EPTwhat do you guys think?
Samurai vs Medieval knights
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
taRo_leE
Canada102 Posts
what do you guys think? | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On a related/unrelated note; there's records of portugese swordmens engaging in duels with japanese samurais, and the results were mostly death for the portugese but with a kicker, later the samurai would die from bleeding to death (samurai weaponry killed faster, portugese weaponry made lots of wounds to die from!). | ||
|
AutumnLight
Ukraine2488 Posts
| ||
|
Krzych
Poland693 Posts
| ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
Samurai > Knights 1v1 | ||
|
taRo_leE
Canada102 Posts
| ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
On February 15 2004 13:52 ScRooLooSe wrote: It all depens on the weaponry used by both sides.kitanas,naginatas used by the samurai vs knives,swords..? used by the portugese *katana | ||
|
taRo_leE
Canada102 Posts
| ||
|
Levu
Germany675 Posts
they are far more flexible and agile medievil armor and weapons were heavy and difficult to use | ||
|
Hautamaki
Canada1311 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
I imagine a long broad sword would be difficult to approach with the shorter katanas It would probably be impossible to parry with the katana because of the weight difference. | ||
|
Villaret
Albania222 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Hautamaki
Canada1311 Posts
Superiour in that the Samurai's armour was not only lighter and easier to maneuver in, but also more effective in absorbing damage. And also, like I said, the Samurai's had no compunction about using arrows. | ||
Manifesto7
Osaka27128 Posts
O the other hand, my girlfriends father (who is Japanese) owns 2 katana (300 and 400 years old), and has studied sword fighting for 25 years. I have held and fired guns before, but nothing has felt more powerful than holding that sword. It is like I held death in my hands. I would say that the samurai would win every time, just because he is so much more mobile, and his sword is based on far more skill than the great swords of old. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
SweeTLemonS[TPR]
11739 Posts
On February 15 2004 14:56 Servolisk wrote: Did anyone test this katana vs broadsword clashing? I find it hard to believe because who would bother...? Unless the broadsword was of real low quality I don't see a heavier and thicker weapon being broken by a lighter one. I think it would be the other way around, unless katanas could cut through thick metal. Does a big rock break a small rock? In a large scale battle I think a knight would win. In smaller groups the Samurai's would. You have to hit something to hurt it, right? | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Hautamaki
Canada1311 Posts
Believe me when I say there are people with no lives that love to sit around figuring out who would win in a fight between a samurai and a knight, and they figured it would be a samurai. | ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27128 Posts
On February 15 2004 14:58 Servolisk wrote: The remakes of these swords are 4-6 lbs Manifesto. Maybe there is a large variety and ones heavier though. Yes, but what I am talking about is comparing the swords of each culture as they were made at that time. The poster above me said it perfectly when he explained about the folding process. It is also interesting about how the katanas were sharpened, sometimes it took weeks to perfectly sharpen one of them, and there was an interesting special about it on discovery channel last weekend. Gogo Sunday Showcase, its the best show on tv  | ||
|
taRo_leE
Canada102 Posts
| ||
|
Commander{+}
United States2878 Posts
| ||
Mynock
4492 Posts
-Mynock | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Levu
Germany675 Posts
some history students should make an experiment out of this: several european students with the correct armour+sword vs. several japanese students with correct armour+katana they need to get trained with their equipement first, but it would certainly be entertaining as hell | ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
| ||
|
ZyPhReX
1192 Posts
| ||
|
Manifesto7
Osaka27128 Posts
On February 15 2004 16:15 Levu wrote: thx mynock for the link some history students should make an experiment out of this: several european students with the correct armour+sword vs. several japanese students with correct armour+katana they need to get trained with their equipement first, but it would certainly be entertaining as hell I see a visit to Midievil Times coming soon. | ||
|
LT)Bishop
47 Posts
| ||
|
Roman
United States2595 Posts
| ||
|
FHM
United States185 Posts
European Nations and Asian Nations have both good qualities.. Umm, I think the Asian Nations had good weapons like the katana and the invention of the cannon... not really a cannon but the materials to make one (gunpowder). But I think the 2 nations were both evenly matched.. In history terms, Asian Nations mastered the art of guerilla war fare but European had heavy weapons and calvary. In Simple terms Samurai - Light fast smooth effective Knights - Heavy slow but very very strong. (Seeing as how most knights in history were strong, it dosent matter that the swords were heavy since the knights could hurl tham 202312 yards anyways) Also, I have held these swords from museums to shops, so I sorta know.. I may be wrong since I didn't completely study these, but this is what I think. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
