I too vote for the European warrior monks. The knight was a highly trained fanatic who was armed to the teeth and very physically fit. During the crusades the knights would fight some of the best light cavalry in the world who had accurate bows and light fast lances and scimitars. The knights would wade right through them outnumbered heavily and killing them in droves. Even the King of England, "The Lionheart", fought in the front of his men and he was very formidable. Salahadin admired his and his knights martial prowess.
European Knight vs Asian Samurai
- Thread starter Soren
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
dragonandhistail
Airman
European Knight hands down. Probably bigger and stronger which equates to faster. Samurai swords were slashers on the draw and weaker blades.
20mikemike
Airman
- 10
- Feb 11, 2009
I'd say the knight. Despite myths, and this was posted way earlier, well-made European armor was really the finest protection in the world and by the arrival of the cap-a-pied plate suit or harnisch, worked both defensively and offensively. Even if disarmed, the knight knew how to fight, and had a steel fist, elbow, knee, and head to strike with and deflect. By the 1400's it was very difficult to penetrate with the long bow, recent tests showing perferation only at 30 feet, and if we're talking a 16th century knight, his armor may be bullet-proofed, extraordinarily difficult to penetrate, but not all that heavy, as it was mostly the hardening and forging procedures that made the armor tougher. It wasn't until towards the 17th century that armor had to get thicker and heavier to stop bullets. The 15th-16th century harnisch averages 45-65 pounds, but that weight is distributed, and moves with the body, rather than against it, and only restrains it at the very maximum points of mobility.
The combination of his life-long training with many types of quick, deadly arms, but also unarmed and unarmored combat, as well as his assortment of weapons, physical charactersitics and to top it off the offensive and defensive capacity of his armor (espicially post-1350), I'd hand it to the knight.
The combination of his life-long training with many types of quick, deadly arms, but also unarmed and unarmored combat, as well as his assortment of weapons, physical charactersitics and to top it off the offensive and defensive capacity of his armor (espicially post-1350), I'd hand it to the knight.
Arsenal VG-33
Senior Airman
It's been recorded over and over of battles during the medieval ages: the lowliest of pikemen made quick work of dismounted knights. If it's a contest of only armor and sword, then the Samurai wins with his ease of manuverability.
20mikemike
Airman
- 10
- Feb 11, 2009
Well, if that's you vote, but actually, just the opposite has been recorded over and over in history: mounted knights were vulnerable to pike squares, dismounted knights tore the pikemen to shreds; read Machiavelli's Art of War or any account of pikes meeting armor from a primary source. The pikemen always lost unless they massively outnumbered the knights.
The main reason was that without the knights charging them on horseback, the pike didn't have enough force to overcome the armor, once the knights passed the tips, the pikes were useless, and they were so well protected by their armor that the pikemen simply could not cause sufficient casualties, while the knights floored the pikemen...or as Machiavelli put it "what a carnage! What a number of wounded men!"
EDIT: Also, an armored knight is no less mobile than an armored Samurai. Aside from a continuously misconstrued image of a bumbling idiot in armor, there is no evidence of knights being immobile. Why the heck would they even don the armor if it was a disadvantage? Reading Talhoffer, Ringeck, Dobrigner or any other fight master who covered armored techniques, we see that a man in the articulated harnisch was very mobile and maneuverable, able to fight armed or unarmed with ease in his armor.
Arsenal VG-33
Senior Airman
My vote was based on what I've read on the Battles of Agincourt and Crecy, during which the English archers fell the horses from underneath the French knights, who were then rendered immobile under the weight of their armor. The pikemen would then kill them at their leisure. The danger to the knight was that as swords became heavier, their armor would correspondingly become thicker for better protection, but also much more heavy. There were plenty of cases where knights were simply knocked to the ground and killed afterwards since they were unable to move. Of course, the arrows of the longbow and later the cannon/musket balls practically rendered all personal armor of the knight as useless.
20mikemike
Airman
- 10
- Feb 11, 2009
And who wrote the account, a historian, tactician, combatant? Considering that we still have armor from the times of the Battle of Crecy, we know that it did not weigh nearly enough to debilitate a man; most examples spanning from the 14th to mid-16th century only weigh between 45-65 pounds. If the French knights couldn't get back up it was because of the fall from the horse, being pinned by the animal or being trampled by their own men as they tried to advance, not because of weight. If anything, an author mentioning weight of armor was a slight at the enemy, calling them cowards "they are so afraid of death that they wear armor that weighs 200 pounds!" For that matter even without the surviving armor we can look at, feel and even wear, simple logic argues: "if it was that much a disadvantage, why would anyone wear it?"
