European Knight Vs Japanese Samurai.

teh European Samurai

[QUOTE="HailedJohnDman"]

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

Espada12

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.

Learn history people

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

HailedJohnDman

"Samurai (侍?) is the term for the military nobility of pre-industrial Japan"

Learn history people

[QUOTE="HailedJohnDman"]

Learn history people

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

Vesica_Prime

"Samurai (侍?) is the term for the military nobility of pre-industrial Japan"

Learn history people

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

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

coolbeans90

Depends on the placement of the weight within the weapon itself, the additional force applied by the wielder upon impact, as well as the length of the sword, as well as the material the armor is made of, as well as the thickness and geometric properties of the armor and the angle of impact with the armor, and of course the velocity of the sword, itself but I imagine that a 20-30 LB blade with a full body swing from would do it. Didn't do the math though. Not taking strength of deformable bodies till next Monday. (assuming the sword's blade would remain perfectly in tact, big assumption) Still couldn't cut through chain mail though.

teh European Samurai

_R34LiTY_

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

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

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

BranKetra

The Knight would win this battle.

Depends on the placement of the weight within the weapon itself, the additional force applied by the wielder upon impact, as well as the length of the sword, as well as the material the armor is made of, as well as the thickness and geometric properties of the armor and the angle of impact with the armor, and of course the velocity of the sword, itself but I imagine that a 20-30 LB blade with a full body swing from would do it. Didn't do the math though. Not taking strength of deformable bodies till next Monday. (assuming the sword's blade would remain perfectly in tact, big assumption) Still couldn't cut through chain mail though.

coolbeans90

Anyway, I was just asking for the average density of plate mail.

I think you got the quotes backwards. Hows that internet porn *cough* anime working for you?natanaj

Is this how you spend your life? I am not impressed.

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.

Vesica_Prime

Actually, its the other way around.

Full plate armor weighed around 60pounds. While full Samurai armor 60 pounds and more.(weights near identical)

Knight armor is designed to be very flexible to the wearer. Samurai armor was much less flexible and had lots of ceremonial parts (hindrance in battle).

Also a European knight had more height and weight to them, so the armor weight (which as noted, is about the same) would bother them less.

Just look at the two.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Depends on the placement of the weight within the weapon itself, the additional force applied by the wielder upon impact, as well as the length of the sword, as well as the material the armor is made of, as well as the thickness and geometric properties of the armor and the angle of impact with the armor, and of course the velocity of the sword, itself but I imagine that a 20-30 LB blade with a full body swing from would do it. Didn't do the math though. Not taking strength of deformable bodies till next Monday. (assuming the sword's blade would remain perfectly in tact, big assumption) Still couldn't cut through chain mail though.

BranKetra

Anyway, I was just asking for the average density of plate mail.

I think you got the quotes backwards. Hows that internet porn *cough* anime working for you?natanaj

Is this how you spend your life? I am not impressed.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

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

Pirate700

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.

sonofsmeagle

This post is awesome. I lol'ed as I imagined the Samurai being horribly slaughtered by Knights.

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

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

PC_Otter

Katana's back when samurais were in Japan would have had a huge disadvantage. The metals they used had more impurities that caused the metal to be weak, and while they had some advanced techniques in making swords, in the end it was Katana vs Katana.

Also all this training you guys are speaking of it really dramatic. In actuallity Samurais were mostly thugs killing the poor and stealing money, that sort of stuff. They would sometimes have sword duals and stuff, but it was usually more of a play theater deal.

All the anime, drama stuff is just an attempt to redeem Japanese history, in actuallity Japan was a pretty boring place until the 1900's.

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

falconclan

Katana's back when samurais were in Japan would have had a huge disadvantage. The metals they used had more impurities that caused the metal to be weak, and while they had some advanced techniques in making swords, in the end it was Katana vs Katana.

Also all this training you guys are speaking of it really dramatic. In actuallity Samurais were mostly thugs killing the poor and stealing money, that sort of stuff. They would sometimes have sword duals and stuff, but it was usually more of a play theater deal.

All the anime, drama stuff is just an attempt to redeem Japanese history, in actuallity Japan was a pretty boring place until the 1900's.

The Last Samurai says otherwise.

