[Boris Bedrosov]

Friends!

Actually, I'm not sure if this topic has been already discussed here.
Few days ago I had argued with a friend of mine who would win the battle between samurai and knights. Our argument was about a clash between two equal in numbers armies (let's say - 10 000 man strong each of them) from same historical period - let's say the second half of 14th c.
So, the question is follows: in equil other circumstances (terrain, weather, exc.), who, in your opinion, would be victorious at the end? Please, feel free to tell what do you think, considering tactics used, typical weapons, quality of arms and armours, even the different structure of the societies, if you want.

Thanks in advance and Good Luck
Boris

[Jonathan Hopkins]

This has been discussed before here and on related forums:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...rai+knight
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...rai+knight
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...rai+knight
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t...rai+knight

the list could go on...

Jonathan

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

Yet Boris asked specifically about two armies, instead of two individuals, which makes this thread stand out a bit among all the usual "knight vs. samurai" stuff.

It does not make pronostics easier though It would depend heavily on the generals on both sides, I guess (just as it is often said that the best fighter would win no matter what weapon he carries). It could be that the Japanese army was more specialised, more adapted to the specific Japanese setting, whereas the european army (in as much as you could find any notion of a "typical" european army...) was more polyvalent.

Maybe heavy cavalry in a rice plantation is not the best idea

In other words, even if the terrain does not clearly favour one side, the overall nature of the terrain could be more familiar to one side. Choosing a "standard" terrain would be difficult... Such a thing is in fact rare in nature

Just some thoughts,

[Jonathan Hopkins]

[Chad Arnow]

This should be a little different than the one-on-one discussions we usually see.

The first question would be which European army of the second half of the 14th century?

The English were a battle-hardened and pretty efficient force, but numbering 10,000 might have been a stretch. They also would have tried hard to find terrain that suited their style of combat, terrain that would have been as unequal (favoring them) as possible. Of course, since this is more of a fantasy encounter, perhaps that doesn't matter.

And then: which part of the latter 14th century?

Take the French. They were not always well-disciplined and well-led. They were also probably a little demoralized at times after their defeats at Sluys, Crecy, Poitiers, etc. They clung to the mounted charge for a while, but had begun to employ more people on foot between Crecy and Poitiers. Right around 1350, they might have been at their low point. Later, things might have been different.

And there are other armies who might have been better or worse at certain situations.

When in the 14th century would help decide the mix of mail to plate in that century of transitioning armour. And consequently, how popular sharply pointed swords were.

I suppose we'd need a more defined set of parameters to try to discuss apples to apples.

P.S. - I edited the title of this topic to try to convey that this is a little different than the one man vs. one man discussions we've seen in the past.

[Sam Barris]

This is a good article. It doesn't really address your question, but does a great job of addressing the difficulties inherent in answering your question.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

[Robin Smith]

My money would be on the 14th-century Euro army. They had superior armor and weapons designed to deal with full plate. And (late) 14th-century European armor has better coverage than Japanese armor, which would reduce the effectivness of horse archers to some degree.
Another advantage of the Euro armies at this time were fighting using coordinated combined arms tactics. The Samurai at this time (pre-sengoku jidai) were still essentially figthing as an army of individuals fighting in a mass of one on one fights.
Ultimately though, luck and the skill of the generals would be the real deciding factors, so the battle could go to either side. I'd still prefer the European to win, since I feel the Samurai have an undeserved overhyped reputation...

[James Barker]

Such a silly topic. Both cultures developed arms and armor for how people fought in their area and putting them against one another would hardly be fair. Knights of the high middle ages used stronger weapons, had heavier armor, and had better advances in gun powder than the Japanese at the time.