Swords really didn't become much heavier, nor armor thicker: the typical Bastard weighing in at 2-4 pounds, the true two-hander at 3-7. Armor, from 1350-1550, became tougher from improvements in the forging techniques and the addition of carbon to the iron, making steel. It was not until after the 1550's with improvements to gun firing mechanisms that armor actually had to get thicker; but its weight was still around 65-75 pounds.
There are no cases I have ever heard of of a knight unable to get up due to the weight of his armor. The weight is distributed and works with the body, not against it. As for arrows, by the 1400's, the effective kill range of a longbow as about 10m or ~30 feet, and by the late 1400's-mid 1500's armor had the edge; it could deflect the harquebus at close range, pistols and crossbows at point blank. After the introduction of the musket, yes, armor was becoming thicker (as mentioned above) but it was still in use in some way, shape or form until around 1700.
It's a tougher call than it seems. Both are professional soliders. Both know their weaknesses and strengths.
In a fight, on flat dry land, on foot, my vote would be to the guy who had the following advantages:
1. Best Training and Experience
2. Best Stamina
3. Most knowledge of his apponent.
I guess the same would hold true for any dogfight as well!
In a fight, on flat dry land, on foot, my vote would be to the guy who had the following advantages:
1. Best Training and Experience
2. Best Stamina
3. Most knowledge of his apponent.
I guess the same would hold true for any dogfight as well!
20mikemike
Airman
- 10
- Feb 11, 2009
THAT is truly the best answer!
parsifal
Colonel
havent read al the posts here, but thought I might put my knowledge up for consideration
The Samurai was the most highly trained professional soldier of his time, and was principally a mounted archer, wearing light armour, that was also extremely strong. The Japanese have a word to describe the method of Samurai warfare, in open battle. It is called Yabusame, or "the way of the horse and bow" The samurai was perhaps the best mounted archer in the world, equipped with a formidable composite recurved bow fully equivalent in power to the English longbow, but much smaller. other nationalities, principally the saracens and mongols used similar techniques, but none of them were able to produce bows of such compactness and accuracy. Moreover, the samurai, being a professional soldier that did nothing else other than train for war continuously, became extremely accurate at shooting man sized targets whilst at the full gallop. I know this because it is still a military art performed cermoniously today in Japan, at two places that I know of, in Kamakura, and the Toshugo Shrine at Nikko. A samurai bow in the hands of a fully trained warrior is said to be able to bring down a fully armoured man at
more than 100 metres.
Samurai armour did not protect the bow arm, so as to maximise the firing accuracy. Samurai did not use shields, and seldom the lance (these were carried into battle by the Yari Spearmen, which are different to the samurai warrior
Japanese metallurgy was unique in its heat treatment of its blades, which made them uniquely strong whilst also retaining the blade edge. Whereas in western europe, the ideas of hardening and tempering were not fully understood until the late 14th century, and therefore blades tended to be either over-hard, and brittle, the japanese from at least the fifth century had perfected a unque way of overcoming this. The blade edge of the sword was super hardened steel, exceptionally hard. Grafted onto the back of that was near spring steel, in order to give the blade the ability to absorb shock. Though not as good as a Damascus blade, it was better than anything coming out of Europe until the late 1300's. The result was that until that time the Japanese swords could be produced much lighter and more reliable than the European blades, which at the time had to be heavier and even then, less reliable.
The problem with relying on the european museum pieces that you guys are looking at is that in nearly every case, they arent even battle pieces, they are cermonial armour pieces that never were used in battle. they are light for that reason.....they never were intended for open battle. "Real armour", that used in battle was extremely heavy....Henry VIIIs battle armour weighed over 120 lbs, and he had to be bolted into the saddle, because he was unable to move otherwise. He had to be carried to the horse by his attendants. This is admittedly an extreme example, but I can assure you that proper battle armour does not weigh 40-45 lbs.
