Samurai against knight - Page 6

roshan · 08-15-2004, 07:12 AM

These are authentic replicas of Japanese armor. Notice that they are made of metal, and unlike European armors, are incredibly bulky. Also notice that the armors dont seem to cover as much as european armor.

Both these suits weigh 60 pounds, around the same as gothic full plate.

roshan · 08-15-2004, 07:26 AM

More Japanese Armor:

Notice the typical features of Japanese armor: Metal, Huge, Heavy, Bulky, Inflexible, Impractical, Incomplete and Stupid Looking. Its a miracle that the Japanese could actually move around in these things. Whats an even greater miracle is the amount of people who believe nonsense about how Japanese armor was very light and flexible and that Samurais were incredibly fast!

roshan · 08-15-2004, 07:43 AM

Now after seeing the Samurai armor, look at the European Full Plate posted earlier:

Notice how each and every part of the body was fully protected.
Notice how the armor stuck to the body, thus allowing the maximum range of movement.
Notice how the armor was crafted to fit each and every joint of the human body - down to the fingers! Can you imagine the advanced metallurgical skills were needed for this?
Notice the practicality of European armor. There are no stupid things like horns, beads and other nonsense on the armor. Its just plain, simple, efficient and practical.

The quality and design of european armor is much, much superior to that of the japanese and is an a whole diff league. There is no comparison between japanese and european armor.

Anon · 08-15-2004, 21:19 PM

The japanese armor does not look bulky, but looks like you can move quite well. Look how big the openings for the arms and legs are. Allows for excellent flexibility.

I've seen the guys at the renaisance fair in Euro plate, they can barely even walk around, lol.

I always though that japanese armor(such as you posted), was wooden...not metal. Interesting. Thanx for the clarification.

However, i'm completely right about the weights of the swords. A Katana weighs a fraction of what a typical 2 handed Euro weapon does.

Another thing i'd also point out...is that i wouldn't even want any armor at all unless it's a straight up battlefield fight with archers, cavalry, the whole 9 yards.

I prefer speed and elusiveness over brute force. Just my style i guess.

PS....i still believe a Samurai would be the more dangerous opponent because of his superior skills and much faster in action weapon, but since none of us can find either to line up for a fight...we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Was watching a show on the battle of marathon the other day, the armor of the hoplites was 70lbs. Amazing that steel full plate armor would weigh so much less than partial bronze armor.

Anon · 08-15-2004, 21:22 PM

One other thing here, it'd be useful to know if we were discussing a large battle of Euro forces vs Japanese forces, with full compliments of archers, infantry, and cavalry.

I'd give the nod to the Euro archers, the Japanese Infantry, and the Euro Cavalry in such a case. Who won would have an awful lot to do with leadership and tactics.

Be neat to match a Greek Phalanx against a Japanese army, or a Roman legion against a Renaissance Euro army. Be neat to see how the tactics of the two forces interacted.

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Personally, i say the Samurai would whoop the knights asses.

Here's why- the Crusades.

The heavy mounted Knights of Europe ran into tremendous difficulties against the unarmored Moors and their lightning fast sabres.

Against trained Samurai, who were faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more skilled warriors than the Moors were.....ouch.

Nothing to do with scimitars (not sabres - a european cavalry sword) but heat exaustion in heavy armour and piss poor logistics.

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatock

There are also variables i.e. **** happens that would be more likely to play into the samurai's hands.

Huge battle, Samurai that lose thier swords would be able to pick up and use Knight swords. Whereas the KNights don't know the biggest rule about fighting with a Katana if they lose thier swords. Always block with the side of it, not with the edge of the blade. A Katana is too thin to parry a sword strike that way.

Indoor fighting. Majority of Knights have thier one general purpose sword, samurai could tip the odds in their favor be having a Katana and a Wakizashi at thier disposal. Wakizashi being much easier to wield inside a Japanese or European castle than the most weapons the knights would use.

But how about Samurai vs Roman Legionares? The Romans got very close to invading the Norseman's home turf. And not quite so close to Japan.