[QUOTE="falconclan"]

[QUOTE="PC_Otter"] Katana is a lighter weapon, possibly stronger, and better made for cutting, with it's curved blade. Straight swords like the claymore however don't need cutting power, as they have so much weight and crushing power behind them. I'd still go with the Katana on this one, simply because of the weight issue which translates to speed, and I would also assume a well made katana would have the strength to hold up against a heavy blade, and the katana still has enough weight to do damage without cutting into armor which it probably could. The fight would be intriguing, but I think in the end it would training and speed that would win, but I also know that not all straight swords are as heavy as we like to think...............BluRayHiDef

Katana's back when samurais were in Japan would have had a huge disadvantage. The metals they used had more impurities that caused the metal to be weak, and while they had some advanced techniques in making swords, in the end it was Katana vs Katana.

Also all this training you guys are speaking of it really dramatic. In actuallity Samurais were mostly thugs killing the poor and stealing money, that sort of stuff. They would sometimes have sword duals and stuff, but it was usually more of a play theater deal.

All the anime, drama stuff is just an attempt to redeem Japanese history, in actuallity Japan was a pretty boring place until the 1900's.

The Last Samurai says otherwise.

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="falconclan"] Katanas are also fragile, and up against a European sword it would likely break, while the European sword would endure it with maybe a chip in the metal or something.

Katana's back when samurais were in Japan would have had a huge disadvantage. The metals they used had more impurities that caused the metal to be weak, and while they had some advanced techniques in making swords, in the end it was Katana vs Katana.

Also all this training you guys are speaking of it really dramatic. In actuallity Samurais were mostly thugs killing the poor and stealing money, that sort of stuff. They would sometimes have sword duals and stuff, but it was usually more of a play theater deal.

All the anime, drama stuff is just an attempt to redeem Japanese history, in actuallity Japan was a pretty boring place until the 1900's.

Human-after-all

The Last Samurai says otherwise.

I was joking. However, how would he know that what we're normally told about Japanese history is exaggerated? Couldn't I say the same about European history?

[QUOTE="Human-after-all"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

The Last Samurai says otherwise.

BluRayHiDef

I was joking. However, how would he know that what we're normally told about Japanese history is exaggerated? Couldn't I say the same about European history?

I won't say European history isn't dramatized, but is less dramatized than Japanese history. People think Samurai's fought for honor and heritage and family and all that jazz, and they were really just a bunch of **** for the most part.

They only started coming up with that stuff when they were on the way out.

I think I'm going to make a templar knight vs. Samurai. This way, they cannot just say

onfg knight armor pwns all

How about Shaolin Monks? They're so badass, they don't even use armor.

How about Shaolin Monks? They're so badass, they don't even use armor.

BluRayHiDef

No, just no.

Learn history people

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

HailedJohnDman

What in the hell are you talking about? The Samurai were Military nobles, common folk bowed to them, showed them respect. The Samurai were basically the knights of Japan (but not really, just a crude comparison) Japan was also NOT in a constant state of war with China, in fact, Japan was sealed off from the rest of the world for about 400 years. Good lord, you learn YOUR history before making such claims.

European Knight would defeat the Japanese Samurai, but samurais are still cooler.

If both had no armour the samurai would win.

A wakizashi samurai sword is very sharp and samurai swords are built in layers so they are stonger.

But if they both had their armour and were in close combat I think probably the Knight because they are so protected and usually very stong because they trained with heavy swords.

How about Shaolin Monks? They're so badass, they don't even use armor.

BluRayHiDef

The only way to kill a late-era plate-armoured knight with anything that wasn't a polearm or siege weapon was to literally knock them down and stab them in the eyes with a knife.

I don't see a Samurai successfully stunning a knight without getting skewered.

Also, there are misconceptions abound in this thread. Knight armour tended to weigh no more than 30 kilos. By comparison, a modern soldier's outfit can go up to 45, and the distribution of weight on a modern soldier's uniform is far less favourable to agility than the plate harness - yet modern soldiers aren't exactly stuck in a sluggish, intimidating stride. Knights were capable of doing handstands in that suit.

Knights ftw

we need the guys from the deadliest warrior :3

oh and id go for samurai :P

Knight for sur, they have much better armour and weaponry.

An unfair comparison. I don't think many are giving Samurai their due credit. These were full-time warriors who trained constantly (not just with weapons)

So did knights.

and dedicated their lives to perfecting the art of combat.

