Samurai against knight

[Pak Nationalist]

A reformed/changed view after some education:

Samurai were good fighters who received great training are were dedicated to what they used to do, killing.

But because they lacked proper weaponry to piece the armor, and to defend them from dangerous broadsword. Their chances of beating a knight down are very few.
A knight on the other hand can do some serious damage to samurai who lacks proper armor to defend himself.

So now i think it wont be a bad idea accepting that knight will win most of the fights between the both warriors.

[Shetan]

Hands down the samurai:

1. The katana is ligher, and also more flexible: During the forging a gendaito is folded more than a dozen times, which gives the steel more flexibility and also more strenght. It is also important to remember that the core of a katana is made of a quite soft metal, and then covered with a harder les flexible "outer shell". This is done to achive a more flexible blade, and bear in mind that the steel used to forge a katana(tamahagane) is lighter than what was originally used while forging kinghts swords. Originally dasmascus steel, and the steel used to forge the templars swords were of better quality than the japanses steel, yes, that is correct. However, the process of melting and treating the tamahagane, and then the folding process creates a blade of far better quality than that of a medieval knight.

2. The art of the smurai sword is diffucult to compare with that of a medieval knight. However I'd say the greatest difference is the speed and the technique. A katana is designed for a fast but efficient technique, and technique is by far more important than raw strength. A person with the proper technique and skill could easily penetrate a knight's armor, given that he wields a katana that is properly made(a gendaito of some sort). To wield the typical medieval sword you need strength rather than technique, and as someone else mentioned this is a slower form of fencing, which puts the knight at a disatvantage. The precision of a samurai warrior indicates that he would easily find the seams of the armor, while he is faster and more agile than the knight. Then he wouldn't even need to try and penetrate the armor in its strongest places(breast plate etc). Yes, the katana is designed for cutting, and it would be unwise to block a blow from a knight's sword straight on. Then again this won't be neccecary for someone properly trained. The slow "swoping" technique of the knight would give the samurai plenty of time to avoid his blows, get under his guard and attack the weak places of the knight's armor.

3. The main reason for the templars losing to Saladin was their cavalry. They had heavy, relatively slow horses, and both knights and horses wore heavy and uncomfortable armors. Saladin had one cavalry like this one, but he also had a lighter cavalry with light, fast arabian horses and no armor. This cavalry attacked the heavily armored knigts from behind or from the sides with arrows, and would dissapear before the slow qavalry had the time to form a counter attack. A heavy cavalry would be useless unless the enemy had little mobility, and you had the elemnt of surprise. The samurai (like saladins light cavalry), used light, fast horses with little armor, and they would never meet a heavy, french cavalry straight on in battle, but tire them out with quick small raids from behind or from the side.

4. Inside a building there is no doubt that a samurai would win, due to his technique, speed and agility. The wakizashi would replace his katana, and unlike the knight a samurai is also trained to fight in confined spaces.

[Officer of Engineers]

1. The katana is ligher, and also more flexible: During the forging a gendaito is folded more than a dozen times, which gives the steel more flexibility and also more strenght. It is also important to remember that the core of a katana is made of a quite soft metal, and then covered with a harder les flexible "outer shell". This is done to achive a more flexible blade, and bear in mind that the steel used to forge a katana(tamahagane) is lighter than what was originally used while forging kinghts swords. Originally dasmascus steel, and the steel used to forge the templars swords were of better quality than the japanses steel, yes, that is correct. However, the process of melting and treating the tamahagane, and then the folding process creates a blade of far better quality than that of a medieval knight.

Mongol, Chinese, and Korean armies had no problems breaking samurai swords on the battlefield.

2. The art of the smurai sword is diffucult to compare with that of a medieval knight. However I'd say the greatest difference is the speed and the technique. A katana is designed for a fast but efficient technique, and technique is by far more important than raw strength. A person with the proper technique and skill could easily penetrate a knight's armor, given that he wields a katana that is properly made(a gendaito of some sort). To wield the typical medieval sword you need strength rather than technique, and as someone else mentioned this is a slower form of fencing, which puts the knight at a disatvantage. The precision of a samurai warrior indicates that he would easily find the seams of the armor, while he is faster and more agile than the knight. Then he wouldn't even need to try and penetrate the armor in its strongest places(breast plate etc). Yes, the katana is designed for cutting, and it would be unwise to block a blow from a knight's sword straight on. Then again this won't be neccecary for someone properly trained. The slow "swoping" technique of the knight would give the samurai plenty of time to avoid his blows, get under his guard and attack the weak places of the knight's armor.

