Samurai against knight

[Tarek Morgen]

After Longbow vs Knights, I would have a new one that I've been thinking about for a while, Cataphract vs (Western) Knights.

As far as I can think of there has never been a clash between western Knights and eastern/Byzantic cataphracts, largly of course since the latter disappeared sometime around 1000 AD...but neither have knights and samurais ever met and that hasn't stopped us for the last 30 pages *g*

[Blademaster]

Uh the Battle of Crécy was extremly similar to Agincourt in that aspect. The English had the supiorer position, the French knight had to dismount and charge through a long muddy battlefield, while their long range support, crossbow-men, could not hit the English line due the lower range of their weapon and the highter ground of the English.

Seems like the French didn't learn the mistakes from the one other and repeated all over, proceeding in likewise fashion??

[troung]

After Longbow vs Knights, I would have a new one that I've been thinking about for a while, Cataphract vs (Western) Knights.

Off the top of my head the Knights (mail wearing ones) did better on the whole in clashes involving shock combat.

[Mihais]

The catafract formations are combined arms,disciplined and trained to fight as a team.Each one had a multitude of weapons but they were renown for their skill with the mace(meaning they are capable of dealing with armored opponents).Like the Polish Hussars later on it wasn't their fighting style that became obsolete,it was the inability of the state to maintain them that marked their end.

[zraver]

After Longbow vs Knights, I would have a new one that I've been thinking about for a while, Cataphract vs (Western) Knights.

As far as I can think of there has never been a clash between western Knights and eastern/Byzantic cataphracts, largly of course since the latter disappeared sometime around 1000 AD...but neither have knights and samurais ever met and that hasn't stopped us for the last 30 pages *g*

I think we have persian cataphracts and Byzantine inspired Muslim copies fighting crusaders to good effect. European armor and techniques flowed east as Islamic information flowed west. The heavy lancers on both sides looked like each other in equipment and use.

[astralis]

It's revealing in that the Byzantines adopted a heavy cavalry component after seeing the western europeans in action (both for and against them) during the Crusades..

[zraver]

It's revealing in that the Byzantines adopted a heavy cavalry component after seeing the western europeans in action (both for and against them) during the Crusades..

Uhm no...

The Byzantines and earlier late period Eastern Romans adopted the Cataphract as a response to Persian Cataphracts. The first true shock cavalry we can prove existed was probably Alexander's companions and they are likely the base for the Persians. Earlier formations used an overhand single grip stabbing spear. Alexander's troops used a true lance held low with one of both both hands to use the force of the charge to impale.

"But no sooner had the first light of day appeared, than the glittering coats of mail, girt with bands of steel, and the gleaming cuirasses, seen from afar, showed that the king's forces were at hand." Ammianus Marcellinus, renowned Roman general and ancient historian, describing the sight of Persian cataphracts approaching Roman infantry in Asia Minor, circa 4th century

Ammianus Marcellinus, (353 AD) Roman Antiquities, Boox XXV pp. 477

[Tarek Morgen]

I would even go so far and say if there is any relationship between the Cataphracts and western Knights it is the other way around and the rise of Knights was influenced by the expierence of auxiliary Cataphracts stationed around western Europe before the fall of the (western) Empire, though this is a somewhat shacky theory as there is quite a time gap between the dissaperance from the Cataphracts from western Europe and the rise of the Knights.

[zraver]

I would even go so far and say if there is any relationship between the Cataphracts and western Knights it is the other way around and the rise of Knights was influenced by the expierence of auxiliary Cataphracts stationed around western Europe before the fall of the (western) Empire, though this is a somewhat shacky theory as there is quite a time gap between the dissaperance from the Cataphracts from western Europe and the rise of the Knights.

I think your timeline might be off, knight is a saxon word after all and the Stirrup reached Erupe in the 600's. Graves in Germany from the 700's have revealed stirrups (although rarely). Given the continued existence of the equestrian class well after the fall of the Western Roman empire at least in Italy an the already by then hereditary nature of household troops I think the Knight already existed and used the horse at least some of the time.

