European Knight vs Asian Samurai

[GrauGeist]

Perhaps one thing that many people overlook, is the fact that to be a European Knight, one had to train for years. A student usually became esquired to a Knight, and was tutored in battle techniques and trained constantly. Once his mentor thought him ready, he then had to prove his prowess, usually in contests during festivals. The time period could be about 8 - 10 years to become elligable for Knighthood, and not everyone would qualify.

This wouldn't make for good movie material, so people are usually left with the impression that to be a Knight, you have to save everyone in some climactic battle, and the King himself comes over and Knights you on the spot...

To be Samurai, you had a similiar scenario. A student would be taken under the tutelage of a "Sensei" who was a master of the art. The student would then be trained in the arts, much like his European counterpart, for years. Not everyone would qualify to be a Samurai, either.

I think that a classic battlefeild confrontation between the Knights and Samurai from comparable time periods would be a clash of the Titans.

The typical sword of the Knight would definately be an advantage, and tear into the Samurai's lighter armor, but if the Knight did not carry the battle in a short time period, I think that the Samurai would take a victory by wearing the Knight down. A Samurai is incredibly skilled in blow and thrust placement of thier sword, and would use that accuracy to thier advantage, as well.

The Portuguese soldiers were able to defeat Samurai with thier Rapiers not because it would cleave the Samurai's armor, but because in a thrust, it would penetrate in between the laquered iron shingles of the Samurai's armor.
The rapier also flexed when parrying a blow from a katana, and allowed the Portuguese soldier the ability to return a thrust to his enemy faster, and speed is your best defense against a Samurai.

All in all, I would say it's a draw.

By the way, the typical men of the middle ages stood about 5 foot, 6 inches on average. King Richard (the Lionheart) was referred to as "A giant among men" with his almost 6 1/2 foot stature.

 

[Amsel]

Yes! I know that many of the Saracens considered King Richard invincible as he plowed furrows through them. The Knights lived a very strict and pious life. I know in the Holy Order of the Hospital of St. Germain(Teutonic Knights) the code was strict concerning morality and piousness. The disipline was harsh and life was very dangerous. But being a member of a Holy Order endorsed by the Pope was a way to get ahead in life and improve your families position. The Teutonic knights fought in the middle east as well as Poland ,Lithuania, and Russia.

 

[parsifal]

Hi Mike

I acknowlwdge the quality of the information you are working with, but I do note a couple of things for you to consider.

At various points in your reply you mention the weight of armour plate as being 45-65 lbs, with a few exceptions. I believe that the all up weight of the soldiers armour was around 70 lbs. I also make the point that many of the soldiers were using second grade or worse standards of armour, and that this could well lead to an increase in weight. So, you are saying 45-65, and I am saying 70.....so why this big reaction????

Next, I do think you need to produce some further evidence, not because I question the veracity of the information you are presenting, but simply it is generally from the wrong time period, in order for us to compare apples to apples. I have said that the era of the Yabusame was about 1050 through to about 1380, and I note that the era of the great victories by archers in Europe was also about 1100 through to about 1420. Yet the references to armour and arms that you have presented are all from 1430 onwards, with most occurring in the 1550 through to 1650 period (roughly). That is not medieval to me, it is more the Renaissance age, or in the case of the British, the Tudor and Stuart Age. I dont think we can compare the weapons of 1100 with the weapons of 1550, and try and pass that off as a fair comparison. By 1550 the Samurai were using different tactics against their opponents, and the use of the Yabusame bows was beginning to die off.

So if you have information on the arms and armour of the period 1100-1350 or there abouts, that might help to make a proper comparison.

 

[20mikemike]

Hi Mike

I acknowlwdge the quality of the information you are working with, but I do note a couple of things for you to consider.

At various points in your reply you mention the weight of armour plate as being 45-65 lbs, with a few exceptions. I believe that the all up weight of the soldiers armour was around 70 lbs. I also make the point that many of the soldiers were using second grade or worse standards of armour, and that this could well lead to an increase in weight. So, you are saying 45-65, and I am saying 70.....so why this big reaction????

