100 Medival Knights vs. 100 Samurai

[Vonkhan]

Samurai, I think ...

 

[Plop]

samurai FTW

 

[Aharami]

samurais would kick ass.

 

[JackOfHearts]

In an open field 100 amored knights on war horses vs 100 guys with honor on foot? Knights for the win.

 

[miri]

Samurai because the bow was their primary weapon. They could shoot on horseback then tretreat then shoot again. Knights had to get within melee range.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: JackOfHearts
In an open field 100 amored knights on war horses vs 100 guys with honor on foot? Knights for the win.

Samurais were mounted archers.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

A trio of Chuck Norris, Mr. T, and Vin Diesel would mow down both groups of Knights and Samurai's as a warm up exercise.

 

[alien42]

knights are screwed because of their armor. total lack of speed and mobility.

 

[statik213]

Originally posted by: Aharami
samurais would kick ass.

 

[JulesMaximus]

100 Pirates FTW!!!

 

[Aharami]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
100 Pirates FTW!!!

100 Ninjas FTRealW

 

[Legendary]

Samurai have the advantage in archery and hand to hand combat. Not even a question.

 

[JLGatsby]

I could take all the Knights and Samurais on at the same time.

 

[MasterAndCommander]

Text - Essay Medival Knight vs. Feudal Samurai


100 American Outlaw Gunslingers FTW!

 

[Gulzakar]

two different fighting units.

knights were typically part of the larger whole (i.e., foot soliders, archrs, pikemen)...samurai fought more like a large group of skirmishers.

The knight was more like a military war machine.

 

[PingSpike]

Knights in full plate armor? Because samurai armor was sh|t.

 

[Cooler]

Ninja needs to be added they would beat both.

 

[Howard]

Shields + hard armor + battle tactics > katanas

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: Cooler
Ninja needs to be added they would beat both.

Samurai would own a Ninja. Samurai were trained in the art of combat, not subtlety like a Ninja.

 

[mundane]

I voted for the Samurai, but after reading the wikiepedia article have some questions. The Samurai bows weren't terribly powerful, suggesting they might not have the penetration required to to pierce heavy armor.

The samurai's weapon of choice was the yumi (bow) and it was unchanged for centuries until the introduction of gunpowder and rifle in the 16th century. A Japanese style compound bow was not a very powerful weapon in comparison with the Eurasia reflex composite bow. Its size made it possible to shoot various projectiles like fire arrows and signal arrows at an effective range of 50 meters or less, over 100 meters when accuracy was not an issue. It was usually used on foot behind a tedate (??), a large and mobile bamboo wall, but it could be used even from horseback. The practice of shooting from horseback became a Shinto ceremony of Yabusame (???).

It also suggested they fought mainly on foot instead of mounted, which might lead us to believe the Knights might have an advantage there:

One of the biggest controversies surrounding the weapons of the samurai is whether samurai ever charged on horseback. Horses of that time were smaller yet durable but it was questionable how well they would perform carrying heavily armored samurai. A traditional belief held that samurai mainly fought on horseback acting as heavy cavalry and charged through hapless foot soldiers. It is currently believed that samurai mainly fought on foot and used horses for transportation and only occasionally charged on disarrayed and retreating enemies. The Battle of Nagashino was one of such battle where samurai supposedly charged on horseback.

Even given those limitations, I suspect the Samurai would still have the overall advantage in this hypothetical conflict. Although I can't find any source for it, I recall hearing that the Samurai was trained to fight while vastly outnumbered ( 11 to 1, or something ridiculous like that).

 

[miri]

Following scenarios

Mounted Knight vs Mounted Samurai

Samurai win, lighter more agile and quicker on horseback and the Samurai's primary weapon their bow would be the deciding factor.

Foot Knight vs Foot Samurai

Knight wins thanks to heavier armor and longswords, unless the Samurai got lucky and hit a weakspot.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: diegoalcatraz
I voted for the Samurai, but after reading the wikiepedia article have some questions. The Samurai bows weren't terribly powerful, suggesting they might not have the penetration required to to pierce heavy armor.

They wouldnt need to hit the knight, just the knight's horse. While horses were armored it wasnt extensive.

 

[Leper Messiah]

I dunno. Samuri bows (daiymo? something like that) were almost as good as english longbows, and they could be fired from horseback. They were also more skilled in the use of the sword.

However, knights def. had the advantage in armor (at least if we're talking about 14th century and onward), full plate is very difficult for piercing object to break, where as samuri armor is more like scale or brigdandtine. Sure, its lighter, but offers less protection. Knights had far superior mounts, and lances too. 100 knights in a wedge can break a whole army.


I'd say its a draw.

 

[PepePeru]

knights have a suit of armor.
knights win.

 

[GasX]

1v1, my money is on some 6' Teutonic knight with plate armor and a shield vs some 4' tall dude in plastic armor.

100v100 The knights would mow down the Samuri's supporting cast far faster than the reserve. The head to head is hard to predict - speed vs. power. More information on terrain, weather, etc would be needed to even hope of predicting the outcome.