On February 15 2004 16:48 ZyPhReX wrote: Samurais > Knights by a land slide What did you base that on, Kill Bill? | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On February 15 2004 15:08 Hautamaki wrote: Believe me when I say there are people with no lives that love to sit around figuring out who would win in a fight between a samurai and a knight, Isn't that what we are doing right now? | ||
|
FHM
United States185 Posts
| ||
|
taeWook
United States1367 Posts
GG Cowboys vs Indians? hahaha Ninja's > all | ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
Waxangel
United States33130 Posts
| ||
|
Eniram
Sudan3166 Posts
| ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
| ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
| ||
|
wtfman
Macedonia15 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Spy
Netherlands1301 Posts
On February 15 2004 16:15 Levu wrote: thx mynock for the link some history students should make an experiment out of this: several european students with the correct armour+sword vs. several japanese students with correct armour+katana they need to get trained with their equipement first, but it would certainly be entertaining as hell What about a tv programme where one group of volunteers is trained as samurai and the other as knights. In the end they all get to fight eachother to the death and whoever remain get a million dollars and can keep his cool knight or samurai gear. Would be a lot more entertaining than Idols or Big Brother. | ||
|
SpuniasauR
Australia1500 Posts
but nothing like a person trained in kendo all their life. my friend does kendo and we tried fighting... 1v1 he owned my ass everytime (literally he dodged everything, feinted a hit at my head then poked me in the ass ^^ dirty mofo) edit: dont tell me a samurai dont do kendo. im just trying to compare to a similar martialarts form. | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
ZorAptoR
Switzerland926 Posts
 also a 180cm tall drunken german knight would rape about anybody, or remember those scotsmen and vikings they were real good fighters... but after all i would say a roman soldier would have owned them all, they had the farthest develloped close combat tradition ever... | ||
|
ForgoTTeN-SupeR
United States786 Posts
On February 15 2004 20:42 XaI)CyRiC wrote: This thread is starting to look like the grudge matches they have on Gamespy.com hahah | ||
|
NotSorry
United States6722 Posts
I personally say that it would come down to an individual set. Some knights might be better trained than some Samuria and the other way. Mushashi vs any Knight - Easy win for Mushashi(yes he was real and not just some fictional badass in a movie.) | ||
|
RuGbUg
United States2347 Posts
On February 15 2004 14:49 Villaret wrote: what about elephant versus rihnoceros? an elephant can kill a lion in one swing of its trunk, i imagine this would be a quick fight as well | ||
|
Adamthegreat
Sweden1179 Posts
| ||
|
RuGbUg
United States2347 Posts
neither fight would be fair | ||
|
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
| ||
|
taRo_leE
Canada102 Posts
| ||
|
JaeIsGod
Netherlands199 Posts
On February 16 2004 09:52 NotSorry wrote: Lets see here...We will use the Mongols as an example, some of the baddest motherfuckers in history. When they tried invading Japan, they got "knocked the fuck out". When the Han, (very close in style to the Mongols) tried the Roman empire. The Han set the Roman world on fire. So in facing nearly the same style of enemy the Samurai came out over top in a crashing victory, where as the Roman's ran for there lives. Yes this doesn't answer who would win Samurai or a Knight, but does give a little insight on what happens when you get attacked by Barbarians. I personally say that it would come down to an individual set. Some knights might be better trained than some Samuria and the other way. Mushashi vs any Knight - Easy win for Mushashi(yes he was real and not just some fictional badass in a movie.) Actually, you are wrong here. The Japanese did not beat the fuck out of the Mongols. If I remember correctly, the Japanese were having trouble with the Mongolian style of war at first. Later, they figured it out a bit and it became and even battle. Then a storm destroyed the Mongol fleet, fucking up their reinforcements and they went to beat up someone else. | ||
|
taeWook
United States1367 Posts
| ||
|
kornu
40 Posts
i'm really curious what people would commnet on a fight between old shatterhand and a grizzly bear. "but he has an instant 'knock out big bears' suckerpunch PLUS he can see in the dark better than other people and has high alcohol resistance" i'm tempted to say that the samurai would be the clear winner (they just seems cooler. plus i liked yoshimitsu a lot), then again vigo mortensen did show some mad swording skills. | ||
|
PuertoRican
United States5709 Posts
| ||
|
LetMeBeWithYou
Canada4254 Posts
On September 06 2005 16:37 kornu wrote: that's precisely the reason why armor-clad cavalry charges went out of fashion so fast, they never worked well against clumped footsoldiers. or panzers. i'm really curious what people would commnet on a fight between old shatterhand and a grizzly bear. "but he has an instant 'knock out big bears' suckerpunch PLUS he can see in the dark better than other people and has high alcohol resistance" i'm tempted to say that the samurai would be the clear winner (they just seems cooler. plus i liked yoshimitsu a lot), then again vigo mortensen did show some mad swording skills. What the fuck you bumped a year old thread. I always ask this question but NEVER get an answer. HOW DO YOU FIND THESE THREADS?! | ||
