European Knight vs Asian Samurai

[bigZ]

I seem to remmeber seeing a program demonstrating how diffcult it is to move through ground covered by arrows. Could this be a factor. At Agincourt didn't the arches butcher stranded knights in the mud.

I was always curious to see how knights would face upto to Roman legions in their prime.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Excellent info Glider...

May I ask - how easy would it be for you to mash the face of a Knight at full charge on horseback? Serious question - what do you think your odds would be? As Matt so lovingly brought up again - I'm not an Archer

I would seem to think that they could not be too great; it doesn't seem to be an extremely common occurrence... I can't recall any epics of gallant charges of Knights all felled at close range by headshots... especially since at that range after that shot your about to be bulldozed into hamburger or turned into pink mist.

If I was being charged by a knight on horseback at 40 yards then I can safely say three things.
a) I would start hitting the horses at around 150 yards
b) If I screwed up (a) I would run somewhere safe
c) If I had screwed up (a) and had nowhere safe for (b) its probably to late and I am toast

At Agincourt the Archers banged stakes into the ground pointing out toward the threat in a similar manner to pikes and stood behind them. The horses, those that were left if they weren't stopped, would have to slow down to negotiate the obstacle.
It should also be remembered that the Archers were country people who knew how to use the ground more than a traditional army unit. At Poitiers the archers formed a rearguard to gain the main army to deploy. They then moved to the right flank and deliberately stationed themselves in a swamp making it all but impossible for the French to get at them. This in turn resulting in the French flank routing.

A man on a charging horse is in effect a stationary target. The body doesn't go up a down very much and he's getting bigger. Obviously I have never tried it but 1 in 5 allowing for the extra adrenalin and lack of time to steady yourself is probably not unreasonable.
Item (a) on the above list is not just a joke, I could almost guarantee a hit on a horse somewhere and the rate of fire for the time was significant, around ten aimed shots a minute.
Note that the Archers are large in number and aiming at a large body of men as a target. Just aim for the middle at longer range and the chances of hitting something are high.

Re why the French lost at Agincourt. The reasons were many.
a) No Leadership, they didn't have one leader
b) No planning, they had an outline that was impossible to follow and the plan as was, was ignored by the knights
c) the failure to use the 4000 archers and 1500 crossbow men in their army to wear the English down and use up their Arrows. Some crossbow men were sent in just before the attack. However they were badly outnumbered and achieved little plus the French knights got frustrated and hacked them down.
d) The French held all the cards and didn't need to attack. The British advanced fist to draw them out and the oldest trick in the book worked. When the British got within effective bow range they stopped, prepared their defences and got to work. All through this period the British were at grave risk and the French did nothing.
e) The first to attack were the Light Cavalry who were decimated with the horses being the first target.
f) The vanguard then moved forwards moving slowly on the slippy sodden ground further slowed by the volleys of arrows. Many knights had to walk head down to reduce the risk of being hit in the head particularly those without shields and the French dare not raise their visors. These are from French records of the battle
g) Both French and British records say that the weight of the armour needed to protect people from the arrows, plus the distance walked in sealed armour, as well as the slippery ground meant that the French were exhausted when they reached the British men at arms who obviously had a huge advantage.
h) Knights who fell were in danger of not getting up because of the pressure from the people behind being pushed forward in a similar manner to people being crushed in modern crowds. It wasn't just because of the thickness of the mud although that was an added danger.
i) When they reached the British the French attacked in three places leaving the Archers to shoot at close range into the sides of the columns with deadly effect.
Up until this point the record of the battle by both the French and British participants were very similar, but at this point the records diverge and I will stop.

The point was that the French lost for a number of reasons including the poor ground. However the main reason was inept leadership and a lack of discipline.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by mkloby

Come on, when did I ever quote wiki!? Seriously! All I said was that soren's quoted article I found to have been slightly below other estimates, which usually range in at about 60lbs for plate armor. You are right, however, on added weights of other items. I'm not sure about your claim that they had to be lifted if felled. I've fallen with over 100lbs of gear(many times, I might add), and my little butt could still get up. Also - did you notice the part where I said I'm not an archer and commented on how silly that sounded??? Could I have been more clear?

Anyway - by the 1400's plate armor was made produced of hardened steel. With flutes and contours, it was not as simple as cutting through butter. Experiments that I have seen in the past have shown the difficulty of the longbow, in particular, of penetrating this high quality hardened steel.

Also - if the effectiveness of these arrows against armor was such as stated, why would Knights still have been employed in combat???

All good points. Sure you can get up with a 100lb ruck, but your not inside an articulated suite that would inhibit your ability to contort you body/arms/legs to center your gravity over your crouch (That's crouch...not crotch though the logic probably holds).

And I agree that the plate was not butter, but at close range 25yds, it it not going to be much protection for a relatively perpendicular incidence.

And why would knights still be employed in combat? Shock troops to break up formations of pikesmen. This is what led to longer and longer pikes and guisarmes/Faulchards/billhooks.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Cool argument. I didn't know all you guys had any interest in Mediviel warfare or swords.

