Gokudo13

Of course the knight will perished.

History told us that the knights were ever conquered by the Golden horde of Genghis Khan. Mind us, what are the Mongols wearing?? The quality and craftmanship of the Mongol's armor was not as good as the knights, yet the knights get slaughtered like chicken...so the key points are the strategic, moral, skills...

Have to note that the Samurais ever resisted the Mogol invasion twice, under the lead of the Hojo clan. Although the timely storm played important roles of damaging the Mongols+Chinese+Korean allied ships that draw the allied to retreat, but has to admit that the Samurais did able to push the allied army off shore for several months, untill the "Kamikaze" storm came in help.

The Samurais are famous for their fighting spirits and high moral, apart from their swordsmanship, just like the Viking. This trait has been deeply imbued into the soul of the Japanese army that they fight endlessly for the honor of their lord, in medieval time, their Daimyo and in modern their Emperor. Just remember how the Kamikaze pilot crash their plane into their enemy aircraft carrier to inflict damages.

So who saids the knights are superior than the Samurais?

Officer of Engineers

Oh lord, another one of those East is The Warrior Way of Life shouters.

__________________
Chimo

glyn

__________________
Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

entropy

I'll deal with him, sir.

__________________
If memory serves...

entropy

Before we go any further, tell me what tactics and equipment were used by the "knights" against the Mongols?

And don't tell me to look it up. I know it. I am asking you to do it.

zraver

I'll say it for one, the samurai under specialize, are under armored, and not equipped to fight a fight in Gothic or Italian plate.

Swords- Japanese armor was mostly laguered wood and would part like paper under the knights broad sword which was reinforced to absorb the shock of a blow delivered from horseback. The knights sword was heavier and far more functional. Where as the Japanese swords were edged weapons the knights sword was a weapon all of it 100% not just the sharp or sticky parts. Add in the knights gauntlets and he could use it to block, to push, as a short staff, crush with the pommel.

lance vs arrow, the Japanese for obvious reasons never developed the bodkin style point. They designed weapons to defeat non metal armor, but blades add surface area and this bids in metal, they also spread out the impact force. Late period plate was nearly bullet proof for its 60 pounds and would shed Japanese arrows all day long. However the Japanese hit by a lance would be stuck like a bug on a pin.

Horsemanship, hard to say who is better, both were born to the saddle but the knight rode a much larger destrier who was trained to fight along side his rider.

Physical fitness, both were martial art masters trained from childhood who could be reasonably expected to achieve feats of dexterity and strength beyond the norm. I know for example knights were able to mount thier horse fully armored without assistance and could spring from thier back to thier feat in full gear. Knights started training at a very young age as a page, then as a squire and finally yielding service as a knight.

If you want to see a close aproxamation of a knight watch the pensic or antir-west wars

YouTube - Michael and Deitrich 9/11/07

Big K

in a fight like this i think dexterity and speed will be a superior advantage than strenght and armor...

__________________
When i say, there will be no effect but i am not willing to remain silent.
-Fuzuli

zraver

assuming to men were wearing equal gear then yes I agree with you. But with one wearing plate the lighter nimbler foe who tries to rely on a skill set not adapted to defeating steel armor is going to get cut down. The typical slashing attack of the Japanese warrior cannot defeat the knights protection. It would be like shooting a .22 rim fire at a tank. Your simply not going to pierce the hide to get at the chewy center. Meanwhile just one hit from the knight and its game over. Plus from a purely skill based perspective the knight was a better fighter able to use more of his gear for both offensive and defensive moves: he was not ritually stuck to forms and tradition.

entropy

Did the Japanese have anything like lucerne hammers?

Big K

i agree about slashing attack thing but we can assume that these warriors have a little intelligence and the armor of Knight have weak points havent it?

i can not believe that a Knight who wear heavy steel armor can react as fast as a Samurai can.

btw being "ritually stuck to forms and tradition" ,if you mention about Kendo or Aikido, can be very useful?

entropy

It all depends on what for knight. As for full plate, it has a few weak points but to pierce them, you need to go halfswording, something that is impossible with a curved blade.

Officer of Engineers

Speed isn't everything and a lot of times, it is simplicity that wins. If both encounter each for the 1st time, both will do at 1st what their training has taught them since both don't know each other's weak spots. In this case,the knight's technology is the superior edge.

entropy

The reason that late medieval warriors nearly stopped using swords (and halfsworded if they did) and mostly used armor-piercing weapons shows that the sword was totally ineffective against full plate.

Big K

but i still love swords...

it is beautiful, powerful, fragile somehow, elegant and noble...

being cut by a sword?...no thanks

Big K

what about martial arts?