[Robin Smith]

[Matt Doernhoefer]

I agree there would be a lot of skill and craftiness in generalship, I think a lot of it would have to do with composition. It seemed to me that European armies towards the 14th C. are starting to move from the peasant levies to the more professional soldier. Not to mention the use of battle-hardened mercenary companies. The Japanese did not have such luxury as to have a large number of available sellswords. They were much more reliant on peasants given farm implements than combat-hardened troops. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure Japanese shock troops would be a force to be reckoned with, but at the same time, European heavy cav is just as fearsome.

[Michael Edelson]

Were the samurai still predominantly horse archers in the 14th century? I can't seem to recall, and most of my samurai books are in the garage.

If so, the European heavy cavalry would have a hard time dealing with them. However, they would be able to decimate the Japanese peasant levies, and Japanese horse archers did wear heavy armor, so it's a tough call.

There are so many factors...such as who had bigger, stronger and faster horses? If the Europeans, they could ride down the horse arhers, if the Japanese, the European heavy cavalry wouldn't have a prayer of catching them, unless they managed to outmaneuever and trap them. And would the samurai horse archers even try to run away? Or would they fire their bows to soften up the Europeans while they charged?

If I had to bet, I'd be on the Europeans, because they had better armor and better swords (pole arms were about the same, I think). When I say better swords, I mean better to deal with the other's armor...the katana is too short, too sharp and not pointy enough to be halfsworded against transitional armor, and of course, it cannot cut through it no matter how many bad movies you've seen.

[Joe Fults]

I think it comes down to a question of geography more than anything else. Where is the fight taking place? This has major strategic, tactical, and logistical implications. Projecting force is fairly easy with modern equipment, but getting armies from Japan and Europe on the same field for a fight is still no mean feat.

[Felix Wang]

[Risto Rautiainen]

[Robin Smith]

[Darryl Aoki]

[Jean Thibodeau]

One could add the " learning curve " as a factor: Do we put the Europeans and the Japanese on the field with zero knowledge of each others capabilities or do we give the generals on each side a full briefing of the others capabilities, usual tactics and a little time to think and maybe prepare their troops ?

The Japanese had serious difficulties dealing with the Mongols but did adapt and learn to a degree as well as having some luck when the Kamikaze storm destroyed the Mongol fleet. ( if memory serves ).

Also, Japanese troops with some experience fighting Koreans would be less " insular " in their adaptability to different weapons and tactics.

Now, to be honest all this sort of thing can only be guesswork and no sure answer could come from one battle even if we could have a real battle to observe. A series of battles might give us a statistical answer.

Now, a computer model or realistically thought out " game " might in the near future make a lot of these fantasy speculations closer to being observable.

I actually enjoy this kind of speculation until people start taking it much to seriously and start getting mad at each other !
We can still learn something or just have fun bouncing ideas around ! If history had been different and Europeans had interacted with the Japanese in the 14th century we would be discussing and arguing about real battles and the subject wouldn't be ridiculous.

Oh, and a battle is one thing but a century of warfare would mean that each side would adapt, be destroyed, stalemated or conquered. ( And many other outcomes to numerous for me to think of right now ).

[Michael Edelson]

Anothing thing to consider is that battles were almost always won because of superior tactics and/or strategy. Armies that were clear underdogs often emerge as the victors.

Both European armies and Japanese armies in the 14th century were forces to be reckoned with. Even if we can definitely say that one was more capable than another, it doesn't mean that one would win.

The only way to get a clear answer would be to stage a battle between two completely disparate forces, such as a modern army against a WWII army. Other than that, it would be easier to compare small groups from each army, such as mounted knights vs. mounted samurai, say 100 of each, on an open field on a nice sunny day.

[Jack Yang]

if we are talking about two armies, then both sides should be properly armed and armored, right?
if we made this a fair and square battle, like if you made a virtual simulation of the battle, then I think the knights would win, because their armor rocks, and because the samurais didn't use shields.

now, how come everyone keeps asking questions about knights vs samurais? if you asked something like knights vs NINJAS, that would be more interesting =D
(NINJAS will pwn)

[Robin Smith]