Recreation Knight vs. Samurai

Knight vs. Samurai?
who would win and why do you think that?

I think a Knight would win mainly cos a samurai wears wood armour and that isnt exactly going to stop a longsword or claymore is it?(retorical question)
And a Samurai uses a sword made mainly for slashing, which will have almost no effect on a Knights Heavy steel/Iron plate armour, even if it does get through the armour it isnt getting throught the chainmail anytime soon.

So What do you think?

 

I agree.The armor of a knight is far to strong for a samurai.But if the samurai were to duel them,I think the knight would have some trouble trying to hit him.But I think the knight would win sadly.

No wait,Knight's armor has joints in it so they can move,and there is no armor were the joints are,and if a samurai could get his sword in there,that knight would be im trouble.

 

Right now you've given us an utterly stereotypical view on what Hollywood and media has been given us over decades.
However...
I'm following this document and prefer not to pick sides There are just TOO MUCH variables to decide the outcome.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

 

oh come on stereotypical, i havent looked at that link yet but test it yourself, get a fully functional samurai sword and hit some steel or iron plate with it, you'll at most dent it a little.
Then take a fully functional claymore/broadsword/longsward and hit a piece of pine wood or oak wood and look at the outcome, the results arent really a surprise, and no amount of foot work is going to stop a 5ft blade.

i agree, but if the samurai were to move wrongly the sword of the knight would put him out of commision, and It'd have to be a pretty good shot by the samurai, considering the gaps were small.

 

Yep,he would have to be good to get in to the joint.Hmmmmmm,but what if the knight was to swing his sword down,and the samurai dodged it,with all the armor the knight has,he would be much slower to pick up his sword,and the samurai could strike then,oh well,I guess no matter what the knight would win.

 

I was actually referring to the armor. You said the samurai wears wooden armor, while there are also samurai who used iron plates which were linked with silk thread.
The link describes several variables...

My money's on the knight though

 

Depending on the Basis of the weapon the samuri is using and the armour that the knight is using is the real question.

Lets go with this

The knight is wearing standard iron plated armour head to toe covered in armour with a basic one handed broad sword and no shield. The samuri is using a katana made out of steel and is wearing samuri armour and other equipment. then thier's the fight where it is taking place. IF we look at both we can see that the samuri will have the advantage on speed and mobility while the knight has the advantage one countering and defense. Offenivly the Samuri will have a natural advantage without being wayed down by so much armour. Thats one way to think of it.

We can't just go off and say the knight will win because of armour ZEETOMfg or the same for the samuri. OMFG HE GOT A flargen Katana OMFG RUN!!

Each warrior is different and each would have a different set of tactics. Neither can be summed up in one word in skill or in stradegy. Both are excellent in thier own parts where they fought at. so yea..my vote is a neutral unless someone can give us some more indepth detail on the knight and the samuri

 

Actually, I'd say the Samurai would win hands down. Especially if he isn't wearing any armor. He just has to dodge the Knight's first swing. Then when the Knight is recovering, the Samurai takes off the Knight's helmet helmet and bang! Instant win.

 

But what if the knight has been fighting for years.He would be quite strong physically so he could probally be really good with his sword.and if his helmet is fastened down,it would not come off.but if he had a open face helmet,he would be in very very big trouble,because one hit there would stun him,and he could not see,and while stunned,the samurai strikes,and the fight ends,the samurai wins!

 

If this was a one on one.. And both with masters with the sword.. Then You really can't say one has the upper hand.. I mean just read through that webpage..

But what the Samurai has going for them is Most of those guys trained, trained, trained and trained some more.. Its like any Martial art.. It was their religion..

Most Kights trained.. but not nearly on the same scale as the samurai did.. So i think the Samurai will have the edge if you were to pluck 2 randoms and put them against each other..

 

Samurai did train,but some knights did to,I really can't say the more I think about it who would win.I guess we will never know!

 

training is one but what about real combat experience. That can be another factor that training can't fully come to.

We can only take estamated guess. If anyone would try to make a scenerio stating the armour, weapons, ability and health/age of both the samuri and the knight then we can actually begin to draw some real good answers

 

I still say the Samurai will win. I can think of so many ways to beat the Knight, assuming he has a full suit of platemail.

Plan 1: Dodge first swing, take his helmet off, kill him.

Plan 2: Dodge first swing, open his helmet, kill him.

Plan 3: Dodge first swing, shove your sword in the holes in the helmet for his eyes.

Plan 4: Dodge first swing, poke him in the eyes with your fingers.

Plan 5: Dodge first swing, push the knight, win!

Plan 6: Dodge first swing, walk behind him, win!