Next, I do think you need to produce some further evidence, not because I question the veracity of the information you are presenting, but simply it is generally from the wrong time period, in order for us to compare apples to apples. I have said that the era of the Yabusame was about 1050 through to about 1380, and I note that the era of the great victories by archers in Europe was also about 1100 through to about 1420. Yet the references to armour and arms that you have presented are all from 1430 onwards, with most occurring in the 1550 through to 1650 period (roughly). That is not medieval to me, it is more the Renaissance age, or in the case of the British, the Tudor and Stuart Age. I dont think we can compare the weapons of 1100 with the weapons of 1550, and try and pass that off as a fair comparison. By 1550 the Samurai were using different tactics against their opponents, and the use of the Yabusame bows was beginning to die off.

So if you have information on the arms and armour of the period 1100-1350 or there abouts, that might help to make a proper comparison.

I apologize if that list makes it seem like I'm coming off harsh or jerk-like; I wanted to give a good number of examples to prove my point that armor is indeed pretty light, but primarily that my information was valid. I agree (and there's a lot of proof): there was heavier armor, which was usually of poorer quality and even though heavier, did not protect nearly as well as the lighter-weight, well-forged armors of Southern Germany and Northern Italy.

With regard to time periods: yes, my examples are from well later, really beyond the zenith of the knight, but when we consider the so-called "knight in shining armor" i.e. the cap-a-pie suit of plates or the "harnisch", these were from the later timeperiod. If we're talking about knights of 1100-1350, we're talking about maille and mixed maille/plate armors, still of good quality, but not as effective as the later armors. Maille coats, when well made, were exceptionally effective at absorbing and deflecting cuts and were fairly resistant to thrusts. During the Crusades, Muslim warriors did use hit-and-run tactics because the Crusaders were so well armored. The use of the bow and arrow helped them as well, but they noted the surprising resiliance of the armor against their bow and arrows (it wasn't always one-shot-one-kill.)

Something else I've noticed is that we all keep assuming the knight is going to be using a sword. During the 1100-1300's, a knight could have carried a sword and shield, but he might be using, say, a bearded axe, which is a pretty horriffic weapon in its own right, and can be pretty dicey for a swordsman to face. Protected by the shield, the soldier can use that axe to hook an opponent's leg or other appendage, and, even if the shaft is caught in the strike, there's still a few inches of steel axehead protruding towards its target.

Perhaps neither samurai nor knight is armed with sword, or instead they start with the Yari and Halberd. The Halberd hadn't evolved into what we normally think of it as by the 1300's, but it was getting closer. It still had a spear-like tip, and it had a wider, thinner and longer axehead, and could have a hook at the back. Both Halberd and Yari were of similar length and a solid strike from either the knight or the samurai would probably fell the opponent.

With regard to swords, there's the chance that the knight, by around 1300, is armed with a great-sword. While not quite as big as the true two-hander, it is a considerably long weapon, able to deliver an excellent cut, and sharp at the tip for thrusting. Similarly to the two-hander, it is better offensively than defensively, and lacked some of the tricky extras found on some two-handers: the parrierhaken (parrying hooks) and hand guard rings. If the samurai is armed with a yari, this would be a very interesting fight.

Outta time for now...I apologize again if I came off like an ass.

 

[parsifal]

Hi Mike

No apology needed, I learnt quite a lot from your post.

I accept that the "era of Plate" reached its zenith after the "era of the bow" and moreover, plate was the technology that beat the bow. But really, its not a fair comparison to match the Samurai technology to the later plate technology. Some sources have Samurai sword technology dating as far back as the 5th century BC (although those blades bear little resemblance to the popular mythology of the Katana). Japanese mirror plate is older technology than the full plate you are talking about, and of course, their main medieval weapon, the bow, was falling from use, and had been made obsolete by the plate armour of the Renaissance period. By 1600 Japanese armies were using a large proportion of firearms, as well as halberdiers and the samurai were adopting/developing their unique forms of swordplay. Bottom line is that I dont think you can make a valid comparison. The knights technology....the "knight in shining armour" had reached its zenith, when the samurai....the real samurai technology was already obsolete. If you compare the "knight in Shining armour" to the classical "samurai on horseback" you are comparing technologies at least 250 years apart. in that situation the european knight is going to have the clear technological advantage. The only fair way to make a comparison, is to compare the samurai as it was in 1300, to the knights technology of 1300.

