European Knight vs Asian Samurai

[amrit]

Henry V or Seven Samurai? Samurai of course.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by mkloby

I will see about that. You're probably right in that they likely used very high quality armor, which may account for the longbow's extremely poor penetration.

Just hope he didn't turn around with a Follow Me kind of call when he was hit. An arrow in the back would finish anyone for sure.

[102first_hussars]

me and my friends always have this debate, and i always say,



that Shinobi aint got Sh*t on this guy

[Glider]

On that one he has. Early armour, little plate and mainly chain mail, little chance, if any.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Smokey

There was the cavalry yari

Hmmm - I don't believe that the yari would stand up to a heavy charge of European knights. Lighter cavalry were not the equal of heavily armed and amored knights on powerfully bred horses in a charge.

[Matt308]

Cool Pic Hussars!

[mkloby]

Just out of curiosity, what defense does this samurai have against a broadsword? Other than the alleged superior training. All he has is mobility.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by mkloby

All he has is mobility.

What defense did Ali have vs George Foreman greater strength?


Mobility


Thats all thats needed. You can't hurt what you can't hit.

Really mkloby have you ever fought hand to hand vs a real person ? I am just asking. Mobility is a huge part of winning a fight......a fighter that cannot move cannot not win.

You think a Samurai is going to stand there and go toe to toe with someone in armor heavier than his? no

He is going to stick and move before the knight can even react.

It looks like the majority of people agree that the Samurai would win.

[comiso90]

Originally Posted by 102first_hussars

me and my friends always have this debate, and i always say,



that Shinobi aint got Sh*t on this guy

"It's just a flesh wound!"

YouTube - Monty Python And The Holy Grail- The Black Knight

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

What defense did Ali have vs George Foreman greater strength?


Mobility


Thats all thats needed. You can't hurt what you can't hit.

Really mkloby have you ever fought hand to hand vs a real person ? I am just asking. Mobility is a huge part of winning a fight......a fighter that cannot move cannot not win.

You think a Samurai is going to stand there and go toe to toe with someone in armor heavier than his? no

He is going to stick and move before the knight can even react.

It looks like the majority of people agree that the Samurai would win.

Please don't get smart with me man. Actually, Mr Prizefighter, hand to hand - yes. I'm in the military, remember??? I usually go for a front or rear blood choke to end those though. I've fought guys bigger than me(which is most) and faster than me. I didn't necessarily lose when the guy was simply quicker than I was. USMC martial arts training is based upon being weighed down with gear, and not having much mobility. Now, that aside - with swords and armor - negative, I have no experience. Has anyone here, as a knight or samurai, engaged the opposite??? Stick and move - come on pal, sounds like someone watches too much sports center. This isn't two guys wearing glittery trunks and pretty gloves. With the evidence that soren brought up with the weight of Japanese swords - he ain't exactly running around naked with a Ka-Bar in his teeth. So this samurai will be able to avoid all blows, because his armor isn't sufficient, and his sword will not be able to absorb damage of the sort that a european sword could, so that is another strike. I don't buy the better trained argument, as the knighthoods were professional warriors as well. I don't believe that a samurai could withstand a heavy mounted knights' charge, even armed with a yari. There's a distinct difference between heavy and lighter cavalry. There's some credence to the bow, but let's say that since this samurai is the 2nd coming of Christ, this knight has high quality armor and the arrows are not too effective. The knight engages the samurai at close range, both are on horseback - how does this superhuman samurai defend against the Knights charge???

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Please don't get smart with me man. Actually, Mr Prizefighter, hand to hand - yes. I'm in the military, remember??? I usually go for a front or rear blood choke to end those though. I've fought guys bigger than me(which is most) and faster than me. I didn't necessarily lose when the guy was simply quicker than I was. USMC martial arts training is based upon being weighed down with gear, and not having much mobility. Now, that aside - with swords and armor - negative, I have no experience. Has anyone here, as a knight or samurai, engaged the opposite??? Stick and move - come on pal, sounds like someone watches too much sports center. This isn't two guys wearing glittery trunks and pretty gloves. With the evidence that soren brought up with the weight of Japanese swords - he ain't exactly running around naked with a Ka-Bar in his teeth. So this samurai will be able to avoid all blows, because his armor isn't sufficient, and his sword will not be able to absorb damage of the sort that a european sword could, so that is another strike. I don't buy the better trained argument, as the knighthoods were professional warriors as well. I don't believe that a samurai could withstand a heavy mounted knights' charge, even armed with a yari. There's a distinct difference between heavy and lighter cavalry. There's some credence to the bow, but let's say that since this samurai is the 2nd coming of Christ, this knight has high quality armor and the arrows are not too effective. The knight engages the samurai at close range, both are on horseback - how does this superhuman samurai defend against the Knights charge???

