European Knight vs Asian Samurai

[Matt308]

The Long Bow was well known to be capable of penetrating plate armour. And Samurai typically trained extensively with his daikyu (great bow) which was up to 7 feet in length. In addition to the typical broadhead arrows, Samurai also made use of armour piercing narrow spike head arrows.

 

[Hunter368]

With the Knights limited vision, wearing armor......he would not even be able to keep the Samurai in front of him. Samurai does not need to penatrate his armor with his sword, there is many open spots in the front and rear of armor where Samurai would hit him.

Again the stamia of the Knight would quickly slow down his movements, don't believe me? When was the last time you actually fought a real person hand to hand......your stamia dies quickly (try swinging a sword around now while wearing armor not easy). Samurai would just defend himself for first few minutes using his sword and quick movement until Knight tired then Samurai finishes him off......like fish in a barrel.

 

[Hunter368]

What evidence do you have that plate armor was vulnerable? I think that the bow is moot, for the reason stated above... the fictitious account would have to be in context. Most European armies had separate ranks as archers, which is a different approach.

The arrows did have a hard time penetraing the chest plate (and only if it was of top quality), I agree. But not the rest of his armor or his horse.............

Arrow threw the leg, arm, thigh..... still = death.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

My vote goes for the Samurai. While the Knight is certainly not a pushover and are brave warriors in there own right. The Samurai was quicker and more mobile and in that I give him the advantage and the victory.

The both belong on there own battlefields.

This ofcourse is just one one one.

I think if you had 100 Knights in there armour on there horses versus 100 Samurai the Knights would come out victorious but one on one the Samurai takes it.

 

[mkloby]

The Long Bow was well known to be capable of penetrating plate armour. And Samurai typically trained extensively with his daikyu (great bow) which was up to 7 feet in length. In addition to the typical broadhead arrows, Samurai also made use of armour piercing narrow spike head arrows.

All evidence seems to say the opposite of the long bow. Greatly overestimated accounts of its armor penetration likely from agincourt.

 

[Smokey]

High ranking samurai fought on horseback too

http://www.steppenreiter.de/images/horse/samurai_speed_70.jpg

 

[mkloby]

how is the samurai to deal with the knight's lance??? he can easily be dismounted...

 

[Smokey]

There was the cavalry yari

 

[Glider]

how is the samurai to deal with the knight's lance??? he can easily be dismounted...

The Bow has a longer range than the Lance and its the knight who would be easily dismounted.

The secret of the Longows penetration was down to the quality of the steel in the armour, which differed hugely from person to person. The very best armour had a much better chance of deflecting the arrows, however Armour was very expensive and only the richest and wealthiest knights could afford the best.
The vast majority of knights were very open to death and injury from the longbow.

My son has a large book on the subject (540 pages) called The Great Warbow which I reccomend if anyone wants to go into this in greater detail.

 

[mkloby]

The Bow has a longer range than the Lance and its the knight who would be easily dismounted.

The secret of the Longows penetration was down to the quality of the steel in the armour, which differed hugely from person to person. The very best armour had a much better chance of deflecting the arrows, however Armour was very expensive and only the richest and wealthiest knights could afford the best.
The vast majority of knights were very open to death and injury from the longbow.

My son has a large book on the subject (540 pages) called The Great Warbow which I reccomend if anyone wants to go into this in greater detail.

Good post. I don't think the experiments I've heard of have taken that into account, now that you mention it. I will see about that. You're probably right in that they likely used very high quality armor, which may account for the longbow's extremely poor penetration.

This is a good thread. I guess in the sense of "one on one" the whole bow issue is legit. However, it exposes different approaches to warfare. The question of one on one is not indicative of actual combat effectiveness. Here's an interesting twist. What about Turcopoles - some Knights adapted to the mid eastern climate, and these Knights did carry bows, in addition to being more lightly armed and armored and carried similar loads.

 

[amrit]

Henry V or Seven Samurai? Samurai of course.

 

[Glider]

I will see about that. You're probably right in that they likely used very high quality armor, which may account for the longbow's extremely poor penetration.

Just hope he didn't turn around with a Follow Me kind of call when he was hit. An arrow in the back would finish anyone for sure.

 

[102first_hussars]

me and my friends always have this debate, and i always say,



that Shinobi aint got Sh*t on this guy

 

[Glider]

On that one he has. Early armour, little plate and mainly chain mail, little chance, if any.

 

[mkloby]

There was the cavalry yari

Hmmm - I don't believe that the yari would stand up to a heavy charge of European knights. Lighter cavalry were not the equal of heavily armed and amored knights on powerfully bred horses in a charge.

 

[Matt308]

Cool Pic Hussars!

 

[mkloby]

Just out of curiosity, what defense does this samurai have against a broadsword? Other than the alleged superior training. All he has is mobility.

 

[Hunter368]

All he has is mobility.

What defense did Ali have vs George Foreman greater strength?


Mobility


Thats all thats needed. You can't hurt what you can't hit.

Really mkloby have you ever fought hand to hand vs a real person ? I am just asking. Mobility is a huge part of winning a fight......a fighter that cannot move cannot not win.

You think a Samurai is going to stand there and go toe to toe with someone in armor heavier than his? no

He is going to stick and move before the knight can even react.

It looks like the majority of people agree that the Samurai would win.

 

[comiso90]

me and my friends always have this debate, and i always say,



that Shinobi aint got Sh*t on this guy

"It's just a flesh wound!"


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

 

[mkloby]

What defense did Ali have vs George Foreman greater strength?


Mobility


Thats all thats needed. You can't hurt what you can't hit.

Really mkloby have you ever fought hand to hand vs a real person ? I am just asking. Mobility is a huge part of winning a fight......a fighter that cannot move cannot not win.

You think a Samurai is going to stand there and go toe to toe with someone in armor heavier than his? no

He is going to stick and move before the knight can even react.

It looks like the majority of people agree that the Samurai would win.

Please don't get smart with me man. Actually, Mr Prizefighter, hand to hand - yes. I'm in the military, remember??? I usually go for a front or rear blood choke to end those though. I've fought guys bigger than me(which is most) and faster than me. I didn't necessarily lose when the guy was simply quicker than I was. USMC martial arts training is based upon being weighed down with gear, and not having much mobility. Now, that aside - with swords and armor - negative, I have no experience. Has anyone here, as a knight or samurai, engaged the opposite??? Stick and move - come on pal, sounds like someone watches too much sports center. This isn't two guys wearing glittery trunks and pretty gloves. With the evidence that soren brought up with the weight of Japanese swords - he ain't exactly running around naked with a Ka-Bar in his teeth. So this samurai will be able to avoid all blows, because his armor isn't sufficient, and his sword will not be able to absorb damage of the sort that a european sword could, so that is another strike. I don't buy the better trained argument, as the knighthoods were professional warriors as well. I don't believe that a samurai could withstand a heavy mounted knights' charge, even armed with a yari. There's a distinct difference between heavy and lighter cavalry. There's some credence to the bow, but let's say that since this samurai is the 2nd coming of Christ, this knight has high quality armor and the arrows are not too effective. The knight engages the samurai at close range, both are on horseback - how does this superhuman samurai defend against the Knights charge???