Similarly bastard swords are not the swords used by knights in battle. they are essentially the "handguns" of the middle ages, small light weapons used for personal defence when on the road. In Battle against a heavily armoured knight you needed mass, a two handed battle sword was the usual weapon of choice, if dismounted...if mounted it was a a single handed long sword, about 5 feet long, and still weighing about 20 lbs, because of the limits on metellurgy at the time (if mounted, the knight would usually also carry a smallish shield, and guide his horse either with his knees, or using his shield arm).... and the idea was as much to bludgeon the opponent as to cut him. I have handled one of these swords, and have seen replicas faithfully based on the "original" design. I can assure you they dont weigh 2-4 lbs....try 20-40 lbs and you are getting closer to what was carried into battle
The Europran knight was so heavily armed and armoured, that he had to have a draft horse (romantically referred to as a "war horse") to ride into battle. More lightly equipped support troops, called hobilars in French (literally "Hobby Horse") were much more lightly armed and armoured, and were there to protect the flanks of the heavy horse, as it rode into battle, to usually trample its opponents to death. These guys did wear light armour and carried small swords, but they are not your traditional Medieval Knights either. There were other forms of supporting cavalry, principally lancers, whose main job was to combat other cavalry that might be sent in to thwart the heavy cavalry as it charged the defending lines of Infantry
There is no doubt in my mind that the Samurai was the more versatile soldier....despite the fact that he is less well armoured, and his melee equipment much lighter....faced with a heavy Eurpean knight on a heavy, but slow moving "warhorse", he is going to remain mounted, and mobile, firing arrows until he brings down his opponent,, and then, if necessary moving in on foot, which he was mobile enough to do, to finidh off his immobilised opponent
The Samurai was the most highly trained professional soldier of his time, and was principally a mounted archer, wearing light armour, that was also extremely strong. The Japanese have a word to describe the method of Samurai warfare, in open battle. It is called Yabusame, or "the way of the horse and bow" The samurai was perhaps the best mounted archer in the world, equipped with a formidable composite recurved bow fully equivalent in power to the English longbow, but much smaller. other nationalities, principally the saracens and mongols used similar techniques, but none of them were able to produce bows of such compactness and accuracy. Moreover, the samurai, being a professional soldier that did nothing else other than train for war continuously, became extremely accurate at shooting man sized targets whilst at the full gallop. I know this because it is still a military art performed cermoniously today in Japan, at two places that I know of, in Kamakura, and the Toshugo Shrine at Nikko. A samurai bow in the hands of a fully trained warrior is said to be able to bring down a fully armoured man at
more than 100 metres.
Samurai armour did not protect the bow arm, so as to maximise the firing accuracy. Samurai did not use shields, and seldom the lance (these were carried into battle by the Yari Spearmen, which are different to the samurai warrior
Japanese metallurgy was unique in its heat treatment of its blades, which made them uniquely strong whilst also retaining the blade edge. Whereas in western europe, the ideas of hardening and tempering were not fully understood until the late 14th century, and therefore blades tended to be either over-hard, and brittle, the japanese from at least the fifth century had perfected a unque way of overcoming this. The blade edge of the sword was super hardened steel, exceptionally hard. Grafted onto the back of that was near spring steel, in order to give the blade the ability to absorb shock. Though not as good as a Damascus blade, it was better than anything coming out of Europe until the late 1300's. The result was that until that time the Japanese swords could be produced much lighter and more reliable than the European blades, which at the time had to be heavier and even then, less reliable.
The problem with relying on the european museum pieces that you guys are looking at is that in nearly every case, they arent even battle pieces, they are cermonial armour pieces that never were used in battle. they are light for that reason.....they never were intended for open battle. "Real armour", that used in battle was extremely heavy....Henry VIIIs battle armour weighed over 120 lbs, and he had to be bolted into the saddle, because he was unable to move otherwise. He had to be carried to the horse by his attendants. This is admittedly an extreme example, but I can assure you that proper battle armour does not weigh 40-45 lbs.