I have been interested in swords quite a while now. I have my brother to thank a lot for that. He loves swords more than me, but still I like them a lot!

There are a lot of swords forums you can learn more and I myself am no expert on swords but I think I while try to answer some questions.

On the personal side, I have fought with rapier and dagger, and sport fencing with epee. No broadsword or Katana, But I think someday I would like to! Both of those sports have minimal wear, heaviest weight is your mask. You don't wear armour.

With the Knights limited vision, wearing armor......he would not even be able to keep the Samurai in front of him. Samurai does not need to penatrate his armor with his sword, there is many open spots in the front and rear of armor where Samurai would hit him.

Why is the vision of the Knight limited? He can open his visor, and still have the protection of a helmet. The Knight does not need to penetrate the Samurai's armour, he can hit HIM in the open spots, just like the Samurai would try to do to him. Neither has the advantage, for Samurai armour has open spots in front and rear, and even more on the legs.

Again the stamia of the Knight would quickly slow down his movements, don't believe me? When was the last time you actually fought a real person hand to hand......your stamia dies quickly (try swinging a sword around now while wearing armor not easy). Samurai would just defend himself for first few minutes using his sword and quick movement until Knight tired then Samurai finishes him off......like fish in a barrel.

The Knight would not neccesarily tire the quicker. Ask Rennasaince or medievial enthusiasts or renactors, they fight in knight armour, they claim you can fight all day in it. A Knight with proper training will not lose his wind in a few minutes. Fights are short, often under minutes. Plently of time to finish off the Samurai, who will also be tiring just as much as him if the fight goes on longer.

Why should the Samurai have the advantage of defending himself? The Knight actually has the advantage in that area. His armour is better, he doesn't have to tire himself out in defensive as much as attack. Why should the Knight attack first? He can wait, and when the Samurai launches into his aggressive attack finish him off. If the Samurai also decides to not attack then a smart Knight will not be stupid and may be just as caustious and save his energy. Thus both will attack, then defend, untill one wins. But don't say the Knight will just die out of a stupid attack since the Samurai is just as capable of it too!

Anyway, the point is, even if the Knight has the heavier armour, if he conserves his energy, and is mobile in his defence, he can parry, retreat with ease in his armour and survive. Knights had great footwork, even he needs more muscle strength to move in his armour than the Samurai.
When the opportunity to attack presents itself he can do so, but he has no need to go running after the Samurai to deliver it.
Defend, and then counter attack. Thats all he needs to do.

And if the footwork is "shuffling" as the Samurai do, then he also doesn't have that much to worry about.

The Knight, glistening in his highly polished armor, screams a powerful yell, and with his lance, bears in on this pretty little Japanese man in his silly armor, his finely crafted and family heirloom broad sword ready at his hip.......

The Samurai smiles, lifts his war bow, and with a smile, launches his broadheaded arrow into the chest of Sir Gawain, who falls from Fencer in a heap of bent and twisted armor....

Don't be so sure. Don't be so sure Sir Gawains armour would even be penetrated by that eastern arrow, especially if he is wearing plate and not chain mail. And remember he had a shield too, like Soren said.

And naturally, anybody with a bow can shoot a man on horseback before they reach them, any culture at all. Now if that was a Samurai on horseback agains't a Knight with a bow on the ground, one on one the Knight might lose because of poorer aim. But if he was a good archer he could kill him with a longbow.


Knights would not just go charging into arrows unless they had too, just like any mounted warrior. Knights had archers too, whether on horseback or on the ground, so they weren't helpless. Knights also had training in archery. So if there were a bunch of Samurai with bows, it's likely they would have their archers with their powerful longbows rain a hail of arrows on the samurai before they charged, or perhaps charge the Samurai shooting arrows on horseback. If they tried those tactics they wouldn't be so bad off.

One disadvantage of the Samurai bow is they are not longbows. A Samurai Bow does not have the penetration, or range, of a medieval longbow. If Agincourt had taken place with the English holding Samurai bows they may not have done so well! A Longbow penetrates metal plate better than a Samurai bow, and it's arrows can hit from a much farther range.

So basically, while a charge of knights on horseback agains't samurai with bows might have disasterous results for the Knights, consider the scenerio switched.
A group of armoured Samurai are on horseback. They face a group of Knights on foot. The Knights are not as well trained in markmanship as yeoman, but they have sufficent training to unleash their arrows in the right direction.
The Samurai charge, with bows in their hands, confident of victory. They are hopeful of wiping out a lot of the Knights before they even reach them with their arrows. But they must wait untill they are in range before unleashing their arrows.
What's this? The Knights are already drawing back their bows! Their volley can reach those charging Samurai, and they have nothing to worry about for themselves. They fire their arrows, the Samurai are starting to be hit, but they themselves are unable to fire. By the time they are in range, their numbers have been depleted, and the longbows penetration is becoming even more deadly. By the time they reach the knights, their numbers have been depleted. The Knights on foot with their helmets are quite well protected, and with some hamstringing of the Samurais horses are helping to lower their disadvantage.
The Samurai dismount and fight it out on foot. But the Knights are still not worried, they have plently of daylight left to fight WITHOUT getting tired. Their swords are mowing................


