100 Medival Knights vs. 100 Samurai

[NickelTitanium]

Depends on the type of fight. One on one, on the ground, the knight would be dead in a second. History channel did a comparsion on the strength of an European blade vs a Japanese blade and the European blade broke everytime.

Japanese Samurai has more martial arts training. Brute force doesn't work.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Leper Messiah

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: 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.

I dunno, diegoalcatraz post seems to indicate they were pretty weak. I thought the english longbow's effective range was at least 2-4 times that. And while they could probably take out the horses I doubt they would be effective against plate, when I believe the english longbow was only effective against that when fired at an advantagous angle...but I keep hearing that the longbow both punched right through plate and that it did nothing to it. Still, if they could employ a strategy of wearing them down and forcing them to dismount with bows they very well might make easy work of them.

another advantage the samurai would have would be the fact that they don't just rush the enemy in a charge down the field. I would imagine the samuri would have more team skillz.

Well obviously you're not going to charge if you're using bows, and obviously if you're not you ARE going too. I don't think thats that big of an advantage though. While samurai may have been able to fire from horseback...could they fire from horseback, backwards, while riding away at full gallop, accurately? If not, then the knights will likely catch up to them...and once that occurs I think the knights would have the advantage, because the samurai wouldn't be able to use their bows anymore without hitting their own troops.

firing arrows from horesback in a retreat is possible since those were tactics used by the mongols.

I never said it wasn't possible. I just said I didn't think a horseman could ride full speed while doing it. And are mongol bows the same as those used by the samurai?

 

[LordMorpheus]

Originally posted by: coomar

Originally posted by: Minjin
I'll go with 100 Spartans...

Mark

either group would own 100 spartans

1000 spartans who could prevent each other from getting flanked would stand a chance against the knights though

The knights would stand a much better chance in that situation than the samurai would. Knights carried tower sheilds and were at least as heavily armored as the spartans - the samurai would be destroyed by a Spartan phalanx. They'd get in, didn't have sheilds to match the Spartan's, didn't have armor to match the Spartans, and their weapons would be useless in the crush of bodies. The whole time the Spartan front rankers would be raining murder down with their short swords while the seven ranks behing them would be doing the same with 8 foot spears.

 

[miri]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: coomar

Originally posted by: Minjin
I'll go with 100 Spartans...

Mark

either group would own 100 spartans

1000 spartans who could prevent each other from getting flanked would stand a chance against the knights though

The knights would stand a much better chance in that situation than the samurai would. Knights carried tower sheilds and were at least as heavily armored as the spartans - the samurai would be destroyed by a Spartan phalanx. They'd get in, didn't have sheilds to match the Spartan's, didn't have armor to match the Spartans, and their weapons would be useless in the crush of bodies. The whole time the Spartan front rankers would be raining murder down with their short swords while the seven ranks behing them would be doing the same with 8 foot spears.

I doubt the samurai would engage in melee with the phalanx. The phalanx was vulnerable on the sides and to skirmishers. Mounted horse archers could easily run around and shoot arrows.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: miri

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: coomar

Originally posted by: Minjin
I'll go with 100 Spartans...

Mark

either group would own 100 spartans

1000 spartans who could prevent each other from getting flanked would stand a chance against the knights though

The knights would stand a much better chance in that situation than the samurai would. Knights carried tower sheilds and were at least as heavily armored as the spartans - the samurai would be destroyed by a Spartan phalanx. They'd get in, didn't have sheilds to match the Spartan's, didn't have armor to match the Spartans, and their weapons would be useless in the crush of bodies. The whole time the Spartan front rankers would be raining murder down with their short swords while the seven ranks behing them would be doing the same with 8 foot spears.

I doubt the samurai would engage in melee with the phalanx. The phalanx was vulnerable on the sides and to skirmishers. Mounted horse archers could easily run around and shoot arrows.

The Spartans would just have to decide to defend a mountain pass and then the Samuri are toast...

 

[MustangSVT]

pepsi would win.. :roll: n00bs

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: LordMorpheus

Originally posted by: coomar

Originally posted by: Minjin
I'll go with 100 Spartans...

Mark

either group would own 100 spartans

1000 spartans who could prevent each other from getting flanked would stand a chance against the knights though

The knights would stand a much better chance in that situation than the samurai would. Knights carried tower sheilds and were at least as heavily armored as the spartans - the samurai would be destroyed by a Spartan phalanx. They'd get in, didn't have sheilds to match the Spartan's, didn't have armor to match the Spartans, and their weapons would be useless in the crush of bodies. The whole time the Spartan front rankers would be raining murder down with their short swords while the seven ranks behing them would be doing the same with 8 foot spears.

explain then why haliberdiers were so effective against pikemen? As soon as the samurai got close, it'd all be over.

Plus, Bronze spears vs. steel armor. Heh. And Knights don't carry tower shields. The biggest ones they ever carried were the kite shields back in the 11th cent. (i.e Norman conquest of england). As their armor got better, the shield got smaller.

 

[Toonces]

just to chime in here;
none of the historical battles really have anything to do with this hypothetical situation... mongols defeated most of Eurasia due to more factors than "they could shoot arrows while retreating"

just as 100 Panzer tanks would demolish 100 Sherman tanks in a 1:1 encounter, context is everything when analyzing historical battles

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: Martin
70% of you seem to be ignoring the fact that Knights were mounted. Not only that, but they were mounted on the largest, fiercest horses, which had armour and were trained to kick and bite. What's a guy with a light, slashing sword and effectivly no armour going to do against a 1 ton animal charging at 40km/h?
http://flammensorden.laiv.org/Ridderen-til-hest/horse-knight.jpg

samurai also had mounted units.. heavy, better armored knights were soundly defeated by the mongols who were quicker and more manuverable.

everything sounds fine and dandy on theory, but you never know what would really happen until you put it to a real world testament.

don't get me wrong, I have been known to be partial to heavily armored units when playing RTS or MMORPG games, but thats only because they are games


I and HamSupLo provided excellent instance of real battles that actually took place. now, can anyone point to the links where the knights had displayed some glorious victories? correct me wrong, but they struggled against the arabs in their crusades if I remember correctly.

