I can't tell you how in so many "Knights VS Samurai" discussions, the first thing the knight side brings is that knights wore plate armor than Katanas were made out of primitive metals so it won't be able to crack the plate and in fact will chip.

I definitely believe Katanas weren't designed to fight plate armor and they won't be able to cut off what Knights wore.

But the assumptions many people have in the knight vs samurai discussion is that the katana will literally bounce off the plate armor the moment it impacts and that someone in plate padddings is so well protected they won't feel any pain. Hell they assume that knights armor is so much stronger that if a Katana hits hurt, no effect will happen to the plate armor wearer. The plate armor wearer won't even feel the kinetic force of swinging katana, they won't even hear the "ringing vibration" often shown in Hanabara cartoons when you hit an empty suit on display.

There is an assumption plate armor is so advanced that a sword as light as katanas will just feel like a tickle towards the wearer at best with the blade resulting with chipped off pieces and at worst caused the sword to shatter.

However I seriously doubt this. I definitely can see the Katana being damaged by hitting plate and the plate armor being undented.

Thing is I remember reading in battles and sword duels about Samurais getting knocked on the ground by Katanas.

The remarkable thing is in some experiments replicating these duels and battles, the Samurai armor was NOT damaged at all, not even a scratched. But despite the armor being unharmed, the participants in the experiments stated not only did they feel such force from being knocked down, they even admitted the area ******* hurts and there were bruises on the hit area (which were some of the areas the Samurai armor defended the most like the chestplate,etc).
Update 2: Now I know Samurai armor is a different beast from European armor and often was made out of inferior metal compared to the stereotypical knights armor.

But the fact the Katana swings (executed by an Iado expert) were able to make FULL GROWN physically strong men knocked down on the ground in full body armor (not just the Samurai armor but modern layers of padding and some participants even wore chanmail) and the knocked down participants had bruises made me doubt many knights vs samura claims

Nevermind the fact that REAL SAMURAIS who were hardened killers and war veterans were knocked down when hit by Katanas in historical battles and duels. Who were likely more physically conditioned than real Samurais.

So it makes me doubt the claim that a knight will literally go just laugh at the Samurai after getting hit by a katana because the katana simply bounced off in a hypothetical duel as theorized in these knight VS samurai debates.

If its saying something even the richest Samurais were ABLE to purchase the metals used to make European armor or even actual plate armor imported from Europe during the late feudal period yet they feared getting hit by a katana because of possibility of death!

I mean peasants using light wooden farm weapons like a stick or a pitchforker were ABLE to hurt knights in plate armor and even kill them. Some of these farm tools were even lighter and more fragile than Katanas like a scythe or a branched picked off from the ground just moment before battles were able to SERIOUSLY cause knights bruisings and there are incidents of peasants killing knights with these weapons that were much weaker than Katanas.

The chances of a sword cutting through armour far enough to injuire the person wearing it is so low as to be statistically negligible. It doesn't matter which sword you use or which armour. Even cloth and leather armour are virtually proof against sword cuts. The katana is just fairly heavy and awkward sabre; it is nothing special. It seems to be pretty fragile too considering how much focus the Japanese had to place on proper technique so as not to damage it.

Why would you even intentionally try to cut plate armor with a sword in the first place? When you know it's not going to do much damage and propably break your blade?

A swordsman would try to thrust at the weak points of armor like joints and helmet slits. In most medieval pictures where fully armored men-at-arms fight with swords, they are using the blade as a thrusting polearm. Because that's propably the only way you're going to get anything done.

I think the whole idea that a katana wielder would try to cut plate is wrong and risks losing your weapon. He would likely try thrusting his sword through the opponents armpits that was a known samurai technique i believe.

When fully armored samurais fought their main weapon wasn't the katana but yari and naginata that are much more useful against armor as long thrusting weapons.

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

Good armor doesn't keep you from getting hurt, it keeps you from getting killed.

I don't usually participate in these kind of discussions but here's a nice video that demonstrates the strength of full plate. Relevant part at 0:35.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

The blow delivered by the longsword in the video barely even registered a reaction from the man in plate. As a longsword and a katana weigh a similar amount, the kinetic force imparted by the blow of either sword should be very similar.

Just a small anecdote: On one of the medieval fairs I visited with my reenactment group, our leader found some old friends and they jokingly asked if they might smack his plate cuirass (Czech made, decent quality) with their mace (all steel construction, had seen quite a bit of use for stage fights). He found that agreeable and thus the other guy took a proper swing at his solar plexus.

The armor got slightly dented from the blow (movement was unimpaired, though) and my group's boss moved back a few inches, but there was no pain on his part.

The flanged mace broke, the head falling off of the steel shaft, probably due to being abused a lot in the past.