[Tarek Morgen]

Let me clarify knight in the context of my post not as a social status or role (in society and warfare) but method of the later, i.e. heavily amored cavalry. While of course amour like mail already existed armour technologly was not nearly as advantaged and spread as usually associated as what is now usually considered a knight.

[troung]

The Byzantines and earlier late period Eastern Romans adopted the Cataphract as a response to Persian Cataphracts. The first true shock cavalry we can prove existed was probably Alexander's companions and they are likely the base for the Persians. Earlier formations used an overhand single grip stabbing spear. Alexander's troops used a true lance held low with one of both both hands to use the force of the charge to impale.

I think he meant a Western European style heavy cavalry and moved away from the Cataphract style.

[astralis]

yes. cataphracts, compared to the western european knight, was decidedly "medium cavalry".

[Mihais]

There were Byzantine ''knights'',but they came to existance decades after Manzikert and the civil war that followed it.By then the classical Byz army and its units were gone.Not only Catafracts,but plenty others units dissapeared or maintained only ceremonial functions.The new heavy cavalry was organized under the pronoia system,which was the closest Byzantium came to a classical feudal system.Many were Latins themselves,which were assimilated in a generation.To a degree they maintained better discipline than their western counterparts.An example of that is the battle of Semlin where they withstood a charge of the Hungarian knights and overcame them(the tradition of Byz cavalry to use the mace carried the day).

Re armour,it depends on the timeframe.It's meaningless to compare armour technology of the 10&11th century with that of the 15-16.The Byz katafract in the early era is definetely the heavier armed than the contemporary Western knight .The later pronoiars are just as equally armed,due to western technology being passed.

[zraver]

yes. cataphracts, compared to the western european knight, was decidedly "medium cavalry".

In the period where both existed, I would not call them medium. In fact heavily armored shock cavalry can be traced back to at least Julian the Apostate.

[gunnut]

Let's throw this into the fire.

From a technical point of view...

I once asked my master (6th degree, Kendo) this very question and he asked me in return, who wins in a dog fight: A Zero or a Wildcat.



Most of us agreed that a Rapier will be a huge problem when in a duel but a longsword proved almost "easy".

I figured out what my master meant when I asked the question.

A Samurai is like a Zero fighter. Almost no defense, all offense and fast and nimble...very fast and nimble. There is a reason why the Japanese built a plane such as the Zero. It fit their Samurai mentality to a T.

A knight is like a wildcat. :)

Well...that might be a close comparison, but then you had problems with rapier because it's faster than you. You did not have problems with long swords because it was trying to match your quickness. It's like a Wildcat trying to out turn a Zero. It's using its weakness to match a Zero's strength. A Wildcat could win against a Zero if it were in ambush mode. Zeroes didn't dive well and lacked firepower. Wildcat was built like a tank and had better firepower than a Zero.

Thus, properly equiped, a knight in chain or plate, with a shield/buckler and a long sword, would be nearly impervious to a samurai's katana. He wouldn't and shouldn't try to match the quickness of a katana. He should use the shield to block and then just smash through the samurai's defense. The samurai could parry with his katana blade, which is not recommended. The samurai could dodge, but that gets old and tiring after a while. Or the samurai could stand there and take it like a man, which also is not recommended.

It would be interesting to see your sparring session with a guy using a long sword, a shield/buckler, and only vulnerable points at the wrist and/or other small targets. You do not score any points by touching any part of the torso. You are not allowed to parry his attack with your sword. He scores points with any touches on your body.

A shield and a set of chain/plate can make up a lot of quickness.

We can see an example in modern warfare. Our soldiers wear body armor. It's hot, heavy, uncomfortable, smelly, and restricts movement. Most terrorists on the battlefield do not have armor. They are fast and nimble. How many times do we hear or read about our soldiers getting hit in the torso, shake off the effect, and continue to fight?

I'm not saying a knight cannot lose to a samurai. I'm just saying chances are not good for the samurai.