In combat against the Mongols, Ming, and Koreans, the samuari came off no better, no worst than any foe the Mongols, Ming, and Koreans faced and in the case of the Mongols, no worst, no better than the knights.

3. The main reason for the templars losing to Saladin was their cavalry. They had heavy, relatively slow horses, and both knights and horses wore heavy and uncomfortable armors. Saladin had one cavalry like this one, but he also had a lighter cavalry with light, fast arabian horses and no armor. This cavalry attacked the heavily armored knigts from behind or from the sides with arrows, and would dissapear before the slow qavalry had the time to form a counter attack. A heavy cavalry would be useless unless the enemy had little mobility, and you had the elemnt of surprise. The samurai (like saladins light cavalry), used light, fast horses with little armor, and they would never meet a heavy, french cavalry straight on in battle, but tire them out with quick small raids from behind or from the side.

Saladin was a nobody and he failed to dislodge the Templars.

4. Inside a building there is no doubt that a samurai would win, due to his technique, speed and agility. The wakizashi would replace his katana, and unlike the knight a samurai is also trained to fight in confined spaces.

A knight would have just burned the building.

[Pak Nationalist]

Hands down the samurai

That would be the dominating possibility only if the knight isn't wearing his armour. And thats not going to happen.

I thought exactly the way you do until I saw an experiment in which the katana was not able to cut through even a simple chain mail..and knight's advanced plate armour was even better then that chain armour.

So knight is gonna win most of the fair fights.

Saladin was a nobody

Care to elaborate

and he failed to dislodge the Templars.

I thought he killed them thirsty

And sir i think you should agree that an agile cavalry force is a good thing vs armored clumsy horsemen.
Or provide me some historical battle references in which the armor won cuz in all the(open filed) confrontations of these two that i know, heavy cavalry died tired.

A knight would have just burned the building

:roflmao:

[Shetan]

1. The mongols invaded Japan two times, the first time they lost, and were forced to retreat, much due to the superiority of the samurai and their long swords. The second time they would have won had it not been for the storm, however that was because of sheer numbers, not skill. Of course a samurai sword can be broken, but that is not what is important here. For the record samurais didn't have any problems breaking, mongol, chinese or korean swords either, so that is hardly a good argument. My point is that a katana is a better sword, based on what I wrote in my previous post.

2. The samurai did win in the end, so I can't say I would base my argument on that. Most of the time they were outnumbered as well, which only compliments their skills.

3. Saladin is the reason why the muslims have held Jerusalem since the templars tragic loss at "The horn of hattin" I think it is called. Take a look in your history books, which will clarify that he more or less forced the templars out of the holy land.

4. Well, if that is the case I am sure a samurai would have attacked him from behind, cutting the knight in half. Those heavy armors makes it awfully difficult to see properly.....

[Shetan]

[QUOTE=Pak Nationalist;775218]That would be the dominating possibility only if the knight isn't wearing his armour. And thats not going to happen.

I thought exactly the way you do until I saw an experiment in which the katana was not able to cut through even a simple chain mail..and knight's advanced plate armour was even better then that chain armour.

So knight is gonna win most of the fair fights.



Interesting test, were did you find it?

My personal experience as someone who does fencing both with a japanese katana and the typical knight longsword is that the katana is by far superior. As for the cutting capabilities of a katana this depends solely on the individual sword. If they in this test used forexaple a factory produced blade, or an old blade, it won't cut. A properly made shinken from say Yoshindo Yoshihara on the other hand wouldn't have any problems cutting through a chain mail or any other part of aknights armor.

That being said it would be interesting to see the test you talked about, do you have a link?? :)

[Officer of Engineers]

1. The mongols invaded Japan two times, the first time they lost, and were forced to retreat, much due to the superiority of the samurai and their long swords.

Read some history for crying out loud. Both times, the Mongols left because they were battered by the weather. The two battles they fought were both Mongol victories.

