Tinkertoys

A band of blundering Mongols got their asses kicked by Hungarian knights, absolutely destroyed.

-Tink

Officer of Engineers

You want to give us some details because the Hungarians sufferred massive defeats at the hands of the Mongols who only withdrew after the death of Ogadi.

__________________
Chimo

Stuart Mackey

Hell no But I do beleive that time spent in reconnisance is seldom wasted

Of cource not, but you did show some elementry errors that basic google-fu would have cleared up, but then my own predjudices have tripped me on more than one instance.

Lol..from what century? 10th to 15th centuries the average weight was apparently 1.3kg and dropping to .9kg in the 16th. These weapons were fast, well balanced, and completly leathal in the hands of a fit and skilled swordsman.

That quote refers to fencing, as in duels and not to combat, but there is enough surviving evidence from manuals that indicate broad methods of a two handed weapons employment. But I would argue that such a weapon was more of an infantry weapon and used within a 15/16th century pike square rather than what would have been used by knightly combatants.

Anon

"But I would argue that such a weapon was more of an infantry weapon and used within a 15/16th century pike square rather than what would have been used by knightly combatants."

Agreed. Wouldn't a duel have been executed with a rapier as earlier suggested?

yatri

bows may be irrelevant to the knights, but samurai were well trained in archery. the samurai would have the bow at his disposal. i mean hey, if we've brought horses in this, why not the whole sha-bang?

the blade of an arrow has the acceleration of gravity on it's side as well, and the sword can as well, but it's tough to work pragmatically and get the angles right and still have gravity working with the blade... force (from physics) equals mass times acceleration. i doubt a knight can give the same acceleration with that much mass on him. even then, you have the acceleration of the horse that the samurai would be on.


and actually, what i've noticed is that samurai, though diverse amongst clans, aren't as diverse as knights are. i think the original question favors the knight because it's very broad in terms of what kind of knight. samurai have definitely evolved over time, yes, but they've mainly perfected what they worked on; they haven't branched out with their war skills like the knights of europe have.

based on what's been said, i'd say a knight would win, just because he's got everything at his disposal. although, i'm a hardcore samurai supporter. the sword is the soul. ;-)

Tinkertoys

I always thought that the draw strength was 110+ pounds.

-Tink

Anon

"bows may be irrelevant to the knights, but samurai were well trained in archery. the samurai would have the bow at his disposal. i mean hey, if we've brought horses in this, why not the whole sha-bang?"

I'm not trying to dismiss the Samurais effectiveness with a bow(which you seem to be much better aware of than i was), i was just trying to keep the discussion on the original point, which was, i believe, a melee duel.

FlyingCaddy

Well its totally regardless, 15th Century european armor could only be pierced by Arquebus Sabots, not even thier led balls had the mussle velocity to punch the armor. Further Croassbows, Longbows, with far less velocity bounced off the plate. As early as Poiters, in the 14th century the Longbow proved ineffective against piercing plate armor.

Parihaka

The only reason I bring up bows was because Agincourt is the only decent account I've read about how to kill a knight. The bows were as you say unable to penetrate the armour, they were only good for dismounting the knight, they then knocked them over, (or they fell over & couldn't get up), and used pig stickers to finish them off.

__________________
In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Maximus

A lot depends on the armor that is worn by the knights. Plate mail armor is much much harder to penetrate than Chain Mail armor.

British Longbows were a very well trained force. During the hundred years' war, english longbows decimated the charge of french knights several times, even before they could get close. It is said that the sky darkened with such number of arrows flying through the air.

At Agincourt, the only reason why British won, despite being outnumbered, is because, the French Knights had to charge uphill, into a terrain that was muddy, and the way uphill was getting narrow by every foot, like a funnel. This helped the British Longbows in targetting every Knight individually.

As far as I think, the best way to get rid of a charging knight would have been using two or three men weilding a halberd, and swords.

Praxus

I'd take a single Spartan of the 5th Century over a Knight anyday. All he would have to do is force the knight to tire himself, and then when he is weak to the point where he can no longer block a stab of the pike, the spartan slams it into his face

yatri

ahh, i see we have a fan of the older than old days here. although i was a fan of the spartans at thermopylae, i prefer persians overall.

Praxus

I'm no fan of the Spartans, they were Communists in the true sense of the word. They enslaved an entire people so they could train for war.

I'm a fan of the Thebens under Epaminondas and to some extent the Athenians (however they were a tyranical form of Democracy).

Absolute favorite is the Roman Republic up to the end of the second punic war.

Why Persians though? They had an absolute Monarch. Militarily they were inept and had to rely on massive military forces. They got their asses beat by rivaling city states, not once but twice, and got absolutely riped apart by Alexander.

Stuart Mackey

*shrugs* Whatever weapon both parties agreed apon, I would imagine or even whatever weapon was to hand at the given point in time.

Jonathan Locke

I think the samurai, even though the knight has an extremely well-protected body, that ultimately becomes his downfall. The knight is basically moving slower than the agile samurai, and even more slow if his weapon of choice is a pike. Sure, the samurai would have to get a very precise and well-aimed slash to even gash the knight's flesh, through the armor's thin (but opened) spots (such as between the helm and the neck-cover).
The knight would probably win the battle if it was in a closed space, since he wileds a long weapon (pike or greatsword), while the samurai would obviously win if it was in opened space.
Japanese samurai from the Meiji Era, afterr the revolution, were very hard-working, trained by veterans in swordfighting and in martial arts, also they were devout worshippers of the Bushido Code, which is very strict and disciplined. The knights also had to go through their own hardships of course, like first being stableboys, then helping real knights, and sometimes evenm go to the Crusades while still relatively young. Yet, i believe that Japanese samurai had to endure more, specially after the revolution, when almost no-one could carry, and i think that we can all agree that enduring any type of pain, and surviving makes you stronger.

__________________
Remember, the enemy gate is down- Andrew ¨Ender¨ Wiggin