Similarly bastard swords are not the swords used by knights in battle. they are essentially the "handguns" of the middle ages, small light weapons used for personal defence when on the road. In Battle against a heavily armoured knight you needed mass, a two handed battle sword was the usual weapon of choice, if dismounted...if mounted it was a a single handed long sword, about 5 feet long, and still weighing about 20 lbs, because of the limits on metellurgy at the time (if mounted, the knight would usually also carry a smallish shield, and guide his horse either with his knees, or using his shield arm).... and the idea was as much to bludgeon the opponent as to cut him. I have handled one of these swords, and have seen replicas faithfully based on the "original" design. I can assure you they dont weigh 2-4 lbs....try 20-40 lbs and you are getting closer to what was carried into battle
The Europran knight was so heavily armed and armoured, that he had to have a draft horse (romantically referred to as a "war horse") to ride into battle. More lightly equipped support troops, called hobilars in French (literally "Hobby Horse") were much more lightly armed and armoured, and were there to protect the flanks of the heavy horse, as it rode into battle, to usually trample its opponents to death. These guys did wear light armour and carried small swords, but they are not your traditional Medieval Knights either. There were other forms of supporting cavalry, principally lancers, whose main job was to combat other cavalry that might be sent in to thwart the heavy cavalry as it charged the defending lines of Infantry
There is no doubt in my mind that the Samurai was the more versatile soldier....despite the fact that he is less well armoured, and his melee equipment much lighter....faced with a heavy Eurpean knight on a heavy, but slow moving "warhorse", he is going to remain mounted, and mobile, firing arrows until he brings down his opponent,, and then, if necessary moving in on foot, which he was mobile enough to do, to finidh off his immobilised opponent
I do not know enough on the subject to make a best vote, but I would say that I completely agree with timshatz and his quote here:
On a side not though, here are some pics of the Saxon royal families armor that I took in Dresden a few weeks ago (pics are not great due to lighting and glass).
On a side not though, here are some pics of the Saxon royal families armor that I took in Dresden a few weeks ago (pics are not great due to lighting and glass).
parsifal
Colonel
I cannot get over how beautiful and well crafted these suits are Adler, they really do show the excellent standards of workmaship that existed in ccentral europe at that time.
To me these look like ceremonial armour suits, produced much later, probably in the 18th century, and never actually intended for battle. I mean absolutely no disrespect in saying that, but I think a misconception is developing in this thread, that the suits on display in museums throughout Europe are those actually worn in battle. The ones shown here at least are not battle armour....
To be fair in the discussion, the concept of the samurai being the swordsman par excellance is a later addition to the mythology, one that according to one authority on the matter (Kirk is his name) did not begin to emerge until after 1600, during the Sengoku era. Before that the Japanese Samurai tended to view the sword as a secondary weapon...and from that one gets the impression that they were not the mythological masters of sword play that Hollywood would have you believe. what the Samurai were good at was mounted archery. I have attached a link to the modern Yabusame competitions, which gives some idea of the skills needed to master this art...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D4t2k-Joc0
To me these look like ceremonial armour suits, produced much later, probably in the 18th century, and never actually intended for battle. I mean absolutely no disrespect in saying that, but I think a misconception is developing in this thread, that the suits on display in museums throughout Europe are those actually worn in battle. The ones shown here at least are not battle armour....
To be fair in the discussion, the concept of the samurai being the swordsman par excellance is a later addition to the mythology, one that according to one authority on the matter (Kirk is his name) did not begin to emerge until after 1600, during the Sengoku era. Before that the Japanese Samurai tended to view the sword as a secondary weapon...and from that one gets the impression that they were not the mythological masters of sword play that Hollywood would have you believe. what the Samurai were good at was mounted archery. I have attached a link to the modern Yabusame competitions, which gives some idea of the skills needed to master this art...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D4t2k-Joc0
Yeah, really beautiful shots.
I gotta believe those suits weren't made for fighting, more for special occasions. Kind of like dress uniforms and utilities.
Still, the craftmanship is amazing. Especially the second one down with the plume. Somebody had a few shekels lying around.
I gotta believe those suits weren't made for fighting, more for special occasions. Kind of like dress uniforms and utilities.
Still, the craftmanship is amazing. Especially the second one down with the plume. Somebody had a few shekels lying around.
20mikemike
Airman
- 10
- Feb 11, 2009
I'm afraid you've got a LOT of misconceptions taken as "facts":
That's really a matter of opinion.
Again, opinion. I know for fact that's one you can't give to Europe with regard to archery, but much was learned during the crusaids, and eventually, the Europeans would learn how to effectively use mounted archers.
As did the European knight following the 1100's.
Which was about useless against armor that defeated the bow at all ranges but under 10m.
Mmmm...nope. European blades were made in many different ways at many different times, to include folding, damascine and false-damascine pattern-welding, stock removal and single forge; they knew what they were doing since the times of Rome.
Again...nope.
Actually, the typical European blade is LIGHTER than Japanese blades and are just as "reliable" i.e. not likely to break.
