European Knight vs Asian Samurai (1 Viewer)

Who's going to win ?

  • European Knight

    Votes: 26 47.3%
  • Asian Samurai

    Votes: 29 52.7%

  • Total voters
    55

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

If both the knight and samurai are mounted, the samurai with bow and spear and the knight with lance and sword, both with armor at around the year 1350, I would have to estimate that the victor is going to be whoever plays smarter. Neither party is going to know his enemy's strengths or weaknesses, and making any assumptions could cost them dearly. If the samurai fires his arrows at the knight too far out, he will either miss, or his arrows will be ineffective. We also have to take into consideration the arrowhead used by the samurai - this is out of my area of experteise, but in Europe, the arrowhead that could punch through armor close in was known as the "bodkin" head. The bodkin looks nothing like a typical arrowhead, but instead was needle-like, putting all of the impact pressure on a very small point. Wider heads were not as effective against armor, even in 1350. Making a bad estimate about this while closing could put a lance through the samurai's neck, or through his horse.

On the other hand, the knight does have to be wary of getting his horse shot out from under him. Although horse armor did exist in 1350, just like the armor of the knight riding it, it was not as advanced, resiliant, or well-covering as later horse armor. I can think of a couple instances in later fechtbucher where the ideal target against a rider is his steed. In the event that the knight's horse is taken down while he is closing, it is very likely that the knight will be killed falling at high-speed and breaking his neck or skull, or if not killed outright, likely taking sufficient enough wounds/broken bones to put him out of the fight, just like the French knights at Crecy.

In the event that the samurai exhausts his arrow ammunition, and it goes spear against lance, I'd give the advantage to the knight based upon range. Both the knight and samurai were highly trained in the use of spear weaponry, the knight especially so on horseback, but the same could be said for the samurai as well. Knightly lances could be 12 or more feet in length, and the primary targets of lance strikes were the neck or the head. If the knight assumes, however, that the samurai isn't going to try to get out of the way, (as would happen at times during the Crusades, a Muslim rider would evade by sliding down on the side of his horse) there's a good chance he'll miss, and the samurai's own spear could find its target. On the other hand, if the knight were to play it safe and aim instead at the samurai's horse, he's got a bit more range, and at least could put the samurai on the ground.

If somehow all weapons were exhausted it would get very interesting. Knightly combat could include grappling on horseback and examples of this type of combat can be found in Talhoffer's fechtbuch of 1467 and Wallhausen's fechtbuch of 1616 (this one also includes targeting horse), and although outside our time of combat (1350), the advanced techniques shown therein seem to have been well known for a while (I'll need to check some of the other fechtbucher for more examples.) THAT would be a sight to see (though quite gruesome as well!)

--ON FOOT CONSIDERATION--

On foot, I would give the advantage to the knight, as I've said before, but with the question of what are the knight and samurai armed with? Does the knight have a halberd or maybe poleax complementing his sword? Or is he using a sword and shield, or perhaps bearded axe and shield? What is the samurai using as his weaponry, and how often has he faced a shielded opponent? Both the knight and the samurai were amazing martial artists, both used strikes and wrestling often (most accounts of single knightly armored combat end up with wrestling, then a dagger to the face of whoever lost). The key differentiating factor that I give to the knight is his armor. That said, who would REALLY win is whoever is the smarter fighter, and also, whoever has luck on his side.
 
Did a little more research on the horses the Samurai and Knights would have been using in 1300.
Japanese breeds would include the Yonaguni (11-12 hands), Misaki (12-13.2hh), Miyako (bred up to 14 hands since WWII, much smaller before that), Noma (10 hh, breed is based on Mongolian stock), and Hokaido (based on the Nanbu which Samurai would have rode, 13-13.2 hh). All of these breeds originated from China. Technically there are no Japanese 'indigenous' breeds.
Only the Miyako exhibits 'horse' characteristics, all the others are definately 'ponies'.

