I dont know if i spelled medieval correctly but whatever..i was just wondering what everyone thinks about this matchup. I'm pretty sure samurai would win in terms of sword technique but the knights have really powerful armours to defend against weopans like those spike balls or whatever. Even though these 2 groups never met or maybe they did, i think it would still be a good fight.

what do you guys think?

Liquid`Jinro

Sweden33719 Posts

February 15 2004 04:45 GMT

Well -_- Medival knights had pretty heave gear :O

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

February 15 2004 04:52 GMT

It all depens on the weaponry used by both sides.kitanas,naginatas used by the samurai vs knives,swords..? used by the portugese

Krzych

Poland693 Posts

February 15 2004 04:58 GMT

any samurai fighting a knight like monty python's black knight is doomed. black knight is invincible! he can fight with both hands cut off, has no respect to kings, is capable of biting adversory's legs off. perfect warrior.

Eniram

Sudan3166 Posts

February 15 2004 05:00 GMT

Knights > Samurai in battles

Samurai > Knights 1v1

taRo_leE

Canada102 Posts

February 15 2004 05:02 GMT

I'm just talking about sword vs sword for both matchups, i'm not talking about portugese either.

Eniram

Sudan3166 Posts

February 15 2004 05:03 GMT

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

February 15 2004 05:03 GMT

But i do think samurai would own because of their sword techniques. I think samurai battles only last like 15 seconds with either person making the wrong move that can be fatal.

Levu

Germany675 Posts

February 15 2004 05:10 GMT

in 1on1 samurai would probably have the advantage
they are far more flexible and agile
medievil armor and weapons were heavy and difficult to use

Hautamaki

Canada1311 Posts

February 15 2004 05:40 GMT

#10

most military historians agree the samurais equipment was superiour in every way. In a war situation though I can't help but think that a mounted charge with 15 ft lances would kick some samurai ass, but samurais were also effective mounted archers and disciplined warriors, so I doubt they would ever let that happen.

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

February 15 2004 05:46 GMT

#11

Superior in every way? Who are these military historians?

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

February 15 2004 05:49 GMT

#12

what about elephant versus rihnoceros?

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

February 15 2004 05:51 GMT

#13

I'd go with the rhino

Hautamaki

Canada1311 Posts

February 15 2004 05:51 GMT

#14

Servolisk, superiour in the way that if a katana and broadsword clashed, the broadsword would break.

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

February 15 2004 05:52 GMT

#15

I actually have had the benifit of holding both a katana, and a broad sword. The traditional knights sword is heavier than you can imagine. Their actual fighting technique was gaining momentum by swing the sword around, and hoping that he scores a knockout blow. What you see in the movies is physically impossible with one of those large knoghts swords, because they are far to heavy to control like that. When I was visiting my family in Bolton (England) one year, we went to a castle, and they had one of those swords on display. It must have been 50 lbs or more.

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

February 15 2004 05:56 GMT

#16

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.

Servolisk

United States5241 Posts

February 15 2004 05:58 GMT

#17

The remakes of these swords are 4-6 lbs Manifesto. Maybe there is a large variety and ones heavier though.

SweeTLemonS[TPR]

11739 Posts

February 15 2004 06:01 GMT

#18

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

February 15 2004 06:03 GMT

#19

Brittle rocks do not make a good comparison.

Hautamaki

Canada1311 Posts

February 15 2004 06:08 GMT

#20

yes, Katanas are forged way better than the old broadswords were. Europeans did not know about the technique of 'folding' metal, which makes the sword way more structurally sound and allows it to hold a way sharper edge. Old european swords were like long metal clubs compared to a Samurai sword. A properly forged samurai sword would take like 10 times as long to make, but in the end they were way better made. You can't compare it with stuff that is made today because you can really make any sword with any technique. You could make a folded claymore or great sword just as easily as a Katana. But back in the day, european swords were made by pooring metal into a mold and then hammering it down a bit and sharpening it. Katana's were made by folding the metal and retempering sometimes a dozen times.

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.