Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Samurai against knight

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by blackhole
    Mongols invaded in about 1250 Russia , E.Europe but then Khan died and retreated back to the far east.
    I agree Mongols defeated Polish, Silesian,Moravian armees but mainly in my view by the sheer numbers of their soldiers and in fact they had good tactic "Mongol Blitz" I would call.
    But that happened in early 12-century,later on European metallurgy surpassed and weaponry was simply the best in the world.Knights were just unbeaten in the field,they conquered whole of Iberian peninsula from lightly armoured and fast Arabs.
    Look at the Teutonic order in early 15-century with their couple of thousand heavy cavalry.They blackmailed and defeated many times powerfull Kings of Poland and Lithauenia.
    Teutonic order was mainly German and as I mentioned before German armour was the best and also discipline and tactics.Knights rule!
    A band of blundering Mongols got their asses kicked by Hungarian knights, absolutely destroyed.

    -Tink

    Comment


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

      -Tink
      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.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by M21Sniper
        And you are a vastly well trained master of the European arts yourself?

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

        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        I was operating on assumptions that have apparently been shown to be quite flawed. It happens to everyone at times. I surely can't be expected to know everything, now can i?
        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.

        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        snip

        To me, i had always differentiated a bastard and a longsword as two separate weapons. It now appears that in fact they are often referred to as the same thing. You may note, i never said a negative word about the longsword in this thread, anywhere. I like longswords just fine.

        What are the weights of Euro broad swords? I always have avoided the term WRT Euro weaponry so as not to confuse it with the Chinese Broad sword, which is a vastly different weapon.
        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.

        Originally posted by M21Sniper
        And from your link:

        "No major historical teachings detailing fencing with these specific weapons are known. "

        So it seems to me that it's not possible for any of us to form any solid hypothesis wrt a winner, as none of us know precisely how a knight would've employed said weapon. Of course, i allow that a large amount of conjecture and opinion must be interjected into the debate. ;)
        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.

        Comment


        • "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?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by M21Sniper
            Bows are irrelevant, and act in a completely different manner to penetrate armor. And the Armor the Italian mercenary cavalry were wearing was the very best in the world.

            With a sword, if the tip penetrates(as the arrows did mind you), you have the full weight of your body and all your muscle strength continuing to push it home.
            Once the KE from an arrow is expended, it's gone. A melee thrust does not suffer from that limitation.
            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. ;-)
            Last edited by yatri; 15 Apr 05,, 05:44.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by M21Sniper
              "The English longbow is estimated from surviving examples to have had 50 - 60lbs draw weight and was unable to penetrate the french knights armour at Agincourt. Partly of course this was due to the poor quality of of the iron in the English arrowheads but you'd still have to have an extremely powerful thrust to penetrate quality armour from this time."

              Bows are irrelevant, and act in a completely different manner to penetrate armor. And the Armor the Italian mercenary cavalry were wearing was the very best in the world.

              With a sword, if the tip penetrates(as the arrows did mind you), you have the full weight of your body and all your muscle strength continuing to push it home.
              Once the KE from an arrow is expended, it's gone. A melee thrust does not suffer from that limitation. And remember, with a double handed bursting thrust attack every ounce of your body mass is in forward motion, delivering a massive KE impact when compared to an arrow. Do the math on a 170lb warrior bursting in at 15fps(a lion attacks at 18fps, so 15 fps seems reasonable to me for a highly trained Samurai, or whoever).

              That's 557 foot-pounds of energy bro(more than a .357 magnum at the muzzle), all focused on the very fine point of the tanto tipped Choku-To.
              I always thought that the draw strength was 110+ pounds.

              -Tink

              Comment


              • "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.

                Comment


                • 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.
                  Last edited by FlyingCaddy; 15 Apr 05,, 19:09.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 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.
                    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.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • 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.
                      Self-control is the chief element in self-respect, and self-respect is the chief element in courage.

                      Comment


                      • 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

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Praxus
                          I'd take a single Spartan of the 5th Century over a Knight anyday.
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • 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.
                            Last edited by Praxus; 18 Apr 05,, 03:42.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                              "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?
                              *shrugs* Whatever weapon both parties agreed apon, I would imagine or even whatever weapon was to hand at the given point in time.

                              Comment


                              • 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 šEnderš Wiggin

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X