Good points. I'd like to know if we're talking mounted or foot. Mounted, a knight on a destrier (closest modern equiv. a shire or plough horse 7' at the shoulder) and in plate with pony in plate barding would smash our unfortunate nihonjin to shite. Destrier were only employed when stalion and trained to attack on their own account, being shod forword with sharpenned shoe. A Katana, a No Dachi, a Naginata or indeed any of the Japanese pole arms would not cut plate mail. Katana aren't meant for thrusting attack anyway. For the knight think of these possibilities: heavy lance, sword, broadsword, bastardsword, SHIELD, mace, flail, Irish flail, pick, morning star, halberd, axe, double headed axe, poleaxe. For starters. In the time period under discusion most chivalric fatalities in western battles were caused by internal rupture as opposed to bladed penetration of armour. For those that were, see above list. The plate on Knights was THICK. Samurai's only chance might be an asymetric bow. Besides at the time Western knights were well fed and, due to training, built like WWF wrestlers. Samurai, despite martial prowess were still short arsed. And only wearing **** armour.

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunatock

The Ottomans were not a barbaric empire (and don't drag islam into this either.) Right up until Constantinople was razed the Ottoman Empire was far more advanced than Europe was. It was after all the educated people left Constantinople and relocated to Europe that the dark ages ended.

Historical pecadillo: The Byzantine elite were the Vangarian Guard made up of asorted norse saxon and celt mercs. The Ottoman (read muslim) front line elite were christian slaves raised from birth. The spearhead unit, Jannisari.

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironduke

Rapiers didn't appear in use in Europe until just before 1500.

Which were a civilian dueling weapon anyway.

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I don't think there is a better thrusting sword around than a Katana- if used properly.

A real Katana will pierce a class IIIA Ballistic vest(rated to stop .44 magnum). I've seen it done to a vest strapped to an iron-man.

I do not believe that an encumbered European knight in full plate armor, and wielding a heavy European weapon, could ever hope to match the speed or agility of a samurai warrior.

I also believe that a true samurai would be able to strike with the precision neccesary to find the seams in the knights armor. And again, i believe a katana thrust from a samurai(which would probably develop triple the KE from a thrust by any of us) would penetrate most points on a European full plate suit, though probably not the reinforced breast plate itself.

Finally, i do not believe that a European knight would be able to land many blows against a lightly encumbered Japanese Samurai. I own several authentic European ancient weapons, they all have one thing in common. They are all heavy, and they are all slow to recover after a miss. The bastard sword is the epitome of those problems. What a stupid weapon.

The European Rapiers were tremendous weapons, strong yet light, but they were not used by medievil knights. They mainly used long swords, battle axes, and bastard swords.

Ballistic Vest. They stop bullets, NOT knives and swords. Can't land many blows? Only takes the knight one eh?

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"If by Moors you mean Moors battling Spanish crusaders, you'd be correct, at least in the usage of the word. Moors are used only in reference to the Arab/Berber people from Morocco, and formerly of Spain. Arabs elsewhere were referred to as Saracens."

Thanx for the clarification on the proper usage of the terms.

In any case, the crusade knights had many problems facing saber armed unarmored SARACENS, lol.

For comparison purposes to the time the Crusaders held Jeruselum, how long did the muslims hold it?

Until 1947 i believe...

1947? Sir, I respecfully refer you to my comments on the biggest and best Empire Ever. Muslim? British.

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roshan

You cannot compare vests strapped to iron men with vest on a real person. A real person would move back if hit thus decreasing force on the armor, with an iron man, the full force is concentrated on one point. There have been lots of such tests, Ive seen pictures of a katana cutting 2 inches into a european helmet. However this study, like your iron man study, was done with the helmet fixed on a table. Had the helmet been on a real person the katana might not have cut deep enough.

Who said samurais were fast and unencumbered? Samurai armor was 6 pounds heavier than European full plate(and designed to be worn by smaller people). It was huge and bulky unlike the sleek and body fitting armors of the europeans, and did not provide as much protection.