The bow technology of the samurai at that time could defeat the mirror plate armour they (the Japanese) were using at that time (though not always, as you point out and less often then the mail armour of the 1100 era, although as you say I dont think archers were able to defeat mail every time either...the light bows of the mongols were not very successful at all against that technology for example)

But IMO the Samurai of 1300 had the advantage over his 1300 era european counterpart, because he was mounted on a horse faster and more agile than the european warhorse, and because his primary weapon, his Yabusame bow was proven as able to defeat the mail armour of his opponent. In melee combat, I actually think the European knight would have the advantage, simply because swordplay was not the primary mode of combat used by samurai at this time, but was that for the euro knight. Whilst I am still unconvinced that the european metellurgy in 1300 was as good as the Japanese metallurgy of the same period, I will concede that I am not as sure of that now as I was some time ago.....and in any event its not a major consideration in the match up anyway.

So, to sum up my opinion....if the battle remains a "missile" fight (which i believe is likley, given the mobility advantages for the Japanese), I believe the Japanese warrior will have the advantage. However, if the fight closes to melee combat, the bigger horse of the european is going to make a big difference, moreover it is likley that the sword skills of the euro knight are going to be superior to those of his Japanese counterpart. In that circumstance the advantage lies with the european knight....IMO

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

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....

Actually the armor room has armor dating back to the 15th Century and has ceremonial and battle armor in it.

In fact the last photo shows the battle armor that was worn by Johann Georg I of Saxony during the 30 Years War from 1618–1648.

 

[DBII]

Most of my points have been already covered. The only thing I can add is the for Japan and China, the sword was a secondary weapon. The primary weapon would be a spear for foot soldiers or for a mounted soldier a long spear or a weapon similar to a kwon dao. Even dismounted the eastern fighter would use a sword only if the primary weapon was lost or damaged. Once the secondary weapon was deployed, the soldier would use mobility to get to a postion to thrust between the armor. Mobility was valued more than the protection of heavy armor. As a side note, in the 1800s the Fencing Masters from Europe would travel to Japan the fight against the Samurai. The Europeans would normally get several hits against the Samurai resulting in puncture wounds and cuts. The Europeans were fast. However, once the Samurai did strike, there was a loss of a limb or the strike was fatal.

DBII

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'd take Mongols with horsebows over both of them.

 

[Amsel]

I'd take the 11.Panzer-Division over the mongols!

 

[BombTaxi]

I'd take Mongols with horsebows over both of them.

Hmm, am I right in thinking that a horsebow is basically a short bow? If so, I would question whether the arrows would penetrate that knight's armour. The bowfire which decimated French knights at Crecy and Agincourt was from longbows, firing heavy arrows with narrow, penetrating tips on arcing trajectories. In short, a lot of force being concentrated on a very small point of impact, like a modern sabot round. I would imagine the horseman's bow to fire with less force on a much flatter trajectory.

Of course, even mounted knights would struggle to engage the faster Mongols, but if a melee could be bought on, the Mongols would be butchered. Even if they kept the range, I have some doubts about the effectiveness of their arrows vs armour.

 

[parsifal]

The Mongols were certainly a formidable mounted archery force. They incorporated a lightweight short (about 46 inch) bow, which incorporated a "snap bridge" which is somewhat like a guitar bridge. In function they gave a small increase to projectile velocity.

Great and handy as these bows were, they are still in the "Light Bow" category. Modern replicas of these magnificent bows have achieved draw strengths of 45-75 lbs, and maximum projectile velocities of around 200 metres per sec. They are composite bows, using a mixture of wood, bone, and sinew, which made them lightweight (about 2lbs), and very handy, essential for horseborne archers.

