[provigil]

I was just wandering: if you put a medieval knight (with full plate armor and a two-handed sword in his hands) against a Samurai. Who would win?

Samurai had a superior sword fighting technic but is that enough to penetrate the iron shell of a knight? Just give me your view/opinion on this.

[7UENf0w7]

The european broadsword was mad for hacking your opponent down to the ground followed by piercing thru the armor and chainmail by putting all of your (and your armor's) weight on the blade. The Katana is a sword made for cutting and thrusting. So even if the samurai's thechique were superior( I wouldn't call it superior but rather different since the difference of use and purpose) he would probably be beaten down if he received a blow of the heavier sword with his lighter armor. the Knight could withstand the slashes and thrusts better because of his heavier armor. Altough I don't like the tough of that
Maybe there are some more experienced people that can tell if there are some technique's (maybe some koryu) that is based on fighting heavy armor?

some of the better vids/documentary's on this topic:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpEC38sL3iU
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Hy_A9vjp_s&feature=related (part2)
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA&feature=related
-http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi3009871897/ (reclaiming the sword)

I especially recommend the last one!

[RerRibreLok]

I guess that it is fun to speculate about these things, but, every time I read or hear about this kind of topic of discussion, I cannot help thinking of this old joke. You are in a room with Superman, Spiderman and Batman. In the center, there is a bomb about to explode that could be deactivated by pulling off a wire. Who will reach it first? The answer, of course, is YOU because the others in the room are imaginary beings. Similarly, I suspect that what we often think about how battles were fought by soldiers of the past has more to do with the aesthetics of movie making rather than the nasty, confusing, undignified affair that probably was.

[Jeaxatoem]

Those are very wise words indeed, and I think you make an interesting point there. But stil its just fun to fantasise
In my opinion to much people have a lack of fantasy! ofcourse you have to stay on earth, but what's wrong with imagination

[actifadepette]

This argument is bound to appear over and over again much the same way people always seem to want to pit pirates against ninjas. My take on it is that trying to compare a medieval knight and a samurai is comparing apples and oranges. Yes, both were swordsmen that wore armor but the devil's in the details. The armor used, sword construction and purpose, tactics, and martial mind-set were all quite different.

For arguments sake though, if you're wondering about armor penetration, look up kabuto-wari. If you're thinking that no matter what, there's still the chain mail to get through, Tenshin Shoden Katori Shinto-ryu for example, aims for the unprotected gaps in yoroi in some of their kata. I know next to nothing about medieval knight fighting tactics but I would imagine most of the kills on the battlefield resulted from exploiting gaps in the armor or crushing certain pieces of armor to smash the fleshy bits underneath. But again, this is looking at samurai vs. samurai and knight vs. knight. Bottom line is that while the two do have certain similarities, there are still fundamental differences that make it very difficult to directly compare the two.

[Amorsesombabs]

I was just wandering: if you put a medieval knight (with full plate armor and a two-handed sword in his hands) against a Samurai. Who would win?

This is one of those silly debatable thing that can go on forever. I honestly don't know, or care for that matter.

My advice: Build a time machine, get yourself a 16th century knight and samurai. Put them in an arena (or your backyard, whatever you want) and watch. If you can't build a time machine... Well, then we'll never know who would win, will we?

Once in a while some one brings it up and it always starts as it ends, with BS and fantasy.

In my opinion there is only one place for this kind of fantasy: in your/my head. Not on the forum.

Life is weird enough as it is, no one needs to hear my freaky thoughts. Trust me

[Theorsell]

Can anyone comment on the lack of shields in japanese martial arts? It seems like other asian martial arts had them. Did they exist at any point in time? Seems like you could still use them with a polearm.

[bpejjssoe]

Can anyone comment on the lack of shields in japanese martial arts? It seems like other asian martial arts had them. Did they exist at any point in time? Seems like you could still use them with a polearm.

Ask and ye shall receive. In summary it appears smaller personal shields were used very early on in Japanese history but fell out of favor as riding from horseback and archery became the preference of the day.

