[George Hill]

[Tanner Yerkey]

Thanks for the tip. Don't be worried about insultingme or being to forward. I'll take any info that will improve my skills anf knowledge.
My teacher has done weapondry for over twenty years and has studied all cultures and fighting peoples. that is why I am confident he will give us something to either put the conversation to rest or at least give us something to chew on.
tanner

[Richard Fay]

Hello all!

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[George Hill]

[Marius Angantyr Rafoshei]

As some of my ancestors were knights, I have to say the knight wins!
I find these discussions that occasionally pop up rather interesting, but the problem is that you will champion your style, ancestors or what your teacher says. (Or Hollywood.) Making for a rather hard clinch, instead of an educated comparison between different tactics, equipment, training and so on. Yes, this is what is being discussed here, but I feel it is more of the "my dad is stronger than yours" approach than "my dad is a farmer, he knows..."
Just a few words from a friendly forum stalker.

[Randall Moffett]

A few years back some people pushed the Royal Armouries to do this same trial. All the curators involved thought it was rather silly so most took it in humour. In the end I do not think one beat another but some points to ponder on this.

Time period difference. Are we comparing a 15th century knight verses a 15th century samuri or a 14th century knight with a 17th or 18th century samuri?

Also with what weapons and how would you judge wins. If you had a knight with a lance charging a samuri with a bow on horseback?

I think one problem is fighting style. From what I have seen andf heard cutting and slashing is a main tool in the samuri swordbox. A knight in full armour would have little worries about this (no samuri swords will not easily cut through any plate armour, all past testing I have seen was flawed beyond belief).

So thats just a few little things I though of as I read through this to reiterate what some have already said.
Also tanged arrows do tend to be weaker than socketted. the areas that use tanged arrows never have to deal with full plate armour on a large scale so it was not an issue. When the arrowhead hits a very hard target (iron/steel plate) the force is more likely to put more impact on the shaft's core than the socketted one would.

In the end this would be an interesting duel to watch but even if one real knight killed a real samuri or vice versa it proves nothing but that knight a could kill samuri b, but could he kill samuri c as well? He'd have to kill a lot of samuri 9or knights) before I'd say one would win above the other because each is an individual person not a copy of some cookie cutter samuri or knight.

RPM

[George Hill]

[Tanner Yerkey]

Hey george.
I talked to my teacher last night and had a lengthy discussion with him. He simply said "who ever trained the most would win".
I asked if either culture stressed the open hand more he said it all depended on the individual warrior. I also made a mistake on the knight's armor. He said people often get tournament armor and battlefield armor mistaken. The tournament armor was like being put into a tank because the king didn't need his best warriors dying in tournaments. Battlefield armor was well made and easy to move in.
I apologize for my misleading writings. I have read a lot on eastern warriors, especially the samuria. I've read countless styles and from what I've read I thought it was more stressed in Japan(emptyhand that is). Anyway it is almost impossible to put two warriors of history against each other.
Thanks for all the info george and a great conversation. If you don't mind I would like your email address so if I ever have anymore I can just ask you. Thanks
Tanner

[Jean Thibodeau]

The first few minutes of their encounter as they sizes each other up evaluating the others equipment the way each moves would be critical: If we could put them in front of each other knowing nothing of the other's fighting style each would be a mystery to the other until they started to move choosing guards and reacting to the other's moves.

In these early moments exist the greatest chance that each could surprise the other using a completely new techniques for the other.

Maybe not the only factor but the one who can learn and adapt the fastest to the other has the best chance of anticipating the other's next move and choosing an effective counter.

I would think this always happens when any two warriors face off against each other: The only differences are that when we imagine these impossible in real life encounters between any two fighters separated by geography and time the degree of initial " strangeness " or equipment advantages are exaggerated.

Bottom like the best warrior wins unless some large technical advantage in equipment gives the lesser fighter a big advantage: Samurai versus WWII Soldier armed with a BAR at 50 yards with no cover !

As I mentioned before if one could do a " theoretical " comparison of fighting forms one could try and guess what techniques from one fighting culture would be the effective equivalent counter in the other fighting culture.: Sort of like doing the math !

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Henrik Olsgaard]

This discussion on Samurai vs.Knight reminds me of similar ones of 38 years ago , when western combat was first being experimented with in my area. In spite of relatively recent developments in the study of European fighting manuals from the middle ages, I don't believe it's possible to really make any factual determination of "who would win". There are too many unknowns and there seems to be a significant inequality of the cultures in question. These are in the form of resources and traditions. The tradition of the Japanese warriors was one of virtual isolation exce[pt for occasional attempted invasions and the small European presence that didn't last for too long. So combat forms and experience was limited to mostly local experiences. Certainly some Samurai were mercenaries that went abroad to serve in foreign - but usually Asian- lands against likely inferior opponants. Any martial lessons learned may not have been brought back to Japan for sharing with the military minds of the time since such foreign service was likely for life ( such as the Japanese Samurai Body Guards of the King of Siam).