The second time they would have won had it not been for the storm, however that was because of sheer numbers, not skill. Of course a samurai sword can be broken, but that is not what is important here. For the record samurais didn't have any problems breaking, mongol, chinese or korean swords either, so that is hardly a good argument. My point is that a katana is a better sword, based on what I wrote in my previous post.

What you have wrote tells me that you have no real understanding of arms and armour. A Japanese sword took more than a month to produce and they break just as easily as swords that were made by the 1000s in a month. Which would you rather have?

2. The samurai did win in the end,

No, they did not.

so I can't say I would base my argument on that.

You have no arguements.

Most of the time they were outnumbered as well, which only compliments their skills.

Hogwash. Look up the Japanese invasion of Korea.

3. Saladin is the reason why the muslims have held Jerusalem since the templars tragic loss at "The horn of hattin" I think it is called. Take a look in your history books, which will clarify that he more or less forced the templars out of the holy land.

I suggest that you read some real history books. Saladin was no general. He was the unifier of various Islamic factions working together. His biggest advantage was that he managed to keep the alliance united. He is not viewed favourably by Islamic military historians. That title belongs to Baibars.

4. Well, if that is the case I am sure a samurai would have attacked him from behind, cutting the knight in half. Those heavy armors makes it awfully difficult to see properly.....

I wore a full kit in combat and my situational awareness was never diminished.

[Mihais]

I thought he killed them thirsty

To be fair,Hattin was mostly a general's failure.20 years earlier the Saracens had their butts kicked in a charge by a few knights.Richard Lionheart won at Arsuf also by a charge against the same opponents.

And sir i think you should agree that an agile cavalry force is a good thing vs armored clumsy horsemen.
Or provide me some historical battle references in which the armor won cuz in all the(open filed) confrontations of these two that i know, heavy cavalry died tired.

Alexander vs. Scythians,Germans vs. Hungarians at Lechfeldt,first Doryleaum(first crusade vs the Turks),Poles vs. Tartars a gazillion times.Hammer and anvil works even in open field,the big deal is to be able to improvise an anvil.

[troung]

The samurai (like saladins light cavalry), used light, fast horses with little armor, and they would never meet a heavy, french cavalry straight on in battle, but tire them out with quick small raids from behind or from the side.

Europeans were better mounted then the Japanese and the Samurai did not fight like the Seljuks/Mongols nor did they have enough horses per man to try to use the same tactics.

As an aside I would pick a Mamluk during the Kipchack period over a Samurai.

[Shetan]

"Officer of enginers": Wow, I must have gotten under your skin since you felt the need to attack my persona.

That being said i believe we misunderstood each other regarding the koreans, for some reason I thought you meant that they invaded Japan, which of course is not the case. Anyway, I apologize for that, and I completely agree, the japanese did not by any means "win" when they invaded.

Regarding Saladin you are right in the sense that he united the different muslim groups, but he was also a general and a quite skilled one at that. In my oppinion the reason he had such success was because he combined the two. That being said I am not interested in having a discussion with you unless your comments are relevant for what we are discussing.

Lastly I wish to comment on what you said regarding swords. It is a common perception among people with little knowledge regarding the samurai sword that it breaks as easily as an european sword, which it don't. This is mainly due to the complex process of the forging and treatment of the tamahagane. Yes, it takes a month or more to make a proper gendaito, which is why the blade is as durable and good as it is. The fact that a knights longsword is produced so fast says more about the quality of the forging that the actual quality of the blade. The best smiths today would not be able to ensure the quality of such a long sword if he made more than a thousand swords a month. Yes, a long sword that is properly made is an exellent weapon, but it has a completely different construction compared to a samurai sword. The structure of the metal is "crispier" (Sorry, english is not my first language) and thus the sword breaks easily. Then again there are few katanas today of the quality required to beat a longsword and penetrate a knights armor. A factory produced blade would not meet those demands.

"I wore a full kit in combat and my situational awareness was never diminished." Interesting, you have first hand experience using mediveal armor and weapons? I do fencing with two handed long sword and also with a katana, and I have to say I find weaponry and armor from this period very interesting. Do you "fight" from horseback as well, or only from the ground??

Troung: I completely agree with you, I 'd also chose a Mamluk over a samurai. They were great riders and horsemen, the templars greatest fear :) My point was more that I would assume this "shadowplay" if you will, would be their tactic against a hypotetical french cavalry. As for their mounts I do believe that the samurai had quite good horses, light and fast, with a considerable amount of arbian blood in them, exellent horses to use against a french cavalry.