Who wins? Who knows. Those more skilled, those with better tactics. Both sides could win, but that longbow sure helped the Knights. Did my story make the Samurai look stupid? Well, just as Stupid as Sir Gawain doing what he did, which may not be that stupid at all. In the old days men charged on horseback agains't archers, and they died to win. In Asia or Europe.

I don't think the Samurai is one on one better than the Knight, or visa versa. I'm biased to the Knight, so he would get my vote, but I realize a Samurai could take down a knights, for various reasons. BUT NOT BECAUSE OF THE INSTITUTION OF KNIGHTHOOD AND IT'S TRAINING.

Sure, say the Knights eventually died of impracticality. They couldn't hanlde archers, they couldn't handle cannon, they couldn't handle guns. But that happens with technology.

The Samurai also became ineffective, because of the same reasons. Remember "The Last Samurai"

The Knights could have poor tactics, but couldn't that be said for the Samurai, or any group of warriors trained to fight as individuals.

So, for now, I guess I won't vote, even though I thin the Knight is being poorly thought of in this poll. But somebody could of put in the option of "They were a match."

Ideally, they were.

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Just read somebodies smarter post about Knights and longobows.

Good and maybe it weakens my argument. But still, even Knights that are poor archers have the lonbows added range to the Japanese bow, and that is an advantage in a hail of arrows.

And to tell the truth, when trained Yeoman fired hails of arrows they couldn't aim either. For one the ton of arrows falling on the enemy were bound to hit somebody anyway, and they couldn't accurately aim as far as their arrows could reach. They fired in a general area, not at the leader in front.

So, a charging body of horsemen is good enough.

One last point. If the Knight gets a hit on his stronger and heavier armour he won't be as hurt as the Samurai will be in his weaker, lighter armour.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soundbreaker Welch?

And to tell the truth, when trained Yeoman fired hails of arrows they couldn't aim either. For one the ton of arrows falling on the enemy were bound to hit somebody anyway, and they couldn't accurately aim as far as their arrows could reach. They fired in a general area, not at the leader in front.

So, a charging body of horsemen is good enough.
.

Trained Yeoman certainly could be accurate. At long range they would aim at the body of men, but as the range shortened things improved and at 60-70 yards would hardly ever miss a man on a horse.

An aside but I read once that 1000 archers would have won Waterloo for the British way before the final victory. Those close packed French columns of unarmoured infantry, with the Bow firing five times faster than a musket and with twice the accuracy.
Nasty

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Yeah.

Sometimes the outdated stuff can have advantages.

But I never thought Waterloo could have been won that way. Maybe Gettysburg too for the Union Forces?

[bigZ]

Originally Posted by Glider

Trained Yeoman certainly could be accurate. At long range they would aim at the body of men, but as the range shortened things improved and at 60-70 yards would hardly ever miss a man on a horse.

An aside but I read once that 1000 archers would have won Waterloo for the British way before the final victory. Those close packed French columns of unarmoured infantry, with the Bow firing five times faster than a musket and with twice the accuracy.
Nasty

The big drawback with archers is training. Any fool can fire a musket but to shoot a longbow with speed and accuracy requires strength,skill and constant practice.

Here in Cheshire we still have ancient laws that require every Cheshire man to practice for a least 1 hour every Sunday. The grooves are still visable where they would sharpen the arrows.

Going off topic I once heard that examples have been found of rifles packed and reloaded several times but not been fired from the the American civil war. Apparently it is thought that right upto WWII only 2% of front line troops where doing the killing . 1% where empathetic(the sarge looking out for his men) or the over 1% just plain nuts. Any truth in this?

[Matt308]

Certainly not.

[Soren]

This is from Wiki:

"While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer."

[Bernhart]

hard to believe the swimmimg part

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Soren

This is from Wiki:

"While it looks heavy, a full plate armour set could be as light as only 20 kg (45 pounds) if well made of tempered steel. This is less than the weight of modern combat gear of an infantry soldier, and the weight is better distributed. The weight was so well spread over the body that a fit man could run, or jump into his saddle. Modern re-enactment activity has proven it is even possible to swim in armour. It is possible for a fit and trained man in armour to run after and catch an unarmoured archer."

Bullfeces

[Soundbreaker Welch?]

Well men in those old days were tough. They could take wounds and withstand pain that might kill a man today.

Some of their surviving fractured skulls attest to this. Of course this Viking died from his wound, but some of them didn't.



BBC - History - Viking Dig Reports

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Matt308

Bullfeces

I'm afraid not Matt, its quite true.

[Matt308]

I've seen reenactments. And they don't wear armour that would protect you from a Wustof kitchen knife. You load up with chain mail, gauntlets, boots, visored helm, full plate...YOU CANT BLOODY SWIM.

That's asinine.