Bastard swords were made heavy in order to cut through full plate. An authentic medieval katana weighs just about the same as a bastard sword. Boh katanas and bastard swords were designed to be used either with 1 or 2 hands.

Bastard swords were used for killing lower ranks and for stunning chivalric foe for ransom. That they wern't "katana sharp" had no bearing against moderately armoured troups. Hack peasent, stun noble.

The Chap · 08-20-2004, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roshan

Now after seeing the Samurai armor, look at the European Full Plate posted earlier:

Notice how each and every part of the body was fully protected.
Notice how the armor stuck to the body, thus allowing the maximum range of movement.
Notice how the armor was crafted to fit each and every joint of the human body - down to the fingers! Can you imagine the advanced metallurgical skills were needed for this?
Notice the practicality of European armor. There are no stupid things like horns, beads and other nonsense on the armor. Its just plain, simple, efficient and practical.

The quality and design of european armor is much, much superior to that of the japanese and is an a whole diff league. There is no comparison between japanese and european armor.

Sorry, but whilst on yur side, have to say you're so wrong on the horns etc. European helms of the period can be just as elaborate and indeed bizare as Japanese.

Kelu · 08-21-2004, 09:52 AM

Try to remember, 75% a knight in armour was never killed, Only knocked down and unable to get back up :D , Without aid from his good friends or with a little luck, If any of you have actually had to wear a full suit of 14th century gothic plate mail, Its really quite heavy :p But at the same times its hard to be knocked down in the first place.

When you say a fight, you need to be more specific .

A fully trained and geared european knight would best a samurai each and every time, If not for the different in weapons and art of fighting,

There were rules of fighting that wouldnt apply to a samurai and vice verse
And who said some knight cant take his opponents weapon? thats crap

Bearing in mind many knights didnt use swords, they used more "heavy" and powerfull weapons ... Like a mace for example .. changes things alot!

Samurai did not believe in making attempts to . . "move" from your opponents strike .. only parry it ... Knights how ever .. fought to win .. And fought dirty ... Its a simple matter that a Kantana is very unlucky to get through the superior Spainish Iron which most Dark Age European armies gear was crafted from, The real Kantana is a tiny weapon compared to most swords, Only swifly shaped for a cutting purpose,

I would say the Knight would dominate any battlefield against their Eastern rivals, They very nearly conquered "and held" a good portion of the middle east, If not for climate problems and shortage of supplies .. Most European "much to popular belief" were NOT made up of peasents .. Maybe Militia, But even they had some weeks or months training with their weapons ..

xxxxx · 09-28-2004, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Katana is the proper name for 'samurai sword'.

The Katana is the long bladed sword, the Wakazushi is the shorter bladed sword.

Every samurai had to wear (and use) both of them.

View Poll Results: Samurai vs Medieval Knight
Samurai	20	62.50%
Medieval Knight	12	37.50%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

08-15-2004, 07:26 AM	#77 (permalink)
roshan Patron Join Date: 10-30-03 Posts: 240	More Japanese Armor: Notice the typical features of Japanese armor: Metal, Huge, Heavy, Bulky, Inflexible, Impractical, Incomplete and Stupid Looking. Its a miracle that the Japanese could actually move around in these things. Whats an even greater miracle is the amount of people who believe nonsense about how Japanese armor was very light and flexible and that Samurais were incredibly fast! Last edited by roshan : 08-15-2004 at 07:30 AM.

