European Knight Vs Japanese Samurai.

  • 101 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for dercoo
#1 Posted by dercoo (12555 posts) -

Since knight vs ninja devolved into knight vs samurai, I thought it a good to get its own thread (again)

European Knight Vs Japanese Samurai.

click to zoom

Lets debate who was better at each others peaks.

Lets compare

Swords

vs

Armor

vs

Spear weapons

vs

Clubs

vs

ect ect.


Personally I would go with the Knight. Its a close battle but I believe the Knight's armor would give him the edge. A katana can't cut through chain mail, so against plate ll cutting attacks would be useless.

So OT who is your choice.

Avatar image for Pirate700
#2 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

The knight. Much better armor, better weaponry and better trained.

Avatar image for SeraphimGoddess
#3 Posted by SeraphimGoddess (12955 posts) -
I ain't no weeaboo; knight. [spoiler] This will probably get locked if a mod looks into it enough, bro. [/spoiler]
Avatar image for kidsmelly
#4 Posted by kidsmelly (5692 posts) -

Japanese knight.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#5 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

The superior equipment (both armor and weaponry) make me lean towards the Knight.

Avatar image for sonofsmeagle
#6 Posted by sonofsmeagle (4317 posts) -

Well the Samurai prob has better training than a knight since not all knights were the behemoths of the battlefield some were just rich lords that could afford the best armour and equipment money could buy tho they all had atleast some training so they were still deadly, on the other hand the Samurai were all trained from birth and honed their skills every day.

on the other hand the Katana was a deadly weopon that could cut through most samurai armour but against Solid Plate even the strongest attack would prob get the Katana buried into the armour and stuck their pretty much while a knights heavy claymore would just crush through the fragile Samurai armour and the fact that not all kinight used swords so a knight with a shield and warhammer would be deadly and just peirce the helmet of armour of a samurai and kill them brutally.

Cavalry wise thet Knights would win as their horses had even more plate armour than they did so they would just crush through with brute force any infantry and prob knock over another horse headon, also the Knights lances were considerably longer than a samurai's spear and would just hit 1st and leave a tree sticking out of the samurai's chest.

So with all this taken into account the battle would be in favour of the knights at the charge, the middle of the battle would be pretty even with a slight edge to the knights, and nearing the end of the battle the knights would just start to brutally massacre the Samurai due to their superior armour withstanding their enemys best attacks and their weopons crushing or peircing the samurai's armour.

Knights for the win.

Avatar image for Espada12
#7 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

It depends on whose knights we are talking about. Average Samurai Vs Average teutonic knight.. the teutonic knight would probably win.. it might be different for british knights since they fought differently.

Avatar image for sonofsmeagle
#8 Posted by sonofsmeagle (4317 posts) -

It depends on whose knights we are talking about. Average Samurai Vs Average teutonic knight.. the teutonic knight would probably win.. it might be different for british knights since they fought differently.

Espada12
oh yeh i forgot to even take the Teotonic knights into consideration hell if it was them they'd butcher any1 that wasnt catholic, i'd really feel sorry for the samurai
Avatar image for deactivated-5c8e4e07d5510
#9 Posted by deactivated-5c8e4e07d5510 (17401 posts) -
Knight. A katana is extremely sharp, but it won't help against plate armor.
Avatar image for AtlanticRock
#10 Posted by AtlanticRock (8131 posts) -

Knight has better weapons and utilities than a samurai. One swing of that mace and the Samurai's whole internal organ system is shattered to bits and dead before they hit the ground.

Avatar image for aransom
#11 Posted by aransom (7408 posts) -

I'm leaning towards European Knight. I just can't see a samurai sword doing a lot of damage to him.

Avatar image for Velocitas8
#12 Posted by Velocitas8 (10748 posts) -

Knight, assuming we're talking about close quarter combat. A Samurai really wouldn't be able to do much.

Avatar image for Alacoque72
#13 Posted by Alacoque72 (1238 posts) -

The knight would kill it. Samurai's armour looks alot heavier and their clubs and spears look crappy.