Europeans warriors on the other hand had the experiences of foreign wars or tournaments to broaden their experiences and abilities. Europeans also had relatively large resources of iron produced from iron ores usually smelted with coal fired smelters ( a technology still used today throughout the modern world) for making weapons and armor while the Japanese had much less. This is one of the reasons the japanese armor was so much less in quantity and protective coverage, since it cost so much more. The iron was so costly ( being smelted from iron bearing sand with charcoal fired smelters - a less efficient technology nearly nonexistant in first world nations today) that only some of it was made into steel to only be used for the cutting edges of weapons and tools. This steel was cared for so much more by the sheathing of virtually all cutting edges on weapons and tools to protect them from damage by rust or abbrasion when not in actual use.

Contrary to some Hollywood film presentations, Japanese swords don't break into two peices when abused. They simply bend and only the cutting edge is likely to crack and break. This is because they are mostly made from low carbon steel layers sandwiched between lesser amounts of high carbon steel and only the cutting edge is mostly high carbon steel. European swords on the other hand are usually homogenously higher carbon steel and are a result of higher technological practices. That isn't to say they are better, simply they use higher amounts of energy and more materials and processing to produce, than Japanese swords. Likewise European metal armor used more resources to produce and so were easily valued by the Japanese when a few pieces of them were brought to Japan. It's like someone bringing a solid gold wastebasket to your house. Certainly you will value it over any you already have at home, regardless of how much they can hold.

So to compare the two warrior cultures fairly, they should be compared on the basis of equal access to the other's cultural experiences and resources, and in that case aren't we just comparing two human beings?

Henrik

[George Hill]

[Jack Yang]

3 whole pages of discussions is too much for me to read... i ll just post my answer to the question:
in a 1v1 fight:
if S (samurai) and K (knight) are euqally skilled, neither is wearing armor, and both are using swords, then I think it'll just be a matter of luck (that is, if we discount the strength difference between fold steel and.... eropean steel, for lack of better terming) . If both are unarmed, Japanese hand to hand martial arts would've been more developed than the eroupeans', and thus S will have an advantage. If both are armed with pole arms, I think the Japanese would still have the advantage, 'cause to my opinion, their naginata is better than any european pole arms (for 1v1 combat). But if armor is involved, then the European would definitly have the upper hand, the japanese armor werent even nearly as protective as European armor, and plus the samurais never used shields (not including those big wooden thing used for blocking arrows).

[Chad Arnow]

[Bob Burns]

I somehow get a kick out of this kind of stuff.

For me, this is an easy question to answer in my humble opinion.

If both were in their armor, the European Knight in plate armor. The knight would win because European plate armor is superior to the armor worn by Samurais.
Katanas do not cut through tempered 16 gauge plate armor!

Bob

[James Lopez]

WWWOOOeee man i love these topics anyway if we put a Knight in Armor and a samurai in Armor an about to fight sizing each other up .i,m thinking the knight seeing he has better equipment may get over confident and attack with brute strenth while the samurai seeing he is at a disadvantage of the better euqipment but more mobile will likely seize the opportunity and parry the blows or take a few step backs so that the knight misses and he is tiring out also there is holes and vunerable points in his(knights)armor and when he is tired the samurai will reach out and cut him to ribbons through the holes of course.(its kinda similar to a boxing match a Light Weight Boxer(samurai) vs. (Knight) Heavy weight Boxer)don't forget samurais are like 5'5 and knights are 6'0 or 6'3 i,m not sure how that is supposed to do something but again the knight will probaly get overconfident in his size of course hmmmm....yeah that bout it so far!

Oh yeah almost forgot i was watching Mansers and they put a Katana againt a .45 and the bullet got slices into 2 and the blade didnt even get scathed.

[Bennison N]

Equal. Both kick serious bottom, and would make better allies than opponents...

It's down to whoever is in better shape, whoever has practiced the most, and whoever can read the other better.

A Katana can't cut plate armour, that's true... But neither can a Katana cut Japanese armour easily either... That's why the armour is made like that. I don't see a European sword cutting through any easier against Japanese armour. The thrusting superiority of many Euro sword designs might be a factor... But I would think a Bushi could devise a strategy with only a little prior research. Likewise for the Knight and the almost-exclusively-cutting techniques Bushi use.

I don't agree that a Naginata is that much better than European pole-arms... And not every Bushi has a Naginata anyway... Not all Samurai can use one in the first place. Girls and Monks used them far more often than Bushi did. Yari vs. Spear is a much better comparison.

Longbowmen and Samurai Archers... Equal. Both types of bows take years and years to use with any skill, so it's back down to the better trained and naturally gifted for that as well.

Let's try it and see... The next time anyone keen is in or near NZ, I'll go bokken on waster (suited up) with you anytime. Just email me. We can film it and show these guys if you like...

[David Black Mastro]

Instead of theorizing on the issue, why don't we simply look at the various combats that took place between Japanese and European fighting men, during the 16th and 17th centuries?

[Darryl Aoki]