However, at 45-75 lbs draw, they simply lacked the killing power to be effective against properly armoured troops. They were effective against lightweight mail armour, but could not penetrate the later "mirror plate" except at very close range.

Why I think the the Japanese Yabusame bows are superior is simply because they were more heavy weight. A Yabusame bow had a draw weight of at least 100 lbs, which I believe makes it the heaviest mounted bow. It was less handy than the Mongolian bow, but far more powerful. Its superior ballistics of the arrows used meant that projectile velocities of around 250 metres per second were possible. This was still not quite up to the same standard of the the huge English Longbows, and considerably behind the performance of the English Recurve Longbows (some evidence exists that in the lead up to Crecy, the English used their mounted archers....the creme de la creme of their archer forces, to force the crossing of the Somme by using these archers in a mounted role, something not generally seen in western Europe at that time).

If the British were using recurved longbows at Crecy, this goes some way to explaining how they could penetrate the French partial plate at the battle. My theory is that the standard bowmen, who lacked the power in their bows to be affective against even 14th century partial plate to concentrate on the French horse, bringing French Knights down. This then gave the master archers, now operating dismounted, and weilding these massively powerful six foot recurve longbows to pour fire into the temporarily immobilised French Knights with the most powerful bows of the day. It is estimated that these bows had an effective draw weight of about 150-180 lbs (but because it is recurved, it does not require that strength to drawl the bow), enabling the French Plate to be penetrated out to distances of about 30 metres. Generally, longbows could not penetrate plate armour beyond 10-20 metres.

The Mongol Light bows against plate armour had no hope. Japanese Yabusame bows might penetrate plate at 10 metres, mirror plate could be beaten out to about 50 metres if a weak point could be found. I estimate that mail armour could be pentrated out to about 60 metres....but this is a guess

 

[GrauGeist]

I'll take a phalanx of Hoplites over Mongols any day!

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'll take a phalanx of Hoplites over Mongols any day!

unlike most of this board, I belive in scoreboard. Mongols crushed larger armies for hundreds and launched Chinese dynasties and several empires, Mughal for one, Timor's for another.

 

[GrauGeist]

I think a good deal of folks here go for scoreboard, too...

Can't help but pop in fun stuff once in a while (sicking a panzerdivision on the Mongols wouldn't be fair anyways ).

Be that as it may, the Hoplites were a military force to be reckoned with, and once formed into a phalanx, impregnable. Of course, this was an effective military tactic of thiers almost 2,000 years before the Mongols founded thier empire.

In terms of "scoreboard", I'd say that the Mongol empire itself didn't rate up there with other empires as far as legacy. They basically swarmed down out of the hills, overwhelmed an adversary and absorbed it, and moved on. All the empires that evolved from the Mongols were because of the infighting and fractioning. The Turks (Ottomans) were a direct result of the fragmenting empire, and the Mughal dynasty came about 200 years after the Mongols were gone. They didn't develop any arcitecture, literary works, social/industrial innovations or any of the hallmarks of a great civilization.

Anyway, this really has nothing to do with Middle-age European versus Feudal Japanese martial comparisons, does it?

 

[claidemore]

But IMO the Samurai of 1300 had the advantage over his 1300 era european counterpart, because he was mounted on a horse faster and more agile than the european warhorse, and because his primary weapon, his Yabusame bow was proven as able to defeat the mail armour of his opponent. In melee combat, I actually think the European knight would have the advantage, simply because swordplay was not the primary mode of combat used by samurai at this time, but was that for the euro knight. Whilst I am still unconvinced that the european metellurgy in 1300 was as good as the Japanese metallurgy of the same period, I will concede that I am not as sure of that now as I was some time ago.....and in any event its not a major consideration in the match up anyway.