Avatar image for branketra
#14 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

I'm leaning towards European Knight. I just can't see a samurai sword doing a lot of damage to him.

aransom

Actually, the samurai could make the knight hurt himself. Repeatedly. The same can be said for knights, but they have plate mail, so that's extra weight that goes down with every knockback.

Avatar image for PC_Otter
#15 Posted by PC_Otter (1623 posts) -

Knights - better equipment sans sword

Samurai - better training

Yeah, Knights would probably be the victor.

Avatar image for Pirate700
#16 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

Knights - better equipment sans sword

Samurai - better training

Yeah, Knights would probably be the victor.

PC_Otter

The knights sword would generally be better also.

Avatar image for branketra
#17 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"]

Knights - better equipment sans sword

Samurai - better training

Yeah, Knights would probably be the victor.

Pirate700

The knights sword would generally be better also.

How so? I was under the impression that cutting-wise, the katana is the best on this planet.

Avatar image for Pirate700
#18 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"]

Knights - better equipment sans sword

Samurai - better training

Yeah, Knights would probably be the victor.

BranKetra

The knights sword would generally be better also.

How so? I was under the impression that cutting-wise, the katana is the best on this planet.

Sharpness isn't the only thing that factors into an effective weapon.

Avatar image for branketra
#19 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]The knights sword would generally be better also.

Pirate700

How so? I was under the impression that cutting-wise, the katana is the best on this planet.

Sharpness isn't the only thing that factors into an effective weapon.

Exactly.The design of katanas is basically honed for cutting. As a result, the hilts are smaller than a claymores or even an average sword (Besides a bastard sword). So, less defense. After all, everything's focused on that perfect cut.

Avatar image for -TheSecondSign-
#20 Posted by -TheSecondSign- (9298 posts) -

We're talking about a knight in full plate and wielding a greatsword right?

Knight, easily. There's a reason knights wielded such heavier weaponry aside from their own personal constrictions of movement.

Smaller, lighter weaponry had virtually no chance of penetrating any area of plate, and it had a hard enough time getting through the mail they wore underneath.

Not to mention they were literally the early versions of tanks, miniature machinations of death on the battlefield.

Being a knight took years upon years of training, it wasn't just being an ordinary soldier in a European military. It was like being the modern day representation of a Special Forces soldier. They received the best training, best weaponry, and best of pretty much everything.

Avatar image for Treflis
#21 Posted by Treflis (13613 posts) -
- A claymore is heavy and sharp, designed and intended to be swung down on another blade of equal density, it's more like a sharp club. The katana on the other hand is designed to cut and while as sharp as a scalpel it isn't as sturdy as the claymore and an attempt to block one with a katana would ruin it. It's also not designed to cut through metal, as some Anime's seem to suggest. - While Plate armor offers the best protection, it's easier to move around in the Leather armor that Samurai's wear. -The lance or the halberd as one knight there has is created is created to penetrate through thick armor, the halberd also functioning as a cutting tool with the axe blade. The Naginata is a lighter spear designed to cut and penetrate through soft targets ( Clothes, skin etc.), but it's also swung faster then a Halberd due to it's low weight. - Clubs, I think both here are evently matched though if you take into consideration of the armors, again the knight would have the edge due to him wearing plate armor made of metal rather then leather. The Japanese were Isolated from the rest of the world for centuries, they constructed weapons that worked against their armor and their weapons, not those of a Western knight wearing metal from head to toe and with weapons designed to crush through such armor. Considering the Knight has several things that lean to his favor compared to the Samurai, I'll have to say the Knight wins. Which is a shame really cause I like the Samurai's. =P
Avatar image for Pirate700
#22 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