Learned some interesting things regarding the European war horses, particularly the destrier.
Destriers were not the huge draft breeds that are commonly assumed to have been used. This myth is based on mistaken assumptions of the weight of a knights armor and 'logic' dictating that only the draft breeds would have been strong enough to carry it. This was false logic, knight armor was only 40-70 lbs (max), about the weight of a heavy modern roping or stock saddle! Research has shown that war horses from 1100 to 1400 were between 14 and 15 hands. Horse armour from 1400-1600 has been shown to fit heavily built horses between 15-16 hands, basiclly some of the smaller draft breeds. The big 17-18 hand draft breeds were not used as war horses, they were, as their name implies, draft horses. (they weren't used for jousting either, it hurts a lot more to fall from an 18 hand horse than a 14 hand one).

Breeds which would be representative of 1300's war horses would include the Camargue (13.5 to 14.2hh), Byelorussian Harness (15-15.3 hh), Friesan (15 hh), Fell and Dales Pony (13-14hh), Carthusian (15.2hh) and Andalusian (modern ones 15.2hh, a little smaller in 1300s). When you compare the modern Carthusian and Dales pony to period artwork, they are a very close match.
 
Good information. The Andalusian is an excellent breed. Do you know how widespread the breed was among knights? Or were they primarily Spanish and French mounts?
 
Seems like almost everyone in Europe tried to get some Andalusian (or originally Jennet) blood in their war horses. Friesians were also popular, and it seems a lot of the English pony breeds were crossed with Friesians to get 'war' horses. IMO a small Friesian, or large Dales Pony, would be about as close as we could get in a modern horse to the type of horse preffered by European knights.
The Spanish-Norman breed is a modern re-creation that is touted by their breeders as a medieval knights charger. Though this modern breed does exhibit many of the characteristics of the medieval horse, they are targetting the sport horse market, and IMO are much taller and more refined than medieval war horses.
I have to dispute the opinion of some that French Knights at the Battle of Crecy were immobilised by the sudden death of their horses. Mortality from arrow wounds is almost never sudden, and an arrow wound is not particularly likely to terrorize a horse and make it unmanageable. Sharp arrows cause a minimum of pain, and an injured horse tends to try to stay with the herd (running with the charge in this case, just as wounded horses did at Balaclava) rather than running off on its own. There are accounts of horses running off out of control, but I believe that this was an exception, noted by chroniclers, but not an overwhelming factor.
Even if a French knight had been unhorsed violently, his armor would protect him and he would be on his feet just as quickly as a modern rodeo contestant getting out of the way of a bull. The ground at Crecy was wet as well, which also makes for a softer landing. We have to look elsewhere to determine why the English archers were so successful at Crecy.
 
The armour worn by the samurai over the centuries was incredibly varied yet throughout the samurai age the principles of the armour remained largely the same save for a few subtle changes. It consisted of a kabuto (helmet) for the head; a do (cuirass) for the torso; a pair of sode (shoulder guards); one or two kote (armoured sleeves) for the arms; a kusazuri (armoured skirt or apron) to protect the upper thighs; and a pair of suneate (shin guards.) Haidate (thigh guards) were added in around the 14th century and by the 16th the mempo (face mask) was introduced.
Each piece of armour consisted of a set of small iron plates called kozane laced together by leather cord. The resultant strips were then lacquered to protect the material against rust and then a series were tied together horizontally with silk cords called kebiki-odoshi to produce a light and fairly resilient armour plate. Beginning in the latter part of the Heian period this method produced the varying sizes and shapes of Japanese armour for several centuries. Japanese armourers tended towards manoeuvrability and preferred to sacrifice some elements of protection for this to be achieved; in the medieval period of Western Europe knights used their weight as well as that of their horses as weapons but that wasn't the case in Japan where mobility was deemed more important.

Lacing the armour was an art in itself called odoshi and the colour and even the patterns produced by this method could enable a samurai to identify a member of a clan by the colour of the cord his armour was laced from. For example, the Taira clan adopted purple, the Fujiwara light green, and the Tachibana yellow. These cords also had their own names: light blue was called hanairo-odoshi and kon-odoshi for navy blue for example. It was quite common for armour to sport several different colours and this was known as iroiro-odoshi. White coloured lacing for a suit of armour signified that the wearer did not expect to survive his next engagement as white is the colour of mourning in Japan. The cord itself also identified the rank of the samurai. Tight, elaborate lacing was reserved for those of high rank while wide facing was used for the infantry troops.