When you're in a full suit of platemail, you have a very limited range of movement, you're very easy to knock over, and you can't get back up after you've been knocked down. I know because I've been in a full suit before. I've even served as target practice for a bunch of people hitting golf balls at me. The armor got dented pretty easily.

Your best bet in a fight is to dodge all of your opponent's strikes. Even if you have unbreakable defense, there are gonna be spots that are open for attacks and also you usually have to sacrifice a lot of speed and maneuverablity to have that defense. I used to be into having impenetrable defense, but being in Knight's armor made me realize how inneffective it really is and that's why I now go for speed, evasion, and agility.

Now, assuming the Knight is using the chainmail with plates over vital areas combo, then he has about the same manueverablity as an armored Samurai would, so it would go down to the fighter's intelligence, skills, body, and weapons. This is where it could be considered a pretty even match. It could go either way here.

 

ok first off this is a repeated thread and will be linked with the old thread.

FIRSTLY THO

the claymore is a scottish weapon not an english one. Its usage in battle is obvious, such a weapon is a battering weapon. its function not for cutting as much as it was for beating.

secondly samurai armor was made from leather and metal NOT wood. its strength in battle was far from the heavy steel plate armor of the knight, but it was strong none the less. actually, the mobility in armor was very limited, about as much as a knight would be able to move in his armor.

as for the actually fight, the samurai may or may not be armored. His armor gave him protection but cut down on his mobility which the samurai are known for. and against an opponent such as this, most likely no armor would be worn. The knight would be well protected by his armor but as someone pointed out, there are joints in his armor and there are gaps there as well. and samurai is not going to miss this flaw. however, the broadsword of Europe is a very fine weapon made for stabbing. it can strike fast in sucession at close range. HOWEVER, the samurai sword or Nihontou is the finest cutting weapon on earth, its edge is sharp as a razor and its swiftness is almost unparalleled. but through such armor its impossible to cut. so the samurai would have to judge his opponent very carefully and pick out the obvious weak points of the armor. however this is all just a random question without a definite outcome.

unfortunetly there is no real way to pit two people against eachother because there are major differences in style and in skill that become extremely apparent on a battlefield but are not apparent here in a web forum.

 

I saw on Discovery that Samurais train swordfighting like a chess game, they have all these combinations of movements that will throw the enemy off guard. And for the knight to go thru the samurai's armor (which is a VERY GOOD armor, all based on scales very carefully put together so they act like kevlar), he first has to go thru the samurai's sword. (And remember, anime says that a Samurai's soul resides in his sword ;-) )

Another thing. A knight's sword must be unsheathed first, and then he can swing. A Samurai's sword is curved so you unsheath it and attack in the same move.

So I'd vote for Samurai-Sama.

Finally, in case of doubt, ask the HighLander

 

actually the European broadsword is an extremely effective stabbing weapon.

anyway the soul is truly the soul of the samurai. It was much more than a weapon, an extension of the body. A samurai trained for his entire life, putting in thousands of hours practicing. The sword represented a way of life not just a way of fighting. the sword was holy, a sacred item. Something that represented the entire being of the samurai, it was his core.

The techniques based upon unsheathing of the blade is known as Iaijutsu. In definition is the rapid unsheathing of the Japanese sword under duress. Many of the techniques begin in a seated position because the art of Iai is mostly a defensive one. its original intent was to be able to defend onself when attacked when your sword would still be in its sheath. It hold true to the way of Kenjutsu in that the goal is to kill your opponent in the shortest, most effective way. Its a deadly art and is extremely effective.

 

Broad swords are effective for stabbing.My fathers friend has some,and they are extremly heavy compared to a Nihonto.I can say one thing,I coudn't weild one!I would probally end up hurting myself or somthing.:sweat2:

 

no offense your father's friend probably had a knock off market produced one and not a real crafted one. Yes the difference in weight is much pending on how it's made.

 

._.

Everyone should take a look at Superfly's link before going on because it puts everything into perspective and gives us an honest, unbiased opinion of both sides to the argument.

My vote is for the samurai simply because he is faster, nimbler, better trained with a more vicious mentality while the knight is bigger, slower with all his armor on, and if he has his visor down he's also pretty much blind. While the broadsword may be an effective tool, swift and strong, you have to keep in mind the knight is using in conjunction with his heavy, movement limiting armor (even more so if it's real plate armor) and a shield, which will also weigh a ton. To put it into perspective it would be like a jackal attacking a crocodile on land. Anything is possible. This is all hypothetical.

~W

 

They wern't knock offs,they were real,and very old to.But you are right about how there forged,it does play a part.but all the ones i've seen have been quite heavy.But,anyways,Im not gonna say cause we will never know who would win!(ooooo)