Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I think it comes down to the abilities of the individual.
If both are riding horses, the samurai has his bow and arrows with some armor piercing tips, if no such tips exist, kill the horse, knight falls, probably won't be able to get up soon enough.
If both are on the ground, the samurai not only know how to slash, but how to stab, and since they don't rely on armor that much for protection, are more agile and accurate easily hitting the sluggish knight on the exposed articulations.
Most katanas, I think, would not be capable of penetrating plate armor, and their curved blades would be ill-suited to slipping into joints. I'm less certain about mail's effectiveness, but I think even that would pose a serious obstacle. A knight's lance or warhammer, on the other hand, would crush samurai armor with relative ease.
On the other hand, samurai had a tradition of archery that European knights did not, and an arrow at close range could penetrate that armor.
I foresee both getting one good shot off that, if it hits, would end the fight (lance charge vs. close-range arrow). If it came to close fighting, I think the knight would have an edge.
I think it really boils down to which one you like most, as probably both are able to defeat the other.
If the knight is wearing standard full plate armor then the knight will win if the fighters are both off of horses as the sword is completely ineffective against it. If the knight is wearing more of a mail type of armor then the fight will probably be more balanced as mail allowed for the knights to have more maneuverability, while not necessarily matching the speed of samurai it would be close enough that it would not mater. Shields can also play into this as different types of shields provide different types of defense.
However if they are fighting on horses then the samurai wins no matter what type of armor the knight is wearing, they specifically practiced horse archery while the European knights may have practiced archery but not horse archery.
Physically Europeans are bigger. That's kind of a big thing in a death match.
Katanas are great slashing weapons. If the samurai knew to aim for the joints in the armor, he would be able to kill someone in plate armor. It would be hard but you could pull it off. The problem is the cutting edge on a katana is fairly brittle. If the knight locks blades or parries hard, he maybe able to damage the sword.
A knight's sword is longer and more durable. I think that more then makes up for any speed difference. The speed comes into play only on the first strike. The guard is also meant to give an extra level of protection and punch someone. A knight could also lock his sword into his gauntlet.
Shields are not just a defensive tool. They can be used to make openings for a counter strike or simply you can hit someone with it. Most of the time they had a reinforced edge. Having to cut through would not leave most blades pretty messed up. And yeah it's a huge defensive bonus. I do SCA fencing with about a 12 inch buckler and it's enough to piss most people off. I could not imagine trying to get a solid hit around a full size kite shield.
A lance would beat a yari from horse back. It's bigger.
Mounted archery samurai in spades. If the knight could cheat and get a crossbow, that would complicate things.
I am really going to have to go with the knight for this one. Other then liking Excalibur a bit more then Seven Samurai, I don't have much to back this up.
In addition to this is that slashing weapons absolutely sucks against full plate. Even if the samurai knew to attack the joints then his sword would get caught by the joints or would bounce off of the chain mail/leather under layer.
Samurai used light armor, which made quick movements possible. So their Katanas would probably get blunt quick as it's made to pierce leather and not a full metal armor, however due to medical and sanitary reasons, even a small wound would get infected and the knight dies.
Arrows fired from a quality bow could pierce a plate armor and bolt from a crossbow could penetrate a mail shirt. Weren't the Chinese first?
Besides, if we fight contemporary forces against one another, there is scarcely a period in all of history where Japanese military technology could have faced Western technology or tactics even in equal numbers. A "one versus one" scenario is silly, since it would never occur. Heavily armored knights existed for cavalry charges, and were used much like armor is today. Different levels of armor were used by different classes of troops. A lone knight would never face a lone opponent unmolested in a real battle, and their armaments and tactics were never designed for such a contrivance. It's like asking which would win in an off-road race: a Jeep or an F-1 car?
Consider:
What were Japanese battle tactics and armaments like when the Roman legions marched? How about when Byzantine combined arms were the undefeatable super-force of the world? What about during the military renaissance of the late middle ages? The advent of Napoleonic tactics?
Also, plate armor did not weight "100s of pounds". I've seen full suits listed as weighing up to 50 pounds, and I think those were even parade armor (not meant for extended use, made bulky and ornate to be more impressive, and so forth).
EDIT: And actual samurai armor - the metal-and-silk-cords kind - was not much lighter. A far cry from "ten pounds of leather". Both cultures had dueling traditions of various kinds. So setting aside the improbability of a knight and a samurai meeting under circumstances where a duel might be arranged (which we are), a one-on-one combat is not so unreasonable.
(edited yet again for formatting and typos)
Japanese military technology and organization lagged considerably behind the Roman Legions when they were the foremost superpower, as well with the Byzantine forces. While the Age of Warring States took place during the equivalent time period of the Late Middle Ages, the lack of expanded training for footsoldiers and specialization of roles would continue to hinder Japanese military tactics for many years. Oda Nobunaga's reforms helped to make his military one of the most modernized in the world at the time, however many of his improvements were reversed by successive generations of rulers.
The cultural shift that occurred in Europe during the latter part of the Late Middle Ages concerning firearms and standards of command and bravery did not have a chance to take root in Japan due to it's unification and enforced peace during the equivalent Edo Period. With its military technology virtually at a standstill, and no pressure to expand its borders beyond the home archipelago, there was no chance for Japan to develop, or even adopt, Napoleonic warfare tactics.
Archery is one of the primary samurai traditions, and was the weapon of choice amongst samurai until the dominance of the sword in the Kamakura Period. A trained samurai with a bow and arrow is more effective than a single gunner. However, it is much easier to raise a platoon of gunners than a platoon of skilled archers, so the realities of war would move in favor of the guns.
If they were out in a dessert, who would win? Would the knight lose because his armor is baking him alive? Or would his armor reflect the sun enough? The is also assuming that the knight had clothing underneath the armor too. Would the samurai suffer the same?
To just throw some names out there for consideration in a showdown.
EDIT: No wait, Scott Pilgrim is the name of that comic guy right? I forgot.