[Mihais]

In your metallurgical process did you bothered to include some physics as well as reading the last pages,which dealt with your slashing wonder sword.Ever dealt with someone that is 10 inches taller,30 kg's heavier,every bit as fast and skilled as your samurai and has a shield?

Btw,don't p!ss OoE.He is what his nickname suggests,meaning he knows a thing or two about fighting.More than you do about logistics.

Saladin may have been good,but he was also very lucky,thrice.Once he had faced Guy de Lusignan,instead of the Leper King at Hattin the second time Barbarossa drowned(Allah may have had a hand in this,since they were praying hard for something to stop the German army) and the third time Richard and Phillip August were sworn foes.If it wasn't for the last one,Jerusalem would have been recaptured.

Samurais riding horses with Arabian blood in them.Now that's a good one.Perhaps they imported the Arabian blood in tankers.

[Officer of Engineers]

"Officer of enginers": Wow, I must have gotten under your skin since you felt the need to attack my persona.

You have yet to get under my skin. I see the same stupidity that I see those who never saw combat.

That being said i believe we misunderstood each other regarding the koreans, for some reason I thought you meant that they invaded Japan, which of course is not the case. Anyway, I apologize for that, and I completely agree, the japanese did not by any means "win" when they invaded.

No, you've misunderstood me. I never had any illusions to your lack of knowledge.

Regarding Saladin you are right in the sense that he united the different muslim groups, but he was also a general and a quite skilled one at that. In my oppinion the reason he had such success was because he combined the two. That being said I am not interested in having a discussion with you unless your comments are relevant for what we are discussing.

Horse ctrap! I gave you the Muslim General who was the superior ... and you did not even bother to google.

Lastly I wish to comment on what you said regarding swords. It is a common perception among people with little knowledge regarding the samurai sword that it breaks as easily as an european sword, which it don't.

I am a Combat Engineer with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. You want to tell me again about materials?

This is mainly due to the complex process of the forging and treatment of the tamahagane. Yes, it takes a month or more to make a proper gendaito, which is why the blade is as durable and good as it is. The fact that a knights longsword is produced so fast says more about the quality of the forging that the actual quality of the blade. The best smiths today would not be able to ensure the quality of such a long sword if he made more than a thousand swords a month. Yes, a long sword that is properly made is an exellent weapon, but it has a completely different construction compared to a samurai sword. The structure of the metal is "crispier" (Sorry, english is not my first language) and thus the sword breaks easily. Then again there are few katanas today of the quality required to beat a longsword and penetrate a knights armor. A factory produced blade would not meet those demands.

Horse Puckey! I gave a reference ... and I AM NOT IMPRESSED THAT YOU ARE TOO DAMNED LAZY TO RESEARCHED THAT REFERECNE!

"nteresting, you have first hand experience using mediveal armor and weapons? I do fencing with two handed long sword and also with a katana, and I have to say I find weaponry and armor from this period very interesting. Do you "fight" from horseback as well, or only from the ground??

I have life and death experience with real armour. Do you? You are TOO STUPID to realize what I am trying to say. If your situational awareness is limited by your equipment, THEN YOU WILL OVERCOMPENSATE. THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL A SAMUARI WILL EVER APPROACH A KNIGHT UNAWARE IN A COMBAT SITUATION!!!! NONE, NADDA, ZILCH! STOP PRETENDING TO BE THE EXPERT THAT YOU ARE NOT!

Troung: I completely agree with you, I 'd also chose a Mamluk over a samurai. They were great riders and horsemen, the templars greatest fear :) My point was more that I would assume this "shadowplay" if you will, would be their tactic against a hypotetical french cavalry. As for their mounts I do believe that the samurai had quite good horses, light and fast, with a considerable amount of arbian blood in them, exellent horses to use against a french cavalry.

Here we go, a Ninja fanatic!

[Big K]

oops...i see dead thread ahead... :)

[Mihais]

Hopefully the thread will live on.We still have the Samurai vs. Yeni-ceri

[sappersgt]

by Shetan
...the samurai had quite good horses...with a considerable amount of arbian blood in them...

I...I just don't know how to reply to that.