Yes, steel plate armor protects you from pretty much any impact melee weapons could impart as long as it's the plate that gets hit. You won't even feel pain. Exceptions might be poleaxes and lucerne hammers (etc.), two handed weapons which concentrate a lot of force in one hard pointed spike. It is still unlikely that a direct hit from those on a plate would be harmful, but the spike could pierce a few centimeters into the plate, which might cause discomfort for the wearer, bruises or small surface lacerations would be the most injury I'd expect, though.

General rule for sword vs armor: you can't cut metal armor, you won't cut leather armor, you'll have a hard time cutting through cloth armor (Gambesons). Go for the gaps.

By the way, hitting samurai armor with a sword is about as ineffective as hitting a european knight's armor with a sword. It bounces off in both cases, leaving a scratch or very slight dent at worst. Going for the gaps is the only way here, either.

Pieter's point about tank commanders is a very good one. I may have to use this anmalogy some time.

While wearing a Merc Tailor sallet, I have been struck to the head with a sword hard enough to dent the helmet. The sword in question was an Albion Liechtenauer, and I suspect that the rounded edge on it means it can cause significantly more blunt force trauma than either a sharp European long sword or katana. The impact was a bit jarring, but caused no real pain; had it been a fight, I could have easily kept going. My suspicion is that a katana would have a fairly similar effect. Will the katana simply bounce off and not even dent the plate? I'm not sure. Would it cause any real pain? I doubt it.

To sum up: You would feel getting hit by any sword in plate armour. Depending on the sword and how hard it was swung and where it hits you, you might get stung somewhat. So you would definitely know you got hit.

It's highly unlikely it would do anything beyond denting the armour, however, unless it's a crowbar like a type XVII, and even those are mostly engineered for prying armour apart and thrusting through gaps than actually penetrating plate itself. There are other weapons out there for a reason.

Is that clear enough?

Some of my related questions are so off topic that I'll post them another time because they'd make separate discussions.

But I am curious about one thing. One of the biggest BS I ever heard in these knights vs Samurai debates is that a knight will be able to fight another knight because even if the European longsword was not strong enough to slash plate armor, they would often be sharp enough to thrust through plate armor.

I seen historical pictures of plated knights killing one another by thrusting

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

The two above pictures are often used as proof European swords could at least thrust through plate armor in online debates of whether a longsword was useful against plate and Samurai vs knights.

However the pro-knight sides simply assumes the all the Samurai knows about is slashing attacks and thus they will never pierce plate because they are ignorant the proper way to fight plate with a sword is to thrust your sword and pierce through the armor with such attack.

I actually used to buy this BS until I observed Japanese sword techniques last weekend and saw the amount of thrusting techniques used in a single kata.

Further research yesterday I found this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

Its definitely a flawed experiment but it simply blasts the notion that all a Samurai would do is whack a plate armor and not resort to other techniques assuming the plate comes out unschated.

So many pro-knight people assume that the Samurai would be a dunce who'd repeat slashing techniques towards the knight despite not able to pierce plate armor and the knight stands there like its nothing and yawning out of boredom.

They ignore things like thrusting techniques, grappling, and hitting weak chinks in the plate (and the Samurais were familiar with weak points because their own armor had chinks to in many cases similar to where knight armor gaps).

But just leave it to one question-was the katana so inferior that not even with thrusting techniques can it pierce plate? Is it true those manuscripts an photos shows knights using far superior swords than anything Samurai ever wielded?

Because when I brought up that Samurai knew thrusting techniques in some debates, I was blasted down by the knight side because they believe the katana was so inferior that even the thrusting techniques knights used n war won't do any effect if used with katanas.

Neither the longsword nor the katana can reliably thrust through quality plate armour. Pretty much no hand weapon can - it's unclear for the pollaxe and similar items, and swords, daggers and so on are all close to hopeless.

The tip geometry of the longsword is generally* a bit more suited to thrusting through fine gaps, and particularly light mail. A katana point is a demon at thrusting through flesh and fabric, because it cuts effectively for those thrusts (basically), but will be turned more easily by mail voiders and so on.

This is mostly made of gross generalisations, but is roughly accurate.

*Depends on type. But look at particularly XVIIs, XVas, etc.

I've been fighting in open steel HEMA tournaments for years. The swords we use are typically stiff and heavy, our main defense is a moderate amount of padding and plenty of guys are out there swinging for the fences. Sure, you get a few bruises but it's not too bad. Steel armor is much more protective than a bit of padded cloth, the hands and head would be a bit more susceptible but body and limb shots aren't going to do much.

It's slower one handed, but much faster two handed because when used two handed it's a short, light hand and a half sword.