Hmmmm I don't remember getting smart with you.........thats not how I opperate. I would of thought you would of known that by now.....you have been here for a while. All I asked was if you actually ever fought hand to hand....not sure why you thought that was rude. If you took as rude I am sorry for that....it was not intended. Posting and emails often lose a person real intent......then it can be taken wrong way. (thats I why I put down, "just asking" trying not to be rude)

Prizefighter? Never called myself that, just have trained in full contact MMA for years. Unless someone actually has done that they don't realize some things.....training without full contact or just sparring is not the same. Fighting full contact round after round is extremely tiring no matter how good shape you are in.

I have reviewed and watched military hand to hand....yes.

You sparring with guys who have a speed difference than you will not be much difference in speed. Fighting someone wearing heavy platemail vs someone wearing padded armor is a much bigger difference in speed.

Samurai armor not being sufficeint is a matter of opinion, you are looking at armor from one point of view only........how thick it is and how much can it stop. Some armor was not made for that point.....it was made to be more mobile, flexible....able to protect vs slashing attacks....not vs piercing attacks. Knight armor was made to protect vs blunt and piercing attacks, of course it also protected vs slashing attacks. But it was built for major stopping power, I am sure you would agree. But of course, it came at a cost.....less mobility and much heavier.

I never argued about knights charging, I never argued about them fighting on horse back......someone else perhaps but not me. I agree with you on the calvary charge point. Western Knights charging was a nearly unstoppable thing force......unless you had polearms.

My point about Ali vs Foreman is still valid and a perfect example.

[Lucky13]

Isn't it just marvelous how much you can learn here....?? How about throw in a sympathetic Viking to stir things up a bit....

If it's one on one, wouldn't the longbow be useless then?

"A furore Normanorum, libera nos Domine" (From the fury of the north-men, God deliver us.)

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

Fighting full contact round after round is extremely tiring no matter how good shape you are in.

Round after round - it's extremely tiring after a couple minutes!
Don't forget my point, though. We train wearing flaks and other equipment as well, where you are not marginally slower, but have a serious disability. Granted, we don't do much full contact without PPG, as there'd just be broken Marines laying around everywhere.

Hunter - sorry if I took it the wrong way. Must be all the banging heads going on lately here...

There are definitely some good arguments made here. One problem I have with the reasons for the samurai's victory is that the envisioned battle is one that capitalizes upon all the samurai's strengths and the knight's weaknesses. I'm guilty of that too, which is why I see the Knight crushing the samurai in a charge. I actually don't think you can say in any case "matter of factly" who would win.

Your points about armor are noted - obviously samurai armor was designed with a completely different goal in mind.

If mobility was all that mattered, Knights would not have been as successful as they had across centuries. They routinely routed armies of more mobile, lightly armed and armored troops. Of course there are situations where mounted Knights were at a huge disadvantage, and suffered defeats. Terrain and climate also have a lot to do with effectiveness as well.

[Hunter368]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Round after round - it's extremely tiring after a couple minutes!
Don't forget my point, though. We train wearing flaks and other equipment as well, where you are not marginally slower, but have a serious disability. Granted, we don't do much full contact without PPG, as there'd just be broken Marines laying around everywhere.

Hunter - sorry if I took it the wrong way. Must be all the banging heads going on lately here...

There are definitely some good arguments made here. One problem I have with the reasons for the samurai's victory is that the envisioned battle is one that capitalizes upon all the samurai's strengths and the knight's weaknesses. I'm guilty of that too, which is why I see the Knight crushing the samurai in a charge. I actually don't think you can say in any case "matter of factly" who would win.

Your points about armor are noted - obviously samurai armor was designed with a completely different goal in mind.

If mobility was all that mattered, Knights would not have been as successful as they had across centuries. They routinely routed armies of more mobile, lightly armed and armored troops. Of course there are situations where mounted Knights were at a huge disadvantage, and suffered defeats. Terrain and climate also have a lot to do with effectiveness as well.

My point about you and the other guy was this....you both were weighted down the same. Samurai and Knight are not.

I agree on horse back most likely Knight would win, on foot I would say Samurai would win. But you are right in a fight nothing is 100% going to happen the way it should.

No problem with the misunderstanding....it happens sometimes in this format. Not face to face I mean. All is good.

But to watch the two fight would be very cool.....everyone would have to agree on that.

[mkloby]

Originally Posted by Hunter368

My point about you and the other guy was this....you both were weighted down the same. Samurai and Knight are not.

Sidenote - I meant one guy weighed down with his gear, the other "aggressor" is not. We're not weighted down the same.

I definitely agree the samurai has a better chance of success if both are dismounted.