Again no. I'm referencing combat equipment.
No, that 120lb (IIRC, it was actually 90) monstrosity was an incomplete suit of Tournament armor, never used, and Henry may have needed assistance later on because of a horse-riding accident causing a horriffic leg wound. Yes, COMBAT ARMOR weighs between 45-65 lbs. It is TOURNAMENT ARMOR that weighs more and is less maneuverable as it is combat practice and safety was a bigger concern. Having had several years of researching real combat armor, real combat weapons, I assure you 45-65 is the accurate estimate, with outlying cases here and there, usually of poorer quality.
Yes, bastard swords were used by knights in battle (I can't count how many times they are the primary subjects of armored and unarmored combat in fechtbucher), average about 48" in length and weigh 2-4 pounds with outlying examples in the 5 pound range. The true two-hand sword was not the weapon of choice for knights but Dopplesoldner (double-pay men), who themselves employed it less often than the Halberd; the two-hander weighed between 3 and 7 pounds and had a length of between 60-78" on average, with outlying examples above and below. BEARING SWORDS or Paratschwert were the heavy SOB's and weighted between 6 and 14 pounds, and were not intended for combat at all.
I also have handled plenty of replicas, the heaviest two-hander I've ever handled weighs 6.5lbs. If you want a quality replica sword, go to Albion Arms, they're the closest you'll get without going to a swordsmith; they don't weigh anywhere near 20 lbs, they weigh around 1lb-6lbs, depending on make/model, and are all based on actual swords.
That's really a matter of opinion.
Again, opinion. I know for fact that's one you can't give to Europe with regard to archery, but much was learned during the crusaids, and eventually, the Europeans would learn how to effectively use mounted archers.
As did the European knight following the 1100's.
Which was about useless against armor that defeated the bow at all ranges but under 10m.
Mmmm...nope. European blades were made in many different ways at many different times, to include folding, damascine and false-damascine pattern-welding, stock removal and single forge; they knew what they were doing since the times of Rome.
Again...nope.
Actually, the typical European blade is LIGHTER than Japanese blades and are just as "reliable" i.e. not likely to break.
Again no. I'm referencing combat equipment.
No, that 120lb (IIRC, it was actually 90) monstrosity was an incomplete suit of Tournament armor, never used, and Henry may have needed assistance later on because of a horse-riding accident causing a horriffic leg wound. Yes, COMBAT ARMOR weighs between 45-65 lbs. It is TOURNAMENT ARMOR that weighs more and is less maneuverable as it is combat practice and safety was a bigger concern. Having had several years of researching real combat armor, real combat weapons, I assure you 45-65 is the accurate estimate, with outlying cases here and there, usually of poorer quality.
Yes, bastard swords were used by knights in battle (I can't count how many times they are the primary subjects of armored and unarmored combat in fechtbucher), average about 48" in length and weigh 2-4 pounds with outlying examples in the 5 pound range. The true two-hand sword was not the weapon of choice for knights but Dopplesoldner (double-pay men), who themselves employed it less often than the Halberd; the two-hander weighed between 3 and 7 pounds and had a length of between 60-78" on average, with outlying examples above and below. BEARING SWORDS or Paratschwert were the heavy SOB's and weighted between 6 and 14 pounds, and were not intended for combat at all.
I also have handled plenty of replicas, the heaviest two-hander I've ever handled weighs 6.5lbs. If you want a quality replica sword, go to Albion Arms, they're the closest you'll get without going to a swordsmith; they don't weigh anywhere near 20 lbs, they weigh around 1lb-6lbs, depending on make/model, and are all based on actual swords.
Light cavalry is offensively superior to heavy cavalry in that they can engage and withdraw at whim, forcing the action upon the heavy cavalry. Of course though if light cavalry had to face heavy cavalry and melee then the light cavalry would be wiped out. Heavy cavalry does not necesarily mean the knights were very heavy so much as it describes the formation tactics used in melee. in one on one the fight would go in eithers favor. In battle the victor would depend on tactics and use of light and heavy infantry as well. A crusading army with knights facing a samauri army my bets would be on the knights. One on one confrontation with armor the knight has the advantage, without armor the samauri has the advantage.
parsifal
Colonel
I assume you have some references for all this......