- A claymore is heavy and sharp, designed and intended to be swung down on another blade of equal density, it's more like a sharp club. The katana on the other hand is designed to cut and while as sharp as a scalpel it isn't as sturdy as the claymore and an attempt to block one with a katana would ruin it. It's also not designed to cut through metal, as some Anime's seem to suggest. - While Plate armor offers the best protection, it's easier to move around in the Leather armor that Samurai's wear. -The lance or the halberd as one knight there has is created is created to penetrate through thick armor, the halberd also functioning as a cutting tool with the axe blade. The Naginata is a lighter spear designed to cut and penetrate through soft targets ( Clothes, skin etc.), but it's also swung faster then a Halberd due to it's low weight. - Clubs, I think both here are evently matched though if you take into consideration of the armors, again the knight would have the edge due to him wearing plate armor made of metal rather then leather. The Japanese were Isolated from the rest of the world for centuries, they constructed weapons that worked against their armor and their weapons, not those of a Western knight wearing metal from head to toe and with weapons designed to crush through such armor. Considering the Knight has several things that lean to his favor compared to the Samurai, I'll have to say the Knight wins. Which is a shame really cause I like the Samurai's. =PTreflis

A lot of the Samurai gear had iron components and leather is pretty heavy. I wouldn't be shocked if their armor weighted more.

Avatar image for markop2003
#23 Posted by markop2003 (29917 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"]

Knights - better equipment sans sword

Samurai - better training

Yeah, Knights would probably be the victor.

BranKetra

The knights sword would generally be better also.

How so? I was under the impression that cutting-wise, the katana is the best on this planet.

Cutting does nothing against plate armor, myou have to crush the plates or stab in between them, trying to cut through them is futile.

Avatar image for markop2003
#24 Posted by markop2003 (29917 posts) -

Being a knight took years upon years of training, it wasn't just being an ordinary soldier in a European military. It was like being the modern day representation of a Special Forces soldier. They received the best training, best weaponry, and best of pretty much everything.

-TheSecondSign-
Nope, a knight was a political position. In exchange for land they had to provide soldiers when called upon by their Lord/Baron who would then provide them to the king, they didn't technically have to go into combat zones at all and even when they did go in there's nothing saying that they themselves had to fight.
Avatar image for natanaj
#25 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] How so? I was under the impression that cutting-wise, the katana is the best on this planet.

BranKetra

Sharpness isn't the only thing that factors into an effective weapon.

Exactly.The design of katanas is basically honed for cutting. As a result, the hilts are smaller than a claymores or even an average sword (Besides a bastard sword). So, less defense. After all, everything's focused on that perfect cut.

So the samurai gives a perfect cut too the knight's armor, but then gets stuck an inch into it. The knight then cuts him in half with his greatsword.
Avatar image for natanaj
#26 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -
[QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

Being a knight took years upon years of training, it wasn't just being an ordinary soldier in a European military. It was like being the modern day representation of a Special Forces soldier. They received the best training, best weaponry, and best of pretty much everything.

markop2003
Nope, a knight was a political position. In exchange for land they had to provide soldiers when called upon by their Lord/Baron who would then provide them to the king, they didn't technically have to go into combat zones at all and even when they did go in there's nothing saying that they themselves had to fight.

It became that way by the 1400s and 1500s yes, but before that, there were plenty knightly orders that required constant training to become a knight. Take the Templars or Teutonic knights for example.
Avatar image for natanaj
#27 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -

Knights - better equipment sans sword

Samurai - better training

Yeah, Knights would probably be the victor.

PC_Otter

I dissagree with this statement. If the knight is teutonic, then his training rivals that of a samurai.

Avatar image for metroidfood
#28 Posted by metroidfood (11175 posts) -

Knight, no contest.

Avatar image for T_REX305
#29 Posted by T_REX305 (11304 posts) -
Knight...again
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#30 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Sharpness isn't the only thing that factors into an effective weapon.

natanaj

Exactly.The design of katanas is basically honed for cutting. As a result, the hilts are smaller than a claymores or even an average sword (Besides a bastard sword). So, less defense. After all, everything's focused on that perfect cut.

So the samurai gives a perfect cut too the knight's armor, but then gets stuck an inch into it. The knight then cuts him in half with his greatsword.

There is no way that the Samurai sword cuts an inch into the armor. The sword is too light to get enough kinetic energy to do anywhere near that level of metal deformation.

