[Alec Jones]

Hello I'm Alec and I am doing a project over knights. This project is a comparison between knights and samuri my friend is covering samuri. I need to know what a knights sword ment to him and what it's importances were top him. I also need to know what other items knights would use like shields and such and the importances by them aswell. Can any one help me? Please message me or send me an E-mail. Thank you Alec Jones

[Jonathan Blair]

I guess it is time for another "Knight versus Samurai: who would win" thread.

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=8111

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=10000

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=5317

Regarding your question about what a knight's sword meant to him:

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2127

Sorry if I come across a little snappish: it has been a long day and I hurt.

[Bennison N]

Boy, did you ever choose the right place to ask those questions!

[Reece Nelson]

I get into these sort of arguments with my friends all the time First we'll cover there equipment and style of fighting, but then we almost always get into it about how much more "disciplined". Its very to difficult to explain to people about this topic when there huge fan boys of Samurais and think of the knight as being a clumsy warriors, with unbearable heavy armour and sword that he can barley lift Thank you Hollywood for your many years of misconceptions

[Chad Arnow]

Alec,
Hello and welcome to myArmoury.com.

This kind of topic has been discussed here already--quite a few times. I'd encourage you to use the forum Search button (next to the Watched Topics button) to search for previous discussions. I'd also encourage our other readers to do the same as we don't need another thread discussing what has already been discussed so many times. It's better to add to existing threads than create more threads for people to wade through.

You can also check this article out: http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

Well my answer may not be one that is wanted for this topic, though here it is...

The outcome of who would win would bounce back and forth between the particpants. Look at Medieval from the the battle of Crecy. Before that time no Knight would dismount his horse on purpose in order to fight on foot. 1346, the mid 14th century was the first time knights dismounted and fought along side their archers... War tactics changed in more ways then just dismounted knights. Prior to that time, Knights were the ones who lead the field of battle. By their own intitive they fought. and everyone else supported them.

Why does this matter you may ask? Because a Knight and a Samuris' development of armor and battle field tactics could vary greatly. There are so many vast possibilities depending on when and where... that every outcome could be different every time they encounted each other.

A sword meant to the knight the ability to kill another. Yes his sword had symbolic meanings, though in the face of war and death, anyone would fight to stay alive and utilize any weapon in their arsenal in order to defend himself and his said country. He would use a pole axe or another type of long weapon so that he would not have to instantly engage sword to sword with another. Do not forget that guns were present as early (and I think earlier) as 15th century. Even though cannons were used primarily for sieges, who knows what a knight would muster together in order to fight an "unknown soldier"

On top of the afore mentioned, Are we talking about mercianieries <Sorry mispelt> or are we talking about true knights that lived and defended their own land? A hired hand does vary from someone who has a personal perception of the particular battle and in that same line of thought a mercanary <i cant spell it> may have fought in far more battles than your knight who lived at home. And therefore a merc could be better skilled at war than his highly esteemed Knight.

Why would a single samuri fight a single knight...? No, rather what would take place is country against country upon which history continually shows us that large forces fought large forces.

The best way to win your argument to your friend is to change the argument all together in the final debate. Dont come out with "Knights are better because..." Rather come out with "Knights and Samuri's were an even match because..." and then go onto explain and support the knight as well as support the samuri.

They were both great warriors because they proved supperior in their own lands. They both lasted thousands of years and they both died out for reasons that could be put into the same category. Knights and Samuri's were the "crem de' la' crem" of their respective time and of their respective country.


Technically I and other have been off topic with this thread because the name of the thread is knights and what their swords meant to them, I percieved to add more so into the off topic as I saw those lines of comments (Sorry about that)

[Chad Arnow]

Christopher,
Yes, this thread asks about what the sword meant to the knight. But the poll asks about who would win. So it's very appropriate to point the original poster to existing lines of discussion about that.

Also, Crecy was far from the first use of dismounted knights. The Battles at Dupplin Moor in 1332 and Halidon Hill in 1333 (both English vs. the Scots) and Morlaix in 1342 (English vs. French) are among those where the knights fought dismounted. There may be more. Crecy was just the first really big one people talk about.

And these were not the first time foot soldiers defeated mounted men at arms either. The Scots defeated the English at Bannockburn and the Flemings defeated the French at Courtrai (among others like Morgarten). These are generally thought of as peasants or peasant levies defeating mounted knights, but there may well have been knights among the Scots and among the Flemings in those cases. Dupplin Moor, Halidon Hill, Morlaix, Crecy, Poitiers, etc, were battles where the knights finally realized they weren't indestructible and needed solid tactics and good leadership in order to win.

To Alec,
How a knight was equipped is a result of the era and area in which he lived, his social class, and the tactical makeup of the group he would have fought in. Shields were common and important before plate armour; less so after it became widespread. Swords were effective against people without much armour on. As you add padded armour, mail armour, then plate armour, the sword becomes less and less effective despite its symbolic importance to the knight. Knights seem to have always carried swords, but may have relied more on pole arms (lances, spears, short staff weapons like maces, hammers, and axes, long staff weapons like pollaxes, long hammers, etc.) as armour increased.

