Samurai against knight

**ace16807** · 28 Jul 11,, 15:48

Originally Posted by RollingWave

The general problem with this assesment is that

A. Knights (and Samurai) both cover a long period, not all of wihch they wore super heavy armour. the Knight's maile era was probably longer than it's plate era, and maile was certinly not indestructable by non-blunt / gun-powder weapons.

B. During the real peak of the Samurai (which really came after the era of the Knights) one of the most common battlefield weapon was...

This certainly would be enough to deal with any armour.... and contrary to popular visions, Samurais DID use guns themself as well, just not the really high ranking onces due to safety reasons.

In the end, the biggest problem of the comparison is that the two sides evolved through different circumstances and their peaks were not the same period, the Samurai's peak era army composition method was essentially the type that replaced the Knight era's peak armies.

I dunno if you could say samurai themselves used firearms. AFAIK it was the soldiers of the samurai used them, much in the same way that knights themselves usually didn't use bows.

**RollingWave** · 29 Jul 11,, 08:50

Originally Posted by ace16807

I dunno if you could say samurai themselves used firearms. AFAIK it was the soldiers of the samurai used them, much in the same way that knights themselves usually didn't use bows.

This is more or less part of the Samurai myth, the truth was that high ranking Samurais generally didn't use Arquebus due to safty reasons (since bows would at least not blow up in your face), but lower ranking onces used them aplenty.

The Japanese use of Arquebus was not the same as the Europeans and the general perception didn't always fit. Oda Nobunaga was famous for using "multi-stage shooting" for the longest time people assumed that this was the rank fire method used in the west, and then thus assume the same application of firearm in the west fited into the Japanese mode.

Except that assumption is wrong.

What the Japanese did was something altoghether different, they seperated shooters from reloaders. aka a team of (usually 2 ) men make up a shooting uint, the shooter would be in charge of aiming the shots and fire the gun, while the reloader carry at least one (and often 2) spare gun to reload while the shoot shoots. The Arquebus was also not the same thing as the later musket, it was usually smaller and lighter (espiecally the Japanese Teppo) and thus with enough quality craftsmenship you can achieve a decent degree of accuracy with the gun in the hands of skilled shooters, this is testified by the fact that there were numerous recorded examples in Japan at that time of attempts to assasinate prominent figures (such as Nobunaga, and Hideyoshi etc..) using Arquebus, a strong evidence in that Japanese did not use the Teppo as a pure point and fire weapon.

Thus the shooter was considered a true skill position , and were very often drawn from lower samurais, who would have the training to aim guns properly (the general feel of hitting a moving target etc.), while the peasant Ashigarus more often served as the reloaders, where skills can be acquired with repeated training in a realtively short period.

for example, Akechi Mitsuhide, The man that betrayed and killed Oda Nobunaga, was a well known marksmen with Teppo, while serving as a minor retainer in his earlier days he was recorded as to have shot down a flying bird from around 50 meters away.

**cr9527** · 29 Jul 11,, 09:05

In tests, the arquebus had difficulty penetrating plate armor, often making a large dent, however fails to penetrate.
Further, arquebus' reload speed isn't enough to repel the mobile Knight.

It is a common misconception that Knights died off because of firearms.

Simply put, there is nothing the Japanese have that can counter a European style heavy cavalry charge, or heavily armored dismounted Knights.

**Tarek Morgen** · 29 Jul 11,, 09:13

Simply put, there is nothing the Japanese have that can counter a European style heavy cavalry charge...

Well, except for their terrain. About 3/4 of Japan consist of mountains and hills (not that I am disagreeing on the general notion)

**cr9527** · 29 Jul 11,, 09:42

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

Well, except for their terrain. About 3/4 of Japan consist of mountains and hills (not that I am disagreeing on the general notion)

Who is to say the Knight is in Japan?

Trust me, broadening the comparison doesn't bid well for the Samurai, as he and the soldiers(in general) he lead lack one of the most effective battle tools in history.

Of all of the battle tested empires, this tool is as crucial as the sword their soldiers carry. (Until guns of course)

Japan is probably the only example I can think of that lacks the... Shield as a standard equipment for their armies. I've never seen a japanese documentation about their medieval warfare where shields were extensively used beyond sieges.

**Tarek Morgen** · 29 Jul 11,, 10:22

Who is to say the Knight is in Japan?

Well Europeans did land in Japan (though after the days of the Knights), the Japanese never made it to Europe (or any other place where they might encounter European knights).

**cr9527** · 29 Jul 11,, 10:35

Originally Posted by Tarek Morgen

Well Europeans did land in Japan (though after the days of the Knights), the Japanese never made it to Europe (or any other place where they might encounter European knights).

At the time of the Knights (10th- early 16th century), I highly doubt Europe was in any capability to wage an expeditionary war against a foe such as Japan.

By the time Europeans can reach Japan and wage war(late 16th century - 18th century), well, their ships are more powerful than any knight can bring to bear.

**zraver** · 01 Aug 11,, 07:21

Originally Posted by cr9527

At the time of the Knights (10th- early 16th century), I highly doubt Europe was in any capability to wage an expeditionary war against a foe such as Japan.

By the time Europeans can reach Japan and wage war(late 16th century - 18th century), well, their ships are more powerful than any knight can bring to bear.

Heavy cavalry lasted well past the arrival of the black ships, in fact the last combat use of armored horsemen occured in 1871 and the last use of lancers occured in 1942. During the early period of the black ships the typical European Army was at its highest level of heavy cavalry to other arms.