Avatar image for markop2003
#31 Posted by markop2003 (29917 posts) -
[QUOTE="markop2003"][QUOTE="-TheSecondSign-"]

Being a knight took years upon years of training, it wasn't just being an ordinary soldier in a European military. It was like being the modern day representation of a Special Forces soldier. They received the best training, best weaponry, and best of pretty much everything.

natanaj
Nope, a knight was a political position. In exchange for land they had to provide soldiers when called upon by their Lord/Baron who would then provide them to the king, they didn't technically have to go into combat zones at all and even when they did go in there's nothing saying that they themselves had to fight.

It became that way by the 1400s and 1500s yes, but before that, there were plenty knightly orders that required constant training to become a knight. Take the Templars or Teutonic knights for example.

That's a different structure, they aren't knights in the regular sense. Plenty of nights did lead their troops i no battle but there was never anything saying they had to.
Avatar image for natanaj
#32 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -

[QUOTE="natanaj"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] Exactly.The design of katanas is basically honed for cutting. As a result, the hilts are smaller than a claymores or even an average sword (Besides a bastard sword). So, less defense. After all, everything's focused on that perfect cut.

coolbeans90

So the samurai gives a perfect cut too the knight's armor, but then gets stuck an inch into it. The knight then cuts him in half with his greatsword.

There is no way that the Samurai sword cuts an inch into the armor. The sword is too light to get enough kinetic energy to do anywhere near that level of metal deformation.

then it bounces off, and while the samurai is dealing with the shock of his precious katana getting owned, the knight stabs him in the face with his dagger.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#33 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
If the knight is wearing full armor, the knight would win. If not, it would really depend on the skill of the two swordsmen.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
#34 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="natanaj"] So the samurai gives a perfect cut too the knight's armor, but then gets stuck an inch into it. The knight then cuts him in half with his greatsword.natanaj

There is no way that the Samurai sword cuts an inch into the armor. The sword is too light to get enough kinetic energy to do anywhere near that level of metal deformation.

then it bounces off, and while the samurai is dealing with the shock of his precious katana getting owned, the knight stabs him in the face with his dagger.

More or less, yeah. (replace dagger with sword, and you're almost there)

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#35 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

If the knight is wearing full armor, the knight would win. If not, it would really depend on the skill of the two swordsmen.chessmaster1989

If it doesn't ave armor, it's not a real knight!!

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#36 Posted by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]If the knight is wearing full armor, the knight would win. If not, it would really depend on the skill of the two swordsmen.coolbeans90

If it doesn't ave armor, it's not a real knight!!

A fair point I suppose.

Avatar image for branketra
#37 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -
[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Exactly.The design of katanas is basically honed for cutting. As a result, the hilts are smaller than a claymores or even an average sword (Besides a bastard sword). So, less defense. After all, everything's focused on that perfect cut.

natanaj
So the samurai gives a perfect cut too the knight's armor, but then gets stuck an inch into it. The knight then cuts him in half with his greatsword.

Just a head's up, that's actually a poor cut. If it were perfect, the fight would be over.
Avatar image for Vesica_Prime
#39 Posted by Vesica_Prime (7062 posts) -

On foot? The samurai would win due to the fact that samurai armour is light and flexible while a full platemail set is heavy and cumbersome.

Avatar image for branketra
#40 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

shut up and go watch animenatanaj
The internet.

Avatar image for natanaj
#41 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -
[QUOTE="BranKetra"][QUOTE="natanaj"] shut up and go watch anime

The internet.

Fine. Watch anime on the internet
Avatar image for James161324
#42 Posted by James161324 (8315 posts) -

The Knight. He is just better equipped the samurai sword is a great cutting tool, but it was meant for light to no armor which was the most common in asia. It wouldn't be able to puncture the armor.

The mobility in armor isn't as bad as everyone thinks, the knight still has a decent mobilitity.