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
This is a silly dichotomy. Knights were primarily cavalry, Samurai were primarily infantry. It's apples and oranges.
parsifal
Colonel
No, actually samurai were primarily horse soldiers, and up to 1380 (approximately) were mounted archers. Later they utilized halberd style aimed at tearing off the opponents plates so as to make them vulnerable to attack. In Japan these are known (among other things) as the Yari spear.
A lot of contention exists about the weight of armour. It is true that the very best of the southern german and northern Italian armours could be as light as 45 lbs, but this was only at the very end of the age, and then only by the very few most elite troops. If we are talking the main stream knights, and including all of the kit, the helmets, the mail undervests, the belts etc, the weight does start to approach about 70lbs typically. It really does depend on the period you are talking about, and the quality of the workmanship of the armour. Most soldiers, even the nobility were lugging around inferir armours which also happened to be much heavier than 45 lbs
The other point of contention, and despite what anyone says it is an issue hotly contested, is the effectiveness of missiles, principally arrows against plate. Full Plate was not widely used in the 1300s, and was still a fairly rare form of protection in the 15th century. Long Bows had a draw strength in excess of 100 lbs, and at that rate were more powerful than a modern 303 out to ranges of 100 metres or so. I am relying on my own experience here, because for a number of years I was a member of the local archery club. I could just draw 75lbs, in a pinch, and at that draw stregth, at 50 metres, I could penetrate more than 2 inches of wood. One day as an experiment we placed a piece of mild steel up against a target, and fired a heavy gauge arrow at it, at range 50. It broke the arrow, and we could not penetrate. Next we had a mate who was a member of a historical society, and we put a piece of chain main up for the test. We could pretty consistently penetrate that. Lastly we pulled out the mother of all bows, a crossbow that fired steel quarrels at a whopping 150 lbs. It could penetrate the plate steel most times at ranges of 50 metres or less. Anyone who has fired one of these things knows just how powerful they are.
In the period prior to 1400, when most bow combat occurred, the armouring systems used by the overwhelming majority of troops could be overcome by the bows of the time, including the Japanese composite, which at that time apparently had a draw strength of just under 100 lbs (I will need to check that). Plate armour was introduced more widely in the 15th century specifically to overcome that threat, as well as the threat from early firearms. However, it was eventually defeated by the use of halberds and other implements, designed to pull the plate off the weareer, which they did fairly successfully, not least because it was relatively easy to train a halberdier, and therefore one could have lots of them as opposed to just a few plate armour knights. This revolution in warfare affected the japanese as much as the Europeans, one Japanese Daimyo is credited with saying something like...."if you have a choice between 1000 Yari spearman (Halberdiers) and 100 samurai, choose the 1000 Yari"
By the time of the Plate armour era, the Japanese horse soldiers, the Samurai, were also moving away from the bow and using variations of the Yari "spear" as a counter to the heavily armoured foot soldiers they were beginning to encounter. They also began to develop the expert sword skill that Hollywood has made them famous for. But in the true medieval era (ie prior to 1400), they were mounted archers, able to defeat all who oppsed them, except those of the same class.....
A lot of contention exists about the weight of armour. It is true that the very best of the southern german and northern Italian armours could be as light as 45 lbs, but this was only at the very end of the age, and then only by the very few most elite troops. If we are talking the main stream knights, and including all of the kit, the helmets, the mail undervests, the belts etc, the weight does start to approach about 70lbs typically. It really does depend on the period you are talking about, and the quality of the workmanship of the armour. Most soldiers, even the nobility were lugging around inferir armours which also happened to be much heavier than 45 lbs
The other point of contention, and despite what anyone says it is an issue hotly contested, is the effectiveness of missiles, principally arrows against plate. Full Plate was not widely used in the 1300s, and was still a fairly rare form of protection in the 15th century. Long Bows had a draw strength in excess of 100 lbs, and at that rate were more powerful than a modern 303 out to ranges of 100 metres or so. I am relying on my own experience here, because for a number of years I was a member of the local archery club. I could just draw 75lbs, in a pinch, and at that draw stregth, at 50 metres, I could penetrate more than 2 inches of wood. One day as an experiment we placed a piece of mild steel up against a target, and fired a heavy gauge arrow at it, at range 50. It broke the arrow, and we could not penetrate. Next we had a mate who was a member of a historical society, and we put a piece of chain main up for the test. We could pretty consistently penetrate that. Lastly we pulled out the mother of all bows, a crossbow that fired steel quarrels at a whopping 150 lbs. It could penetrate the plate steel most times at ranges of 50 metres or less. Anyone who has fired one of these things knows just how powerful they are.