|
Abang_Zealot
Indonesia866 Posts
But the Ninjas got knocked around so bad in that movie. I would imagine a Western knight would have an advantage in brute force being bigger than Asians and all. However I don't know how much 'skills' the samurais have to compensate for it. Samurai weapons are better though =O The Japanese were much more skillful at tampering metal than the Europeans were. I remembered reading about that somewhere, might have to dig around a bit.... >< | ||
|
whatever
Mexico693 Posts
| ||
|
useLess
United States4781 Posts
And damn, just wandering into this topic, Im reminded of that massive horse-slaying sword from Kenshin. | ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
figure that one out, and we have our answer  | ||
|
Methix
Canada187 Posts
| ||
|
joyeaux
United States169 Posts
2) an entire katana fight is over in less time than it takes a knight to swing a sword. a samurai with his sword undrawn could have it out of the scabbard and through a knight's head faster than a knight could swing his sword if it was already drawn. 3) have you ever seen footwork of someone that trains in katana use? they can evade katana strikes. what chance would a broadsword have? if a knight swung a broadsword at a samurai and missed, he would not get another try. 4) samurai were using some other sword similar to a katana at the time when europe had knights. i believe that by the time japan had katanas, europeans were using foils and rapiers (think "three musketeers"). a much more interesting question is who would win a fight between a fencer and a samurai. think about it: the two styles emphasize speed over everything, but with completely different approaches; one with stabbing and no slashing, the other with slashing and no stabbing. of course, with the fencer probably having better reach, but the samurai with the stopping power, it think it would all come down the footwork (and if the fencer didn't happen to have a musket on him). | ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
LetMeBeWithYou
Canada4254 Posts
anyways as for the japanese sword being better. I call fucking bull. Katana can't cut though shit Movie ///= reality =[ | ||
|
Cloud
Sexico5880 Posts
| ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
A medieval sword wasn't that heavy, usually around 1.5kg, and a two-handed sword was only like 3.5kg at 175cm, but they were semi-polearm weapons built like a sword, and apparently specialist weapons, like anti-pikewarfare. Their armor were designed to withstand different things, but all in all the western armor was better than samurai, both in terms of deflection and piercing resistance I would say. A katana would have a very hard time penetrating such an armor. The downside is of course that is was heavier. I'd put my money on the knight methinks. Oh, and about warfare training and martial arts. You don't think all soldiers train? Also, the schools differ, since they were facing different scenarios, but here I actually think the samurai would be at a disadvantage, just because on the heavy emphasis on certain patterns and forms, which perhaps wouldn't work as well in this type of combat. Brawling was probably more common than fencing anyways... Oh well. But that's just speculation. Here's something someone posted in a RPG forum with these kind of silly discussions to educate people on some of the medieval myths: http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html http://www.thearma.org/medsword2.htm etc... Skimmed it myself and learned something... | ||
|
SnZ
Australia122 Posts
BTW, blackpowder was discovered by the Chinese, but it was crude and used for fireworks and flare type rockets. The Europeans discovered blackpowder later on, they did not "steal" the idea of blackpowder, but they were indeed the first to use it in combat. I think if a Knight and Samurai did meet, they'd enjoy a cup of tea and possibly some sake. All you need is love... edit: iarenoob may be correct, it's all speculation (the discovery of gunpowder and it's spread across the world) | ||
|
Capt. Moroni
United States533 Posts
In groups- The knights would approach the samurai, wait until the right moment, then charge. | ||
|
I_are_n00b
196 Posts
| ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
But http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/466.html Katana vs Machine Gun, now that is one badass sword. | ||
|
decafchicken
United States19967 Posts
| ||
|
Chris307
3095 Posts
| ||
|
LetMeBeWithYou
Canada4254 Posts
Wow I want a katana and test if it can even cut though stuff, like plastic or swiss cheese. Anyways don't call me weak when I fail One hit from the Knight it's K.O. billion of hits from a samurai only like leave scar on the armor | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
On September 06 2005 19:10 Chris307 wrote: I think I heard from a source that seemed halfway reliable that the general concensus on this match-up is... the medieval knight would die first, but the samurai would later die of his wounds. I actually doubt it, but I'm not a reliable source so... My general impression is just that the nkight would have a huge advantage due to armor, even though his sword is somewhat slower. I mean, it's still just 1.5 kg vs 0.9-1kg right? In a fight with low clean or critical hit potential, it would end up more of a brawling match, which is the style the knight trained for. I'd still put my money on the knight. Also, the best sword to choose if you were to fight unarmored then? I think it would be the rapier... | ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.swordsandarmor.com/images/AR008_Torso.JPG) ![[image loading]](http://home.mtholyoke.edu/~lbmelton/fun/dressup/samurai.jpg) | ||