They were both designed for there area of the world and both were excellent fighters.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
#43 Posted by coolbeans90 (21305 posts) -

[QUOTE="natanaj"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]

Exactly.The design of katanas is basically honed for cutting. As a result, the hilts are smaller than a claymores or even an average sword (Besides a bastard sword). So, less defense. After all, everything's focused on that perfect cut.

BranKetra

So the samurai gives a perfect cut too the knight's armor, but then gets stuck an inch into it. The knight then cuts him in half with his greatsword.

Just a head's up, that's actually a poor cut. If it were perfect, the fight would be over.

That's a cut that would require a greater weight to push the sword through that much cross sectional area a whole inch

Avatar image for yokofox33
#44 Posted by yokofox33 (30774 posts) -

I'll go with the Knight.

Avatar image for branketra
#45 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

[QUOTE="BranKetra"] The internet.natanaj
Fine. Watch anime on the internet

Are you man enough to fight with me?

That's a cut that would require a greater weight to push the sword through that much cross sectional area a whole inch

coolbeans90

How much weight?

Avatar image for HailedJohnDman
#47 Posted by HailedJohnDman (1588 posts) -

Learn history people

Knights=Sons of Lords and Nobles, you know, whitebread, types always inside the manor, only called a knight because they are knighted by their fathers, and can afford armor, which in medieval times was very expensive and only lords and nobles could afford, very good swords, armours and maces etc etc

Samurai=Ordinary peasants who belongs in a clan and fights for a clan, people think of samurais as a one whole organization like knights, but their not, if you were a peasant and there happened to be a war, and you happened to have a katana and fight boom, your a samurai, farmers, peasants and sheperds can all be samurais, but because china was in the constant state of war they all had training so to say so its like this

Trained army with poor armour v.s Organized army but not trained as much,w/ better armour

nonetheless my vote goes to the samurai due to training

"I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep, i am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion"=Alexander the Great

Avatar image for natanaj
#48 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -

Learn history people

Knights=Sons of Lords and Nobles, you know, whitebread, types always inside the manor, only called a knight because they are knighted by their fathers, and can afford armor, which in medieval times was very expensive and only lords and nobles could afford, very good swords, armours and maces etc etc

Samurai=Ordinary peasants who belongs in a clan and fights for a clan, people think of samurais as a one whole organization like knights, but their not, if you were a peasant and there happened to be a war, and you happened to have a katana and fight boom, your a samurai, farmers, peasants and sheperds can all be samurais, but because china was in the constant state of war they all had training so to say so its like this

Trained army with poor armour v.s Organized army but not trained as much,w/ better armour

nonetheless my vote goes to the samurai due to training

"I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep, i am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion"=Alexander the Great

HailedJohnDman
Dude alot of the knights had just as good training as the samurai
Avatar image for natanaj
#49 Posted by natanaj (375 posts) -

[QUOTE="natanaj"] [QUOTE="BranKetra"] Fine. Watch anime on the internetBranKetra

Are you man enough to fight with me?

That's a cut that would require a greater weight to push the sword through that much cross sectional area a whole inch

coolbeans90

How much weight?

I think you got the quotes backwards. Hows that internet porn *cough* anime working for you?
Avatar image for Espada12
#50 Posted by Espada12 (23248 posts) -

Learn history people

Knights=Sons of Lords and Nobles, you know, whitebread, types always inside the manor, only called a knight because they are knighted by their fathers, and can afford armor, which in medieval times was very expensive and only lords and nobles could afford, very good swords, armours and maces etc etc

Samurai=Ordinary peasants who belongs in a clan and fights for a clan, people think of samurais as a one whole organization like knights, but their not, if you were a peasant and there happened to be a war, and you happened to have a katana and fight boom, your a samurai, farmers, peasants and sheperds can all be samurais, but because china was in the constant state of war they all had training so to say so its like this

Trained army with poor armour v.s Organized army but not trained as much,w/ better armour

nonetheless my vote goes to the samurai due to training

"I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep, i am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion"=Alexander the Great

HailedJohnDman

Dude you did the same thing you just accused us of doing except you said it about knights lol. Read up on Teutonic knights especially.... those guys are hardcore.