So did knights..

So what if the knights had plate armor? They made the wearer very slow and cumbersome,

This is a misnomer.. They were not cumbersome or slow.. They were equally balanced across the body making them fast movements..

an advantage the Samurai would exploit to great effect.

No they would not..

Knock them to the ground and let's see how well they fare.

At Samurai would be highly unlikely to knock him to the ground..

I doubt even the best knight armor out there could withstand a decent forward/downward thrust.

The Samuria would be a idiot to use a Katana in the fight to beign with..

Slicing with the katana would be useless no doubt, but thrusting sure wouldn't be.

yes it would be because the Katana was designed for slashing not stabbing.

The Samurai would turn the knights' apparent strengths into weaknesses and punish 'em.

What weaknesses were that again? You have been watching to many movies of clumsy men in platemail flailing around.. They were not lik that.

Maybe not defeat them, but surely put up a good fight. Also, lol at the knight's sword being better than a katana. A katana is widely regarded as one of the finest weapons ever made.

Thats great, but the Katana is brittle weapon it was not designed to be used against the kind of armor of the knight, and you tend to avoid sword to sword contact with the weapon. A Samuria would not have used a Katana in such a fight..

Rekunta

The only way to kill a late-era plate-armoured knight with anything that wasn't a polearm or siege weapon was to literally knock them down and stab them in the eyes with a knife.

I don't see a Samurai successfully stunning a knight without getting skewered.

Also, there are misconceptions abound in this thread. Knight armour tended to weigh no more than 30 kilos. By comparison, a modern soldier's outfit can go up to 45, and the distribution of weight on a modern soldier's uniform is far less favourable to agility than the plate harness - yet modern soldiers aren't exactly stuck in a sluggish, intimidating stride. Knights were capable of doing handstands in that suit.

Barbariser

.. No the throat region, the arm pets and a few other areas.. Thats what English archers did to defeat French Knights in hand to hand combat.. 3 or 4 guys tackled the guy down and stabbed at those regions.

The Samurai would be quicker because of the loose armor and better skilled in combat because of intensive training. But the Knight's armor would deflect any blows from a katana and would eventually stab the Samuri when he gets tired. So..Knight wins.

Not enough info. 1. what era samurai /knight? 2. European knights are not one thing, they were much different in fighting styles, armour composition etc. narrow it down to a countryweezyfb

Yeah.. as I said before.

This guys would absolutely slaughter samurai. Another reason would be because they have alot more combat experience especially against foreign armies, so adaptation (which they won't even need) would be easier for them when they face the samurai.

The knight is simply the pinacle of melee warfare. Perfect armor, perfect weapons. The only thing that could stop a knight would be projectiles.

I'de go with the Knight. I've seen stuff on tv showing the katana was better than the knights' sword, but from your pictures the knights seem to have better armor, better spears and better clubs.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]Not enough info. 1. what era samurai /knight? 2. European knights are not one thing, they were much different in fighting styles, armour composition etc. narrow it down to a countryEspada12

Yeah.. as I said before.

This guys would absolutely slaughter samurai. Another reason would be because they have alot more combat experience especially against foreign armies, so adaptation (which they won't even need) would be easier for them when they face the samurai.

The knight is simply the pinacle of melee warfare. Perfect armor, perfect weapons. The only thing that could stop a knight would be projectiles.

Jfisch93

Which is what deadliest warrior did.

Really why on earth have a knight not fight blade era opponents.

But, nooo. Lets have them fight pirates with guns.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]Not enough info. 1. what era samurai /knight? 2. European knights are not one thing, they were much different in fighting styles, armour composition etc. narrow it down to a countryBloodseeker23

Yeah.. as I said before.

This guys would absolutely slaughter samurai. Another reason would be because they have alot more combat experience especially against foreign armies, so adaptation (which they won't even need) would be easier for them when they face the samurai.

Teutonic knights (from germany).

While the Samurai would probably be better trained, the knight's superior equipment would make short work of a samurai.

I don't see how a Samurai, with a Katana (a weapon that isn't made for parrying), could beat a fully armored Knight, possibly with a shield, wielding a mace, a great sword or whatever other unbalanced weapon that uses its size to its advantage. Finesse doesn't work quite well against armor plating.