[yQvpyNt3]

Can anyone comment on the lack of shields in japanese martial arts? It seems like other asian martial arts had them. Did they exist at any point in time? Seems like you could still use them with a polearm.

I think shields just don't fit in the mindset of the martial art, the samurai's way is attacking, not defending, there for, no shield should be needed, also I thought the goal was to try and end a fight with one strike so shields aren't really needed are they?

[VDAu5p33]

I'm going to have to go with the Samurai especially if the knight couldn't beat Pirate when they had Pirate vs Knight on Deadliest Warrior. A Pirate doesn't have armor nor the most reliable of firearms. The armor a knight wears might give them some protection but that is a lot of weight to be carrying compared to the samurai's armor. If the knight falls down most likely they won't be able to get up before the samurai finishes them. Most likely two the samurai would battle the knight with a spear before engaging in battle with a sword. Either way Game Over for the Knight

[Zhgpavye]

I think shields just don't fit in the mindset of the martial art, the samurai's way is attacking, not defending, there for, no shield should be needed, also I thought the goal was to try and end a fight with one strike so shields aren't really needed are they?

That's somewhat of a romanticized view of the samurai and possibly more indicative of how things were in the Edo period and onwards. If you go through the thread I referenced in my previous post, you'll find some info that says hand shields were used early on in Japanese history, prior to the creation of the samurai class, but fell out of favor as fighting tactics changed. Okinawan karate have some kata that use turtle shells as shields so there is some precedent of some use here and there.

[DumnEuronoumn]

Wun awound behind him and thwow him to the gwound centuwion..
then walk away and let him starve.

[Cogebrego]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA

[aparneioninny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA

see my first post

[kazinopartnerkae]

Whoever was the better fighter would win. If they were equally matched, the fight would go on forever, unless we allow for chance. In which case, whoever was luckiest would win.

[Breilopmil]

what type of knight are we talking about? on a horse? wearing plate mail?

[VFOVkZBj]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnKRjA

There's a lot that doesn't make sense about this video.

[beonecenry]

This is cut-and paste for the old discussion at e-budo or something, and of course it is only one study, but ...

From Budo Perspectives, ed. Alexander Bennett; Chapter 7 - Budo as a Concept: An analysis of budo's characteristics. Irie Kohei.

This work cites the following japanese publication (Suzuki Masaya, banana no kubitori: Sengoku kassen isetsu {Swords and head taking: Another view of Sengoku period battles}. Heibonsha, 2000.)

"According to Suzuki Masaya, in battles from the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries out of 554 examples, the percentage of casualties caused by arrows was 86%, sword cuts 8.3%, rocks 2.7%, spears and stab wounds 1.1%. From the mid-fifteenth to the mid-sixteenth centuries 1461 examples are analyzed with arrow wounds at 41.3%, guns 19.6%, spears and stab wounds 17.9%, rocks 10.3%, and 3% for swords."

J

[Rqqneujr]

Isn't that interesting?! The sword was either ineffective, for many reasons, or the bow was favoured as a weapon in battle. I wonder if they threw the rocks or battered each other with them?

[EnubreBense]

This is cut-and paste for the old discussion at e-budo or something, and of course it is only one study, but ...

From Budo Perspectives, ed. Alexander Bennett; Chapter 7 - Budo as a Concept: An analysis of budo's characteristics. Irie Kohei.

This work cites the following japanese publication (Suzuki Masaya, banana no kubitori: Sengoku kassen isetsu {Swords and head taking: Another view of Sengoku period battles}. Heibonsha, 2000.)

"According to Suzuki Masaya, in battles from the mid-fourteenth to the mid-fifteenth centuries out of 554 examples, the percentage of casualties caused by arrows was 86%, sword cuts 8.3%, rocks 2.7%, spears and stab wounds 1.1%. From the mid-fifteenth to the mid-sixteenth centuries 1461 examples are analyzed with arrow wounds at 41.3%, guns 19.6%, spears and stab wounds 17.9%, rocks 10.3%, and 3% for swords."

J

There is an in depth discussion on those statistics right here. I found it to be very interesting.