So, to sum up my opinion....if the battle remains a "missile" fight (which i believe is likley, given the mobility advantages for the Japanese), I believe the Japanese warrior will have the advantage. However, if the fight closes to melee combat, the bigger horse of the european is going to make a big difference, moreover it is likley that the sword skills of the euro knight are going to be superior to those of his Japanese counterpart. In that circumstance the advantage lies with the european knight....IMO

Just a little note from an old horseman.
In 1300, the horses being used by knights were not the big destriers like Clydesdales and Percherons. They were horses that looked more like Andalusians. Bigger than what they were riding in Japan, but definately not the draft types. El Cid for example (1100 ), rode Andalusian type horses, and there are few breeds that are quicker or more athletic.
If you look at tapestrys and other artwork from the period, you won't see horses in any battle scene that will stand over 15 hands, most are about 14 hands. The big 'draft' breeds weren't developed until much later.
Illustrations from that time period nearly always show mounted knights with their feet well below the barrel of their horses. That doesn't happen on any horse over 14 hands and definately not on a Percheron, even the saddle horse type Percheron (I've ridden Percherons).
The horses that Samurai were riding in 1300 were basically pony sized, 11-12 hands. No match for the larger western horses of that time period.
Also, my own research and involvement with Medieval weapons puts me in 100% agreement with Mikes postings on armor and weapons.

 

[claidemore]

parsifal,

A 180 lb bow requires 180 lbs to draw it, the shape of the limbs (recurved or not) does not affect the amount of force needed to draw it, only the speed at which the bow reacts and the shock or vibration created when the arrow is released. Only in a compound bow with cables and wheels is there 'letoff', allowing the archer to hold the bow with approximately 50% of the draw weight.
The bows recovered from the Mary Rose (1500s) were between 80 and 180 lbs, with the average being 100-120. "Primitive Archer" had several articles a few years ago about longbows penetrating plate armor. One article in particular mentioned an armor advocate who wanted to wear a breastplate and have the longbowman fire a bodkin arrow at him to 'prove' the armor would protect him. The archer persuaded him to test the breastplate without a human in it first. Suffice it to say the longbowman saved the armor advocates life that day.
Incidentally, even though the bow was not a weapon used by knights in warfare (archers were commoners), they did use them for hunting and sport.

 

[parsifal]

Your right, 180 lb draw weight is 180 lb draw weight, however, 180lb put into a recurve delivers more punch at the "business end" than a non-recurve bow, I guess thats what happenss when I try ti cut corners in my explanation....I will try and explain

It all depends on the design of the bow, whether that bow is a recurve or longbow. BOTH can deliver the same "power", but how far they will send arrow (and therefore the power contained in the projectile) is all up to the bow's efficiency....

Example: Two bows, one a recurve and the other a longbow, both with a draw-weight of 50# @ 28" (it takes 50 pounds of force to bring the bowstring back to 28"); the recurve is a modern recurve and the longbow is of the classic "English Long Bow" (ELB) style. Because they are both the same draw-weight, and designed for maximum efficiency, they both perform about the same -- but they are of different lengths. The recurve is shorter than the longbow, due to the recurved tips. This, incidentally is one of the unique features of the Yabusame bow....it is a recurve composite, with height similar to the ELB. Requires exceptional skills to operate from horseback, but the returns in projectile power are well worth the effort

Now, take two more bows, again a modern recurve and an ELB; this time, both bows are the same length, as well as the same draw-weight. Because of the recurve bow's design, it will out-perform the longbow, since those recurved tips will travel farther, effectively storing more raw "power" in the bow. I don't recall right now whether the stiff, "static" recurve is more powerful than the flexible, "working" recurve, but both types make the bow more efficient than an ELB of comparable physical length.

So, in order for an ELB to be as efficient as a recurve of the same draw-weight, it has to be physically longer (hence the name "longbow") so that the longbow's limb tips will move as far as the recurve bow's limb tips -- and also to store and deliver the same amount of raw energy. What makes the difference, really, is how fast the bow's limbs move, which dictates how efficiently they transfer the stored energy to the arrow...and how far the arrow goes, or how well it will penetrate the target.

