not a single two handed sword has been found in Europe that weighs over 5 lbs. and is meant for combat. It is not physically possible to use a sword more then 6 lbs. in combat. You might be able to lift that sword, but I doubt you could use it for prolonged combat.
For more information go to www.MyArmoury.com or www.thearma.org
I noticed a pattern here. You all assume that a samurai is only going to use a katana? What if he were to use a spear of some kind? Samurai used a variety of weapons. A Samurai could even use a different type of sword like a Wakizashi. I myself train in Samurai arts and I know they train in unarmed combat, swordsmanship, and bojutsu (which could be used when fighting with a spear). Also, another thing that can affect the outcome is the skill. A well trained Samurai can incapacitate a low to moderately armored opponent in about 2-3 cuts. And if the Samurai is trained in Nidoken (I think) he is able to effectively fight with two swords instead of just one.
All in all, it comes down to which combatant has more skill and better luck.
It would be a tough fight, however, the knight would win. Why? The armor, weapons, tactics, and experience withfar more fighting styles then the samurai. The samurai at most had experience with the Koreans and a little Chinese. Films such as the “Last Samurai” are mainly hollywood fiction. Samurai would only have armor of any sort if they could afford it. You see, there were classes of people at this time. Starting at the top is the Emperor, Shogun, Daimyo, SAMURAI, farmers and workers, and finally, merchants. Samurai were known as being just as eager to fight fight as knights were. If you choose to disbeleive this, you choose to claim that the History Channel is wrong, countless history text books are false, and the Military Channel is spreading lies.
Samurai would win. Mainly because he was trained in skill, not brute force. He could see a 20 pound peice of metal comin his way in a fraction of a second. Its no contest.
Yes, but think. How good is an indivudal when his Military or group are all trained the same way. A Knight was always wearing chainmail, body plates, helmates, and holding a 10 to 20 pound sword.
A samurai was wearing light armor, and held a light but strong and very, VERY sharp blade.
»
Off-Topic
» Samurais vs Knights
