IDonT

If this is the 16th century then Samurai will win!!! He shoots the Knight with his arquebus as he charges.




In both the knight and the Samurai, actual warfare never yeilds what was thought of its main weapon. For the knight, its main weapon is its lance and mace, for the the Samurai it was a lance and bow...the sword was not the main weapon.

sundeepmegas

Terrain really matters.

If it were in dense jungle, the ninjas stealth abilities will come into play. Knights mobility would be severely restricted in such terrain. Light armour, better and faster technique, hit-and-run style stuff rules in such terrain.

Knights, on the other hand, would have serious advantage on open ground, where they would be able to put their tactics to good use. As it is, i've never heard knights and horses fighting in a forest.

Triple C

BigK,

By the sixteenth century European warfare was dominated by disciplined pikemen and arquebasiers. The knight was already replaced by the cavalryman, usually a mercenary for hire who fought with firearms. The Japanese samurai or footman will have little technological advantage to claim over European armies..

__________________
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT.

Davicus_Grimm

My one question here is who made it Ninja and not Samurai O_o?..... Ninja were basicly the black op equivalent of a Samurai Warrior who was basicly the Japanese clone of the European Knight. Offcourse between the two Ninja would pown since a Ninja not only had large amounts of awsome tech to get in your castle in large numbers and kill you while you dont know anything that happened, but they also had what was strongly similiar to the Chinese Thunderbomb that was quite useful.

The Ninja though was a warrior ment for close quarters one on one combat you wouldn't see a million ninja on the battle nor like on the Last Samurai <_<..

While on the Other hand if it were Samurai verse a Knight I put my money on the Samurai a better armour, more lighter and flexible, aswell as with the Strongest form of blade known to man....

Not only with this the Samurai and Ninjas used forms of the Match-lock gun so bring on as many Knights as you want a Samurai with a Yari or a Match Lock Musket would pawn <_<..

bengalraider

my answer is based on blade and Armour design

the ninja- his blade is made to cut fast and provide a killing cut with a single blow, reason he has to kill his targets in a single attempt at assassination.
his blade is sharp and flexible to some extent but not strong or thick , reason his targets are more likely to be sleeping in their dojo's or castles when he attacks! the Japanese never developed strong single piece metal Armour, what the used was interlocking plates of leather with metal strips.the masamure and murasame swords were designed to slice through such armor without breaking or snagging hence they were sharpened to a point and made witha mixture of brittle and flexible steel.THE POINT BEING THAT JAPANESE SWORDS WERE NEVER MADE TO CUT THROUGH STEEL ARMOR!

the knight- his targets are more likely to be heavily armored knights hence he uses a heavy sword capable of breaking that armor, and he wears heavy armor to protect himself from such heavy swords,




in a battle between a single knight in full battle regalia and sword facing a ninja with all his tools the knight shall win as the ninja's weapons shall be unable to penetrate the knights armor.well unless the ninja keeps dodging the knights blows until the knight is too exhausted to move in his heavy armor at that point the ninja can easily kill the knight by thrusting the blade through the knights helmet view slot.

Davicus_Grimm

Your right to a degree, but you forget that if the ninja can get behind the Knight he can stab the blade through one of the bending plates between the Upper and Lower Back plates on the back. This would work offcourse if the enemy was bending down <_<....

bengalraider

so you would need an exhausted knight bending over catching his breath

zraver

Knights could be quite aerobatic and trained in the martial arts from childhood. They also used every piece of thier equipment as a weapon. Hell a Ninja going for a groin kick would break his foot on the cod piece. it would have to be a very lucky ninja.

bengalraider

i take it you mean acrobatic
i got two questions
1- could any knight really go acrobatic with all that heavy armor on his body?
2-how much use would martial arts be considering fast moves would be out of the question witha ll that armor on his arms.

as for the groin kick all i can say is ouch!

zraver

They could vault on to thier horse, and do somersaults. Its not all that heavy 60-80lbs with very good weight disbursement.

It's not asian style arts. It is a very physical power style that emphasizes the entire body and every inch of equipment as some sort of weapon. Encases in steel with a padded gambeson underneath the entire body is lethal blunt force object to anythign not so armored.

Triple C

The average weight of 'white harness' or full plate armor was arround 75 lbs. Less than what a modern light infantry would carry on his back, but evenly distributed through the wearer's body.

From people better informed in the subject than I, medieval European martial arts focused heavily on grappling, seeing as how striking is next to useless against an armored lobster and the important thing was to wrestle your opponent to ground, disable him, and drive a dagger through his eye.

That, or you tell your squire to remind you to bring that pollaxe to the picnic.

zraver

This is one reason the war hammer or pick axe became so popular in the late medievil early rennascience period. It took the force and focused it on the point of impact.

it's neat to track the development of armor and weapons. for example the saber/scimitar both developed from the same need to have a blade that would slip free of a body after impact using the natural momentum of a horse to do so. Or that cutlass, it looks similar but was designed to chop off limbs in ship board fights when armor was not an issue: it was a giant meat cleaver. or the alte gothic fluted plate that could bounce all but the closest ranged crossbow bolts. Or that great slayer of French nobility the bodkin point. basucally a 16 penny nail as the head of an arrow. While not usually leathal in an of it self, it could punch chainmail with ease and an arches fussilade could turn you into a pin cushion.

Triple C

One author claims that in judicial duels, a knight wears all of his armor, a barded horse, and carried a staggering number of weaponry: lance, sword, battle-axe, dagger, and a longsword strapped to the saddle.

Don't know how's that gonna work on a battlefield.

zraver

The ax was probably a hammer. The dagger was likewise probalby a stilleto.

Lance- shock weapon Hammer- dismounted vs knights Sword vs other mounted foes, vs unarmored target, noble weapon Stilleto- coup de grace vs armored targets to wounded to survive or not worth ransom.

Triple C

I believe that it was a bladed horseman's axe. The dagger might very well have been a stilleto, but I have to check on that.

It was surprising how hard it was to wound an armored man. The victor sat on the vanquished's chest for a good five minutes or so to crack his visor, before avenging his wife's honor with a dagger.

At that point, they have two dead horses in the field, and at least three solid blows on each combatant.