Up to the 14th century the o-yoroi or 'great armour' was standard for the samurai. Its box-like appearance, large square sode, and equally large kusazuri was ideal for mounted warfare. Furthermore it looked beautiful and aristocratic with its multi-coloured lacing or odoshi. Finally the kabuto with its characteristic fukigaeshi (winglets or turnbacks) at the front of the shikoro (neck guard) and the kuwagata (twin horned crest) above the helmet's peak gave the samurai its enduring and appealing image.

This is an extract that I have concerning Japanese bows

For centuries the bow and arrow was the principle weapon of choice in Japan and even after the introduction of the firearm in the 16th century, and the strict rule of the Tokugawa shogunate, archery remained a noble art.

It was from the use of the war bow or longbow in particular that Chinese historians called the Japanese 'the people of the longbow'. As early as the 4th century archery contests were being held in Japan. In the Heian period (between the 8th and 12th centuries) archery competitions on horseback were very popular and during this time training in archery was developed. Archers had to loose their arrows against static and mobile targets both on foot and on horseback. The static targets were the large kind or o-mato and was set at thirty-three bow lengths and measured about 180cm in diameter; the deer target or kusajishi consisted of a deer's silhouette and was covered in deer skin and marks indicated vital areas on the body; and finally there was the round target or marumono which was essentially a round board, stuffed and enveloped in strong animal skin. To make things more interesting for the archer these targets would be hung from poles and set in motion so that they would provide much harder targets to hit. Throughout feudal Japan indoor and outdoor archery ranges could be found in the houses of every major samurai clan. Bow and arrow and straw targets were common sights as were the beautiful cases which held the arrows and the likewise ornate stands which contained the bow. These items were prominent features in the houses of samurai.
Training from horseback was obviously a lot more difficult and was the domain of the true samurai, as their origin was as an equestrian archer. Coordination had to be honed if the archer was to loose a well aimed arrow from the back of a galloping horse. A number of archery forms evolved for this purpose: yabusame or three-target shooting; kasagake or bamboo-hat target shooting; inuoumono or dog shooting, inuoi or dog hunt, oitorigari or bird hunt, and the grand hunt itself called makigari.

Yabusame, or three-target shooting, involved the equestrian archer galloping at full speed while loosing arrows at three targets along the horse's path. Kasagake or bamboo-hat target shooting was performed in the confines of a fenced course called the arrow way (yado). A shelf was set at one end at which bamboo hats were hung. The rider was required to shoot at them from distance and then close range while at full gallop. Inuoumono, or dog shooting, was quite literally that. A number of dogs were released into a bamboo-fenced arena after which the riders entered and shot them. Although this barbaric practice wasn't phased out and remained popular for centuries edicts were eventually introduced which forced the riders to use non-lethal arrows and the dogs wore padded jackets. Like in medieval Europe hunting was very popular. Groups of samurai and their retainers enjoyed setting up encampments in the countryside or mountains from where they would search and subsequently chase their quarry. Just as much honour and prestige could be attained by a samurai for carrying out a good kill on a deer or boar than if he killed an enemy in battle.

The typical longbow, or war bow (daikyu), was made from deciduous wood faced with bamboo and was reinforced with a binding of rattan to further strengthen the composite weapon together. To waterproof it the shaft was lacquered. The length of the weapon was considerable, just over two metres, and was bent in the shape of a double curve. The bowstring was made from a fibrous substance originating from plants (usually hemp or ramie) and was coated with wax to give a hard smooth surface and in some cases it was necessary for two people to string the bow. Bowstrings were often made by skilled specialists and came in varying qualities from hard strings to the soft and elastic bowstrings used for hunting; silk was also available but this was only used for ceremonial bows. The bow's draw-weight measured from between 35-90lbs so the archer would have to have some strength to use it properly. Factors contributing to the draw-weight were the types of materials used to make the bow.