In the period prior to 1400, when most bow combat occurred, the armouring systems used by the overwhelming majority of troops could be overcome by the bows of the time, including the Japanese composite, which at that time apparently had a draw strength of just under 100 lbs (I will need to check that). Plate armour was introduced more widely in the 15th century specifically to overcome that threat, as well as the threat from early firearms. However, it was eventually defeated by the use of halberds and other implements, designed to pull the plate off the weareer, which they did fairly successfully, not least because it was relatively easy to train a halberdier, and therefore one could have lots of them as opposed to just a few plate armour knights. This revolution in warfare affected the japanese as much as the Europeans, one Japanese Daimyo is credited with saying something like...."if you have a choice between 1000 Yari spearman (Halberdiers) and 100 samurai, choose the 1000 Yari"
By the time of the Plate armour era, the Japanese horse soldiers, the Samurai, were also moving away from the bow and using variations of the Yari "spear" as a counter to the heavily armoured foot soldiers they were beginning to encounter. They also began to develop the expert sword skill that Hollywood has made them famous for. But in the true medieval era (ie prior to 1400), they were mounted archers, able to defeat all who oppsed them, except those of the same class.....
20mikemike
Airman
- 10
- Feb 11, 2009
Aside from about a decade of in-depth research (note, about 5 of those years were before college), and a thesis, here's a partial list I had to compile a little while ago; I selected armors, parts of armors, and especially two-hand swords.
Also, the list does not include the collection of suits made by the Missaglia Family that were found in a monestary (no one quite knows why...) which were of the type used af Fornovo, 1495. They weigh around 60lb average.
BASIC
Higgen's Armory Quote:
-TYPICAL WEIGHTS OF DIFFERENT CLASSES OF ARMOR-
COMBAT ARMOR: (45-70lbs)
PARADE ARMOR: (30-80lbs)
JOUSTING ARMOR: (80+lbs)
IN-DEPTH
-Higgins Armory-
--FULL SUITS
Armor, German, ca.1430 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Wrought Iron
Weight: 56lbs (30lbs of plate, 26lbs of maille)
--PARTS
---HALF ARMOR
Half-Armor - JOUSTING
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 39.83lbs - Helm: 23.5lbs, Breastplate: 16.33lbs
Half Armor, ca.1600-25 (Morion, Breast Plate, Tassets) - COMBAT
Smith: English, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 19lb 8oz
---HELMS
Comb Morion, Civic Guard, ca.1580-90 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 2lbs 9oz
-Reading Museum-
--FULL SUITS
Maximilian Armor, ca.1520-30 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 55lbs
German Laminated Cuirass, ca.1550 - COMBAT (Breast and Backplate, Gorget, Tassets)
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Weight: 27lb 1oz
--PARTS
---HELMS
Close Helm, ca.1535-40 - COMBAT
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Height: 13in
Weight: 7lbs 8oz
Maximilian Close Helm, ca.1520-30
Smith: German, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Height: 11in
Weight: 5lb 8oz
-Metropolitan Museum of Art-
--FULL SUITS
Armor for Henry II of France, ca.1555 - CEREMONIAL
Smith: Etienne Delaune
Mateirel: Steel, embossed, blued, silvered and gilded.
Height: 74in
Weight: 53lb 4oz
Armor of George Clifford, Third Earl of Cumberland, ca. 1580-85 - COMBAT (with Garniture for Tourney)
Smith: Royal Workshops (Greenwich)
Materiel: Steel, etched, blued, and gilded.
Height: 69.5in
Weight: 60lb (COMBAT GARNITURE) - ? (TOURNEY GARNITURE)
Armor of Heavy Cavalry, ca. 1610-1620 - COMBAT (Note: One of the heaviest field armors known, bullet proofed)
Smith: Italian (Milan/Brescia), mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel, gold, leather, and textile
Height: ?
Weight: 86lb 8oz
--PARTS
---BREAST PLATES/HALF ARMORS
Elements of a Light-Cav. Armor, ca.1510 - COMBAT, (Note: Breast and Backplate, All arm protection, save for Gauntlets)
Smith: Italian (Milan), mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel, etched and gilded
Height: ?
