Samurai against knight

[Bill]

I consider it unorthodox if a: no examples have been found and b: if it was not even used by samurai, if anyone.

Choku-To's were used by Samurai before the curved blades evolved, and historical examples do exist.

[GSpot]

You do know that the Samuari sucked against the Mongols. There is a difference between good warriors and being good soldiers. The Samuari couldn't hold a formation if their lives depended on it ... and it did when they faced the Mongols.

To be fair, knights sucked against the mongols as well, in a number of different engagements. Just look at the battles of Legnica and Mohi. Furthermore, as gaining respect amongst one's pears is a chief concern for knights, they also had trouble holding a formation/obeying the orders of their commander rather than pursuing personal distinction.

[Officer of Engineers]

EXACTLY!!!!

The point here is that the Samuari was not the end-all, be-all of military warfare and to be frank, neither is the Ninja. You have to examine how both are employed. I don't care how good you are, you cannot stop the laws of physics. There is no way a 250 lb man (with armour) can stop the momentum of a 800lb horse,

[Low-tech]

EXACTLY!!!!

The point here is that the Samuari was not the end-all, be-all of military warfare and to be frank, neither is the Ninja. You have to examine how both are employed. I don't care how good you are, you cannot stop the laws of physics. There is no way a 250 lb man (with armour) can stop the momentum of a 800lb horse,

you are correct, however

1>mongels siezed a fort with small numbers just to access what the resistance would be like for a massive full on invasion. they tactically withdrew deeming that such an invasion is doable. it wasnt like the mongols really tested the japanese.

2>japan never experienced the famed horse-archer calvary, thier first engagements was<a siege, something the mongols were the best at anyway> a complete and utter suprise to the japanese, a completely alien,foriegn invader from which the japanese, inept, BUT were also cautious.

3>when the full scale invasion was mobilized the mongols sent small boats ahead to sight areas for troop landings, these were ambushed and when the samurai boarded these crafts they slaughtered the mongols.<there is alot of art dedicated to these ambushes>

4>the force mobilized had alot of koreans and chinese in thier ranks, the book i read never said if these troops were inferior or mongol-trained "horde style" as horsearchers. either way we all know what happened........they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

5>centuries later the japanese invaded korea and fought the koreans and chinese at the same time to a stalemate<much like our war minus the rusky fighter jets>. it was a disasterous campaign<for the japanese, of course> but the the rulership in china was bankrupt at the end of that war. even tho it was a big waste of time, money and lives, it was impressive what a completely outnumbered japan can do when they put thier mind to it.


if the samurai could get the mongols off thier horses, then they may POSSIBLY be defeated<the vietnamese jungle comes to mind when the mongels were stopped there>. also note that samurai train as horse archers themselves.

the japanese have that uncanny abilitie to assimilate,adapt,immitate etc. they were very much like the romans where, if defeated, they go right back to the drawing board and copy/modify/adapt to the people who kicked thier ass and let them taste either thier own medicine or a slightly modified version of it.

[Officer of Engineers]

The only problem with your scenario is that by the time the Japanese learned enough to deal with the Mongols and to invade the Korean penisula, the Western powers have long adopted the musket.

[Rifleman]

The winner is..........the one who gets there furstest with the mostest!

[IDonT]

The only problem with your scenario is that by the time the Japanese learned enough to deal with the Mongols and to invade the Korean penisula, the Western powers have long adopted the musket.

Ummm. in 1592 Japan was producing more matchlock muskets than the whole of Europe. They even made some improvement from the basic Portuguese design by installing a sheild that made it possible to fire the weapon when raining.

Musket tactics such as the rotating volley fire were in full use at this time.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood. Samurai's abhoring the use of fire arms as not honorable is a myth. The use of fire arms was abolished by the first Shogun.

[IDonT]

The only problem with your scenario is that by the time the Japanese learned enough to deal with the Mongols and to invade the Korean penisula, the Western powers have long adopted the musket.

Ummm. in 1592 Japan was producing more matchlock muskets than the whole of Europe. They even made some improvement from the basic Portuguese design by installing a sheild that made it possible to fire the weapon when raining.

Musket tactics such as the rotating volley fire were in full use at this time.

Don't be fooled by Hollywood. Samurai's abhoring the use of fire arms as not honorable is a myth. The use of fire arms was abolished by the first Shogun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tempo-p1000697.jpg

[jame$thegreat]

Just thought I would revive the thread that attracted me to WAB in the first place!!!! A good thread indeed anything anyone would like to add?

[neilmpenny]

A Katana will punch right through ancient plate armor.

It has a piercing tip unparralled for penetrating armor.

Bingo! could not have said it better myself.

[omon]

i'd put my money on samurai, all he needs to do is knock a knight off his hourse, knights can't get up fast, if at all by them selves, samurai is highly mobile, i don't know how well knights armor will stand against katana, but samurai will find an uncovered spot.

[deadkenny]

If you're assuming that the knight is mounted and the samurai is not, then I would put my money on the knight. Sure, IF somehow the samurai knocks him off his horse the knight is likely dead. But that's a little like saying, in a fight between someone with a gun vs. someone with a knife, all the knife wielding combatant has to do is knock the gun out of his opponent's hands...

[omon]

If you're assuming that the knight is mounted and the samurai is not, then I would put my money on the knight. Sure, IF somehow the samurai knocks him off his horse the knight is likely dead. But that's a little like saying, in a fight between someone with a gun vs. someone with a knife, all the knife wielding combatant has to do is knock the gun out of his opponent's hands...

good point, but i'd still bet on samurai, mounted or not, he can move fast, knight not so fast.

[Guest]

the Samurai will behead the Knight with one swift stroke ...

END OF STORY

[dave lukins]

good point, but i'd still bet on samurai, mounted or not, he can move fast, knight not so fast.

Omon, Chivalry would be his downfall as the Knight would not fell a horse ,whereas the Samurai would have no such sentiments. Once are both on foot the Knight in his armour and wealding a heavy sword ,would certainly not be a match in speed or skill of the Samurai....Goodnight GoodKnight:)