Other types of bows existed. There was the short bow, one used for battle called the hankyu, one used for amusement called the yokyu, and one used for hunting called the suzume-yumi. There was also the maru-ki or roundwood bow, the shige-no-yumi or bow wound round with rattan, and the hoko-yumi or the Tartar-shaped bow.



A recurve composite at 75lb draw weight is going to have roughly the same performance as an ELB of roughly 120 lb draw weight

Some images of the samurai weaponry, including horse sizes, arrowheads, armour and some contemporary paintings....
 

Attachments

  • Samurai 1.jpg
    Samurai 1.jpg
    113.4 KB · Views: 91
  • Samurai 2.jpg
    Samurai 2.jpg
    45.9 KB · Views: 71
  • Samurai 3.jpg
    Samurai 3.jpg
    111.7 KB · Views: 93
  • Samurai 5.jpg
    Samurai 5.jpg
    35.8 KB · Views: 88
  • Samurai 6.jpg
    Samurai 6.jpg
    178.6 KB · Views: 85
It is unfortunate that experts in either Samurai or European Knights tend to be only very knowledgeable about one and prone to making exaggerated and sometimes ignorant statements about the other.
 
I have to dispute the opinion of some that French Knights at the Battle of Crecy were immobilised by the sudden death of their horses. Mortality from arrow wounds is almost never sudden, and an arrow wound is not particularly likely to terrorize a horse and make it unmanageable. Sharp arrows cause a minimum of pain, and an injured horse tends to try to stay with the herd (running with the charge in this case, just as wounded horses did at Balaclava) rather than running off on its own. There are accounts of horses running off out of control, but I believe that this was an exception, noted by chroniclers, but not an overwhelming factor.
Even if a French knight had been unhorsed violently, his armor would protect him and he would be on his feet just as quickly as a modern rodeo contestant getting out of the way of a bull. The ground at Crecy was wet as well, which also makes for a softer landing. We have to look elsewhere to determine why the English archers were so successful at Crecy.

A 100 lb ELB at range 30m is going to have the same penetrating power on entry as a 303 bullet. It will IMO penetrate about 4-6 inches of an unarmoured Horse. At 30 metres a standard ELB will have a hard time against even mild steel plate of the period, but will generally penetrate (or cause lethal damage) mailed armour. The recurved bows that are now thought to be the equipment of the master archers had an equivalent draw strength of about 150 lb, can could penetrate the steel plate and the mailed armour of the 1340 period at 30 metres (however, it could not penetrate the heat treated plate armour of the following century, which is one of the reasons I think the Europeans were developing their metallurgy in the 15th century)

The French were forced (by the terrain) to attack in waves at Crecy, each wave was about 1500 men. There were no less than 16 attacks made that day, with many knights returning from battle, to collect further horses and join in the attack (the kiing of France had two horses shot out from under him. With 5000 normal archers firing at the horses, and another 2500 master archers held back to shoot at the knights themselves, and about 3500 men at arms ready to race out and finish off any isolated individuals who made it to the English lines, the outcome and course of the battle should not be surprising. A horse with one arrow 5 inches into its hide might survive....a horse with 4 normal arrow, and one arrow likley to have passed right through it is going to be moving rather slowly and uncontrollably IMO. Moreover it is worse than that. Because the British had had more than a day to prepre, and the lines of advance were known, they had time to range the MLA with great accuracy. They could, and did, start shooting from further than 30 metres. There was in fact about a 40 second time frame in which each charge would be fired on....time enough for the English archers to lose off about 6-8 rounds each. That means that each horse could have up to 24 arrows each embedded into them. This theory would however require the English to go out and retrieve some of their arrows after each wave....
 