Weight: 19lb 13oz
Harquebus Armor of Pedro II, King of Portugal, ca. 1683 - COMBAT (Note: Breast and Backplate, Helm and single Gauntlet
Smith: England (London), believed to be from Richard Holden
Materiel: Steel, etched, blued and gilded
Height: ?
Weight: 43lb 5oz
---HELMS
"Barbute" Sallet, ca.1470-80 - COMBAT
Smith: Italian, mfgr unknown
Materiel: Steel
Height: ?
Weight: 6lb, 9oz
Burgonet with Falling Buffe, ca.1555 - CEREMONIAL
Smith: French (Paris)
Materiel: Steel, blued and gilded
Height: 14in
Weight: 5lb, 6oz
Visored Sallet, ca.1470-85 - COMBAT
Smith: Hans Blarer the Younger (German)
Materiel: Steel
Height: ?
Weight: 7lb 2oz
War Hat, ca.1475
Smith: ? (Likely Bugundian, mfgr unknown)
Materiel: Steel
Height: 10.25in
Weight: 6lb 7oz
Armet with Wrapper, ca.1460-70
Smith: Armet - Italian, mfgr unknown/Wrapper - Italian, Missiglia Family
Materiel: Steel
Height: ?
Weight: 8lb (Armet) 4lb (Wrapper) TOT: 12lb
-WEAPONS-
-TRUE TWO-HAND SWORDS-
-LIVURSTKAMMAREN-
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 13639.
Swedish, c1658
Length: 1010 mm (39.7 inches)
Blade: 862 mm (33.9 inches)
Weight: 1735 g (3.47 pounds)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 5666.
Swedish, c1658.
Length: 1025 mm (40.3 inches)
Blade: 933 mm (36.7 inches)
Weight: 1590 g (3.18 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12959.
Solingen, Early 17th century.
Length: 1350 mm (56.2 inches)
Blade: 961 mm (37.8 inches)
Weight: 3010 g (6.2 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16660.
German, 17th century.
Length: 1428 mm ( inches)
Blade: 1048 mm ( inches)
Weight: 2730 g (5.46 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12947.
German, 16th century.
Length: 1185 mm (46.6 inches)
Blade: 954 mm (37.5 inches)
Weight: 1240 g (2.48 pounds)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12667.
German, 16th century.
Length: 1225 mm (48.2 inches)
Blade: 904 mm (35.5 inches)
Weight: 1310 g (2.62 pounds)
Ceremonial Two-handed sword. No: LRK 16370.
German. Late 16th century.
Length: 1422 mm (55.9 inches)
Blade 1029 mm (40.5 inches)
Weight: 2700 g (5.9 lbs)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 12706.
German. Late 15th century.
Length: 1473 mm (58 inches)
Blade: 1066 mm (41.9 inches)
Weight: 2720 g (5.9 lbs)
Two-handed sword. No: LRK 5480.
Germany, 15th century.
Length: 1375 mm (54.2 inches)
Blade: 920 mm (36.2 inches)
Weight: 1600 g (3.5 lbs)
-KRAKOW-
Two-handed sword - COMBAT
Late 15th-Early 16th Century
Length: 65.7in
Blade: 46.1in
Weight: 6lbs
Two-handed sword - COMBAT
Early 16th Century
Length: 62in
Blade: 45.1in
Weight: 6.2lbs
Two-handed sword - COMBAT
Early 16th Century
Length: 64in
Blade: 49.21in
Weight: 6.5lb
If you need more examples, I can find 'em.
EDIT: Also of note, one of the reasons Italian, German and Spanish steel was so good was because of Manganese found in the ore; as Stephen V. Granscay (former curator at Higgins) wrote: "But in the 16th century, English iron was non-resistant; a musket ball could be shot through it, while the iron of Innsbruck or that of Northern Spain or of Italy tenaciously clung to the ball and was merely dented." (Granscay, Stephen V., The John Woodman Higgins Armory Catalogue of Armor, 1961)
parsifal
Colonel
Nearest equivalent to that situation that I can think of is the saracens v crusaders. Not a student of the crusades, but I understand the Saracens horse archers similar to the Samurai (but IMO not as good) riding lighter Arab horses, much faster and more manouverable than the Crusader heavy horse. I think (but will stand corrected) that the Saracens could only be defeated if the battle degenerated to a set piece battle, like a siege, but generally, when charged by the crusaders, they would simply retreat, fire arrow, kill a few crusaders, and so on