A bow with heavy, slow-moving limbs -- whether it is a recurve or a longbow -- will not send an arrow as far as a bow with light, fast-moving limbs of a comparable size.

So to put my original argument into its proper perspective, a recurve properly designed that is a lower draw strength, provided it is properly designed (to get the same speed of its arms) can still get the same, or superior raw energy as its ELB counterpart. The recurve design is, IMO a more efficient design, able to deliever the energy that is stored in it when drawn, more efficiently than a straight bow

 

[parsifal]

Hi Claidemore, its not exactly tru that the archers at Crecy were exactly commoners. They were actually freedmen, somewhat higher in station to "commoners. this was reflected in their rates of pay.....a foot archer was paid 4 pence per day, whilst a mounted master archer was paid sixpence per day. English mounted master archers usually did not fire from horseback, but being mounted they could move with the other mounted elements of the army, and therefore were good at raiding and the like.

Even though the Master Archers did not fight from horseback, normally, there is some evidence that in the lead up to Crecy, during the chaotic crossing of the Somme, the Master archers fired from horseback,as they forced the forded crossing being defended by the Picardy militia.

There is some evidence that the Master Archers were equipped with recurved "Longbows" This is unusual, but recent experiments shows that the illustrations of such weapons could be of real weapons....they have actually built a recurve bow from a single piece of Yew using a steambox....all technology available to the English Bowyers of the time

 

[claidemore]

Hi parsifal,

OK, I'm understanding your point much better. BTW, there are illustrations of medieval (European) use of recurve bows for hunting, and Crusaders would have brought back recurved composite bows from the East.

I'll include an interesting test of arrow penetration.

My understanding of the question in this thread is 'primarily' how would a European knight and Samurai compare in single combat with swords. At least that's the usual comparison made.
In that context the western knight has all the advantages. He's taller, better armored, has a sword that is much more versatile, has a better diet, rides a much better horse.
Also when I look at period illustrations of Samurai I see a lot of round faced, large waisted fellas, which I don't think can just be attributed to artistic style. Not at all the stringent fitness regime of Samurai legend.

 

[parsifal]

Sorens original parameters for this discussiopn were:

Its time for something other than airplanes:

This is a much debated match-up, with essentially the same amount of people voting for each to emerge the victor, there being lots of biased opinions out there from people using the equipment of both combatants.

So who do think would emerge victorious in a clash between these two ancient icon's ?

Now in melee combat, Samurai were not the sword master they are depicted to be in the Hollywood movies. That did not come until later, about from 1600 or so. In 1300, they were primarily mounted archers, and very powerful ones at that, wielding what is essentially a long bow on horseback. that means they are very mobile , and able to defeat the heaviest troops they are likley to face on the battle field. The Japanese were not riding Mongol ponies, they were an indigenous breed about the same size as the Hobilar mounts (literally "Hobby Horse") of the french Light Cavalry types. They were hardy little mounts, and adequately fast IMO. So, to reduce the fight to a melee combat only in the 14th century, you are right, the samurai is going to lose. He has some sword skills, but it is not his primary weapon at this time. Later the Samurai relied on the Yari Spear (actually a halberd) as his primary weapon, although there also specialist in firearms, NoDachi, and all manner of weapons used regulalry by the Japanese. However, this diversification came later, as did the training in swords. In the 14th century, the Samurai was an archer, and a wrestler (of all things) and a very good one at that.

By the time the Samurai was a swordsman, his role was fading. There was a general peace in Japan for more than 300 years, after the unification wars, and many of the samurai did fall into debauched life styles.....and they are the pictures of fat dudes with funny robes and weird hairdos that you often see. In the medieval period i can assure that this was not the case....they were fit, specialised soldiers

I read your attachment....your right its a good article,and consistent with what I understand as well, although I believe that Longbows up to about 120 lb were available (with the recurve longbows, the recurve gives them a draw weight equivalent to a 150 ELB. The curent longbow chanpion in England uses a bow with a draw strength of 150 lbs, apparently