Who would win: Samurai or Knight?

Post Reply New Topic

History Channel has warriors and they showed knight and samurai separately. They showed the samurai who wrote book of 5 rings, and English Army knights of King Henry V v.s French Army.

Knight: platemail, two handed sword, Samurai sword and armor, trained to use sword (many were archers)

Who do you think would more likely prevail on a regular basis (everyone gets lucky)

I think the Samurai would win. The single blade is actually sharp and tempered, and gives him an edge of the double edged blade.

In a one on one battle, samurai would win, hands down.

But... in group battle, the knights would win. Samurai fight with honour, and that's not something the Europeans have quite gotten a hold of. But, sneaky tactics and being one step ahead of your enemy can usually kick someone's butt, if for nothing more than the surprise factor

That's a better match-up than what spike tv's "deadliest warrior" has been having on.

It's a close one. The samauri & knight were basically the same thing, just in different parts of the world. I'd give it to the samauri though. Only someone of noble blood could be a knight, while being a samauri was based on skill alone. I think the Japanese got more of the cream of the crop on that one. Also, samauri were at their height a few hundred years after the knight was, so a couple extra centuries of weapon technology would have given them an edge too.

Nighthood was bought. Being a samuri was a complete life style.

As for being sneaky the Samuri were very sneak and thought long ahead - this is howcome the mongels never got Japan.

Keep in mind that the metal smithing of japanese sword maker was 1000 years more advanced then the europeans (at any stage)

European knights fought for money/land/title/bithes, samurai fought for honor and this above all else is why a samurai woudl prevail

Sneaky, yes. But they did it with honour.

It would be awesome to have seen these two groups meet... now you've got me all bitten.

Chuck Norris

I'd say the knights would win like the Teutonic knights. The Samurai sword doesn't look very well balanced for thrusting which was the only way to penetrate the knights' armour (through the small gaps between the armour attachments). It looks like it's designed for cutting flesh. The English longbowmen would've mowed them down. I think the Mongols beat the Samurai? Weren't only small numbers of knights sent in armies to fight the Mongols?

why "hands down"?

cus youve seen:
highly trained artists act as samurais in movies
vs
your ordinary douche act as a knight in movies.

the templar knights of medieval europe wasnt a buncha stumbeling idiots. they decapitated half of the middle east singlehandedly, they were WARRIOR MONKS.

people NEED to stop assuming that asians are better at fighting JUST cus they got slinted eyes or whatever.
european medieval swordsmanship is simply not represented in popular media. asian swordsmanship is.

so, MAYBE the samurai would win, but it would not be "hands down".
not against a knight.

Sounds interesting. . . a difficult decission. . . my vote is for Samurais (obviously)

The Samurai will defeat the Knight. But as the Samurai is on his way home, the Viking will board his ship, kill him, and steal all the loot the Samurai got from the Knight.

I'm with ZEGH8578 on this. Attacking a suit of plate armour with a samurai sword would probably do more damage to the sword. Also, you need to keep in mind how diverse the weaponry would be at this point. Swords would be much more designed for thrusting with all the armour about. A sword relying on the edge of its blade would only really be useful for the lesser armoured targets. You'd probably need to use both hands to grip the sword and give it enough strength behind the thrust to pierce the weaker parts of armour.

Polearms were in use at this point, too. These would be ideal for driving a point through or crushing armour. You need to forget about the image of knights in armour being lumbering sloths, that couldn't get up if they fell down. The weight of plate would be distributed across the body, and a knight would be quite mobile.

Knights and men-at-arms weren't just guys who thought 'I'm going to buy me a sword and go to war.' They'd be trained from a young age. They were professional soldiers and not cavemen who wanted to smash things. Aspects of Medieval life might seem laughable today, but that doesn't mean they were a bunch of thickos.

But, regardless of who would win, it's not fair to compare them. Their weapons developed out of different ways of fighting and different foes. These sorts of match ups might seem cool and stuff, but they never really seem to be logical or realistic.

the samurai we're taught the way of the sword and bow, from a very young age, so they would absolutely murder a knight, regardless of armour quality.

I do have to agree. Movies & pop culture have exalted the samauri's reputation to that of mythical proportions. In reality, they were just guys with weapons & armor like medieval knights were. Both very well trained since childhood.

I'd still have to give the edge to the samauri for superior weapon technology though.

But the knights have superior armor technology which is probably a greater advantage in sword duels. Plate Armour protects very well from sword blows. Knights often held tournaments were they also fought one another on foot with swords in mêlée (this is actually where the term comes from). Despite using actual sharp weapons, death was rare and often accidental, because it is almost impossible to seriously harm someone in gothic armor with a sword. And these tournaments were almost as dangerous as real combat. The casualties in knight battles were often surprisingly low.
I don't know whether it is even possible to cut through plate using a katana. Here is a high res image of medieval plate armor. It is not easy to find a weak spot. You can also see that european long swords were considerably longer than your typical katana.

Go back in time, kidnap a Samurai and a knight, then go back in time to Rome, and throw them in a gladiator ring, fight to the death.

This video has a stylistic recreation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucc78Ug4Pn0


The History Channel Warriors featured a recreation of Miyamoto Musashi VS Sasaki Kojiro.



# Episode 6 - Samurai Showdown
Submit News Submit News Write A Review Write a Review Start a Discussion Start a Discussion

*

9 April, 2009

A recollection of a famous sword battle between Miyamoto Musashi and Sasaki Kojiro in 1612.

Episode 7 - The Last Crusaders
Submit News Submit News Write A Review Write a Review Start a Discussion Start a Discussion

*

16 April, 2009

The Knights of St. John defend Malta from attacking Ottoman Turks in one of history's greatest sieges and the last battle of the Crusades in 1565.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWCh1fWh ... xt_from=PL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWCh1fWh ... 0&index=21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYvwEnK ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouycplM5 ... re=related