08-21-2004, 09:52 AM	#89 (permalink)
Kelu Regular Join Date: 07-31-04 Location: Moving - Germany Posts: 30	Try to remember, 75% a knight in armour was never killed, Only knocked down and unable to get back up :D , Without aid from his good friends or with a little luck, If any of you have actually had to wear a full suit of 14th century gothic plate mail, Its really quite heavy :p But at the same times its hard to be knocked down in the first place. When you say a fight, you need to be more specific . A fully trained and geared european knight would best a samurai each and every time, If not for the different in weapons and art of fighting, There were rules of fighting that wouldnt apply to a samurai and vice verse And who said some knight cant take his opponents weapon? thats crap Bearing in mind many knights didnt use swords, they used more "heavy" and powerfull weapons ... Like a mace for example .. changes things alot! Samurai did not believe in making attempts to . . "move" from your opponents strike .. only parry it ... Knights how ever .. fought to win .. And fought dirty ... Its a simple matter that a Kantana is very unlucky to get through the superior Spainish Iron which most Dark Age European armies gear was crafted from, The real Kantana is a tiny weapon compared to most swords, Only swifly shaped for a cutting purpose, I would say the Knight would dominate any battlefield against their Eastern rivals, They very nearly conquered "and held" a good portion of the middle east, If not for climate problems and shortage of supplies .. Most European "much to popular belief" were NOT made up of peasents .. Maybe Militia, But even they had some weeks or months training with their weapons .. __________________ http://hwy.poetic-genius.org/england/codes/5050c9.gif http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-...Good_Sauce.jpg

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ninjas & Knights	Ironside	The Early Modern & Imperial Ages	98	07-23-2008 08:14 AM
Last Samurai gun question	Beaugeste93	Small Arms and Personal Weapons	23	07-10-2005 19:16 PM

08-15-2004, 07:12 AM	#76 (permalink)
roshan Patron Join Date: 10-30-03 Posts: 240	These are authentic replicas of Japanese armor. Notice that they are made of metal, and unlike European armors, are incredibly bulky. Also notice that the armors dont seem to cover as much as european armor. Both these suits weigh 60 pounds, around the same as gothic full plate.

08-15-2004, 07:43 AM	#78 (permalink)
roshan Patron Join Date: 10-30-03 Posts: 240	Now after seeing the Samurai armor, look at the European Full Plate posted earlier: Notice how each and every part of the body was fully protected. Notice how the armor stuck to the body, thus allowing the maximum range of movement. Notice how the armor was crafted to fit each and every joint of the human body - down to the fingers! Can you imagine the advanced metallurgical skills were needed for this? Notice the practicality of European armor. There are no stupid things like horns, beads and other nonsense on the armor. Its just plain, simple, efficient and practical. The quality and design of european armor is much, much superior to that of the japanese and is an a whole diff league. There is no comparison between japanese and european armor.

08-15-2004, 21:19 PM	#79 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	The japanese armor does not look bulky, but looks like you can move quite well. Look how big the openings for the arms and legs are. Allows for excellent flexibility. I've seen the guys at the renaisance fair in Euro plate, they can barely even walk around, lol. I always though that japanese armor(such as you posted), was wooden...not metal. Interesting. Thanx for the clarification. However, i'm completely right about the weights of the swords. A Katana weighs a fraction of what a typical 2 handed Euro weapon does. Another thing i'd also point out...is that i wouldn't even want any armor at all unless it's a straight up battlefield fight with archers, cavalry, the whole 9 yards. I prefer speed and elusiveness over brute force. Just my style i guess. PS....i still believe a Samurai would be the more dangerous opponent because of his superior skills and much faster in action weapon, but since none of us can find either to line up for a fight...we'll just have to agree to disagree. Was watching a show on the battle of marathon the other day, the armor of the hoplites was 70lbs. Amazing that steel full plate armor would weigh so much less than partial bronze armor.

08-15-2004, 21:22 PM	#80 (permalink)
Anon New Member Join Date: 08-03-03 Posts: 0	One other thing here, it'd be useful to know if we were discussing a large battle of Euro forces vs Japanese forces, with full compliments of archers, infantry, and cavalry. I'd give the nod to the Euro archers, the Japanese Infantry, and the Euro Cavalry in such a case. Who won would have an awful lot to do with leadership and tactics. Be neat to match a Greek Phalanx against a Japanese army, or a Roman legion against a Renaissance Euro army. Be neat to see how the tactics of the two forces interacted.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)