We have a number of articles on our Features page that tell various aspects of what you're looking for. To find your answer, you'll really have to decide first what era and locale your knight hails from. Because between 1200 and 1600, things change so drastically that it is impossible to draw conclusions from the whole. You need to define your starting point.

Also, keep in mind that your poll data may be skewed. As this site seems to focus (unintentionally) more on European arms and armour than that of other places, you poll results will likely be skewed in favor of the knight.

[Grayson C.]

The majority of knights at dorylaem (sp) in 1097 were dismounted, as per the orders of Bohemund of Taranto.

[Tom King]

This is biased but samurai weapons are mostly slashing weapons and wouldn't do anything to plate armor. 15-17th century European arms became specialized for peircing or bashing. I'm not learned in the characteristics of japanese armor, but slashing weapons lead to defences against slashing

[Jean Thibodeau]

The poll options are rather limited and presupposed that one could even have a firm opinion about who would win a battle.

As far as the ninja ? Reality based ninja which is essentially a spy or assassin more that a fighter as opposed to the movie ninja with " superpowers " ?

The ninja wouldn't " battle " but might win by poisoning the knight and the samurai.

If you read the linked Topics by Jonathan Blair it should give you a good idea of all the arguments and subtleties involved making it impossible to arrive at any conclusion saying that the knight, the samurai or even the ninja would win or be consistently superior.

The bottom line is that the best and luckiest fighter would win any specific fight but this would change with every possible variable and each individual fight.

One could make a skills neutral comparison of fighting techniques and the qualities of the armour and weapons to sort of evaluate the strength and weaknesses of each fighting system.

[Tom King]

Jeans right of course (but Europecentric so...) Besides, in the 16th century they both had firearms so armor and fighting style is a moot point. It would be wheelocks and doglocks vs. matchlocks (and we all know how that turned out )

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Tom King]

So its all down to chance. Whoever misses or malfunctions first loses! and when both guns fail...
well we're back where we started

[Ozsváth Árpád-István]

I don't think it's a good match. It's more like chariot vs tank, or razorblade vs can. Katanas are excellent swords against unarmored opponents or light armor, but they won't do any harm to plate armor.
I'd say samurai vs viking swordsman will be a more balanced fight.
I don't underestimate eastern martial arts, but in my opinion it's quite exagerated by low-budget movies, and the ninja mumbo-jumbo myths. Yes, it damaged my brain too back in the '80ties.
If you don't believe me take a look at K1 or MMA (this is much closer to the "real thing") tournaments, and see that modern "samurais" and "ninjas" are not so bright, european fighters have superior constitution and "firepower".

[Timo Nieminen]

[Viktor Johansson]

[Christopher VaughnStrever]

I am going to refrain from quoting the entire OP because its there to read for itself and needs to be read before comments are added to the band wagon.

I re-read the initial post. the clear point of this topic is a "comparison" between the knight and samuri. And Alec is not even asking our opinions of the samuri, strictly about the knight. The poll was not meant as a discussion, though primarily just to entertain Alec's idea of what our opinions are without discussing them.

Not once in his OP did he ask us to go into grave detail about who would win, he did not even make any small remarks to for us to elaborate into the topic of knight vs. anything.

To reiderate his questions from his typed post,

Value of the sword and shield + mention the other weapons and items a knight would have and their value.

That is the true topic of his request. Also, Chad and others already redirected people to other threads and topics concerning the whole vs. vs. vs. thing. If you want that, then watch deadliest warrior; and we all know how we all feel about that.

[Ozsváth Árpád-István]

Excuse me, I have no such racist ideas. The point was that samurais are treated like super-human warriors, while we tend to think about the medieval knights that they was uneducated brutes. Both were skilled and fanatic warriors, but in my opinion the european medieval knights had superior defenses while the samurai was lightly armored and possessed no weapons to combat plate armor. The average european was taller and more muscular than the average japanese guy, therefore he had a physical advantage. I don't mean the "master race" idea, because I don't believe in it and I hate such stupid and destructive mentality. Anyway we are physicaly inferior to most of african people.

Well it's a stupid question, anyway. If the two armies could ever met in the past, maybe there were major changes in both arsenals.

[Chad Arnow]

Christopher,
The poll indicates a clear interest in who would win ("Wich [sic] would win in a battle?"). People are voting on the question and may feel the need to comment on why they voted as they did. Plus, some people are responding directly to the poll question, which is not uncommon. It is relevant and on-topic as the original poster included the poll with the post. Would it be nice if more people commented on the text than the poll? Sure.

Also, it's not your job to tell other people what to do, whether it's what to read or how to reply to stay on-topic. That's a moderator's job and we have it under control.

[Keith Staton]