|
SnZ
Australia122 Posts
, they must be made from some new-age alloy eh? | ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
Aliens put them there... along with dinosaur bones. Probably the same ones who dub up this thread... | ||
|
Chris307
3095 Posts
The samurai would have plenty of time to find a weak point in the knight's armor (like the grill of his helmet) and just stab. | ||
|
gg_hertzz
2152 Posts
have you ever seen a knight in full armor try to fight with a sword? No. They always had the armour off to fight. The only times were if they were jousting. Anyway, sans armour, the samurai is the victor. | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
Luhh
Sweden2974 Posts
gg_hertz. No, I haven't seen a knigh in full armor try and fight with a sword, because they would probably all be dead by now, or at least 300 years old. So you think they made armor not to be used in warfare? The joisting armor was similar but of course heavier and thicker to reduce the risk of injury, and to be able to withstand the impact of the splinter lance.The type used for warfare was not that heavy, and also the weight is spread across your body, not just your shoulders. They weren't as simple as we'd have them believe today actually. For instance, how many of you would have guessed that the broadsword weighed like 5kg or more if I hadn't said 1.5kg? Edit: Though I agree that the samurai would be the victor without armor. Pretty much a no-brainer. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
This kind of thread should be posted at http://www.electricferret.com/battle | ||
|
T______T
United States538 Posts
| ||
|
FuDDx
United States5007 Posts
On September 06 2005 20:24 MoltkeWarding wrote: I hope you realize that Knights were largely associated with the Aristocracy and not every European soldier in the middle ages was a mounted horseman. If you give Japan archers can we give Europeans English longbowmen? This kind of thread should be posted at http://www.electricferret.com/battle actually samuri were monted archers they did not like to be in close and most of the ppl samuri had to deal with were raiders not heavy armored knights the swords favored by samuri were slashing weapons that did the most damage to light or no armored individuals and there archers also would have a hard time penetrating heavy armor . at least thats the stand point of my japanese history teacher at u of a says ^_^ also with few exeptions there were few samuri who actually knew how to use the swoed agian the reason for the type they use most damge for least skill. agian acoording to jap his teacher.also because of the politics of japan the samuri were usually monted and kept ion other parts of japan than there homeland to help keep familys of trying to gain or create there own monoploys i should bring out my notes for this class damn my memory class over knowledge out T_T | ||
|
Camila_br
Brazil529 Posts
| ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
Zeto
United States2290 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm | ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
I disagree. Pirates wouldn't even be able to see the ninjas! | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
| ||
|
Keanu_Reaver
Djibouti1432 Posts
| ||
|
fearus
China2164 Posts
On September 06 2005 19:07 decafchicken wrote: Holy shit that sword took 7 bullets before it broke. Exactly and that was a mounted machine gun shooting in the same place. Hence it is quiet possible to parry hang gun shots with the side of a katana like a jedi. damn..... | ||
|
jjun212
Canada2208 Posts
Looking back at times of the Crusades, when the Mongolian hoard clashed with the Christian knights, the arrows from the Mongolians easily pierced through the Crusaders "heavy" armour and the only thing that would save them would be chain mail Whereas, the Crusaders arrows would do barely any damage against the Mongolian hoard and guess what they had they opposite of heavy armour, they had silk robes.. The thing is, arrows rotate and when hitting a Mongolian foot soldier the silk would slow down the force and rotation of the arrow enough that the solider would simply just have to pull it out with no serious damage to him. But for a knight, he would be hot as hell in that armour, slow and the arrow would be stuck. | ||
|
Travin
Sweden672 Posts
monday tuesday wednessday thrusday friday saturday and on sunday Thats right, he would win any day of the week | ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
On September 07 2005 03:41 jjun212 wrote: Knights armour mainly did nothing.. really Looking back at times of the Crusades, when the Mongolian hoard clashed with the Christian knights, the arrows from the Mongolians easily pierced through the Crusaders "heavy" armour and the only thing that would save them would be chain mail Whereas, the Crusaders arrows would do barely any damage against the Mongolian hoard and guess what they had they opposite of heavy armour, they had silk robes.. The thing is, arrows rotate and when hitting a Mongolian foot soldier the silk would slow down the force and rotation of the arrow enough that the solider would simply just have to pull it out with no serious damage to him. But for a knight, he would be hot as hell in that armour, slow and the arrow would be stuck. what the hell are you talking about? mongolian troops did not wear silks. and crusader was way after the time of mongolian invasion of europe. | ||
| ||