I have to dispute the opinion of some that French Knights at the Battle of Crecy were immobilised by the sudden death of their horses. Mortality from arrow wounds is almost never sudden, and an arrow wound is not particularly likely to terrorize a horse and make it unmanageable. Sharp arrows cause a minimum of pain, and an injured horse tends to try to stay with the herd (running with the charge in this case, just as wounded horses did at Balaclava) rather than running off on its own. There are accounts of horses running off out of control, but I believe that this was an exception, noted by chroniclers, but not an overwhelming factor.
Even if a French knight had been unhorsed violently, his armor would protect him and he would be on his feet just as quickly as a modern rodeo contestant getting out of the way of a bull. The ground at Crecy was wet as well, which also makes for a softer landing. We have to look elsewhere to determine why the English archers were so successful at Crecy.

Good points. The main reason I brought up the possibility of injury from falling is that the weight of the armor wasn't keeping the French knights on the ground, but a concussion/broken neck/being trampled by other knights might just do so. I lack the knowledge of horses that you have, so I can only theorize. If I had to hypothesize about the effectiveness of those arrows, I'd say more blame can be put on the sheer volume finding their targets here and there or shooting through the less-developed pauldrons or maille around the neck/shoulder area. For that matter, their armor may not have been as effective against high-arching shots, considering that armor is not of uniform thickness, rather, it tapers getting thinner towards "less-vulnerable" areas (especially the shoulder and the side of the ribcage near the arm.) Put 7,000 arrows in the air and you're going to hit those spots. Do it a few times and well, there go the knights...

I submit then, that a wet field, combined with the ridge at the extremes of the field holding them in, and their impudent advance into literally thousands of archers is what killed the knights. Why they weren't getting up was a combination of death, wounds and disbelief. Of course, this is all pretty off-hand...

EDIT: Well, Parsifal seems to have done the research on this one!
 
Mike

I posted a series of pictures in one of my posts, including three arrowheads for you to have a look at. They are not bodkins, but they are still pretty narrow. Wouldnt mind your opinion on their capability....they are said to be from the 13th century....but I cannot verify the veracity of that date
 
One other thing I forgot to mention about the battle of Crecy. Some scholars contend that specialised arrows ....known as broadhead arrows....were used by the british against the french. These were pretty much the opposite of the bodkin type arrowhead, designed for armour piercing capability

I have attached a picture of broadhead arrowheads. their potential effects should be self explanatory
 

Attachments

  • broadhead arrows.jpg
    broadhead arrows.jpg
    19.8 KB · Views: 48
A 100 lb ELB at range 30m is going to have the same penetrating power on entry as a 303 bullet. It will IMO penetrate about 4-6 inches of an unarmoured Horse.

Hi parsifal: Horses and archery, two of my main interests over the past 30 years. :) My brother in law shoots a 65 lb longbow, and put a 600 grn arrow right through a big mule deer buck at 30 yards this past fall. Thats 18-20 inches of penetration.
I shoot a 54 lb recurve and put a 500 grn arrow into a bull moose with about 12 inches of penetration (35 yards). That arrow had a 1 1/2" three blade broadhead.
A 100 lb ELB should bury a 30 inch 1000 grn arrow right up to the fletching on an unarmored horse at 30 yards, providing it doesn't hit heavy bone. An arcing arrow at 250 yards will penetrate 4-6 inches.
7500 archers, carrying 48 arrows each, = 360,000 arrows minimum.

Clay Allison: Yup, I hate it when people make exagerated and ignorant statements. Haven't seen it so much on this thread, there are some very informed statements, and some excellent conjectures, but I've seen some pretty bone headed stuff in some other threads.
 
I shoot a 50 lb composite at the moment.....i have lost a lot of strength over the past 10 years or so...I didnt want to overstate the effects of arrow hits, because i didnt think it would be believable. I agree with your summary incidentally.

On that basis the French Knights would have been cut to pieces...or at least their horses would have been
 
Yeah clay I dont hink these guys are attacking each other so much here. In fact I have enjoyed the exchange of information. No-one is ramming their ideas down the other guys throats. We present our knowledge, listen to what the other guys say, and go an make our own conclusions from what weve seen. Gee I hope I didnt come across as too dogmatic and stubborn....that was not my intent.

The conversation has ben laid back and enjoyable I thought
 
My post about putting a panzerdivision against Mongols was in fun and not intended to sour this very interesting thread. No offense intended.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back