Unless you point out an actual samurai vs knights, you're just speculating, like everyone else. The mongols were not samurai - like the knights, they were also primarily mounted. Even then, you are talking armies vs armies (these include many different units and also tactics, strategy, logistics, etc), not entirely relevant comparison.

In the end, you have to convince me that a lightly armoured man with 2 swords would defeat a heavily armourned man AND horse, which you really can't do.

In reality, cavalry charges had to be repulsed using pikemen/spearmen, who heavily outnumbered the horses. There was a reason no one ever used swordsmen against cavalry.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: Martin
70% of you seem to be ignoring the fact that Knights were mounted. Not only that, but they were mounted on the largest, fiercest horses, which had armour and were trained to kick and bite. What's a guy with a light, slashing sword and effectivly no armour going to do against a 1 ton animal charging at 40km/h?
http://flammensorden.laiv.org/Ridderen-til-hest/horse-knight.jpg

samurai also had mounted units.. heavy, better armored knights were soundly defeated by the mongols who were quicker and more manuverable.

everything sounds fine and dandy on theory, but you never know what would really happen until you put it to a real world testament.

don't get me wrong, I have been known to be partial to heavily armored units when playing RTS or MMORPG games, but thats only because they are games


I and HamSupLo provided excellent instance of real battles that actually took place. now, can anyone point to the links where the knights had displayed some glorious victories? correct me wrong, but they struggled against the arabs in their crusades if I remember correctly.

EDIT : typo galore

The Crusades were not fought entirely with Knights. Most of the fighting was done by a "peasant" army. When the foot soilders started loosing, the Knights mostly Knights Templar would come riding in and clean up shop.

 

[TomKazansky]

Originally posted by: Aharami

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
100 Pirates FTW!!!

100 Ninjas FTRealW

OMG AHARAMI FTULTRAW ROFLS!

 

[SilentZero]

Knights..because samurai's are ho's with bows.

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: Martin
70% of you seem to be ignoring the fact that Knights were mounted. Not only that, but they were mounted on the largest, fiercest horses, which had armour and were trained to kick and bite. What's a guy with a light, slashing sword and effectivly no armour going to do against a 1 ton animal charging at 40km/h?
http://flammensorden.laiv.org/Ridderen-til-hest/horse-knight.jpg

samurai also had mounted units.. heavy, better armored knights were soundly defeated by the mongols who were quicker and more manuverable.

everything sounds fine and dandy on theory, but you never know what would really happen until you put it to a real world testament.

don't get me wrong, I have been known to be partial to heavily armored units when playing RTS or MMORPG games, but thats only because they are games


I and HamSupLo provided excellent instance of real battles that actually took place. now, can anyone point to the links where the knights had displayed some glorious victories? correct me wrong, but they struggled against the arabs in their crusades if I remember correctly.

Unless you point out an actual samurai vs knights, you're just speculating, like everyone else. The mongols were not samurai - like the knights, they were also primarily mounted. Even then, you are talking armies vs armies (these include many different units and also tactics, strategy, logistics, etc), not entirely relevant comparison.

In the end, you have to convince me that a lightly armoured man with 2 swords would defeat a heavily armourned man AND horse, which you really can't do.

In reality, cavalry charges had to be repulsed using pikemen/spearmen, who heavily outnumbered the horses. There was a reason no one ever used swordsmen against cavalry.

alright we are all speculating at best, i will give you that.
/thread

the point i was trying to make with the mongols is that heavy armor may look intriguing, but not invincible like some of the people here make it out to be and there was not a single period of time where knights crushed every other form of opposition. What makes you think samurais wouldnt fight on their horses while knights can?

I agree there are way more factors to be considered when it comes to armies vs armies, but people preceding my post already came up with all these hypothetical situations to give unfair advantage to the knights; guarding a hilltop? what kinda joke is that of course the defense most always have the edge over the offense. many people in this thread claim heavier armor gives a tremendous edge in battle, and I was just giving a counter example to that.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Samurai wore wooden and leather armor. Their weapons were curved blades meant for slashing, not hacking. Knights wore plate armor and had straight blades.

The knights would win. It would be no contest.

 

[SKORPI0]

Google Fight - Knight vs. Samurai :laugh:

 

[konakona]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: Martin
70% of you seem to be ignoring the fact that Knights were mounted. Not only that, but they were mounted on the largest, fiercest horses, which had armour and were trained to kick and bite. What's a guy with a light, slashing sword and effectivly no armour going to do against a 1 ton animal charging at 40km/h?
http://flammensorden.laiv.org/Ridderen-til-hest/horse-knight.jpg

samurai also had mounted units.. heavy, better armored knights were soundly defeated by the mongols who were quicker and more manuverable.

everything sounds fine and dandy on theory, but you never know what would really happen until you put it to a real world testament.

don't get me wrong, I have been known to be partial to heavily armored units when playing RTS or MMORPG games, but thats only because they are games


I and HamSupLo provided excellent instance of real battles that actually took place. now, can anyone point to the links where the knights had displayed some glorious victories? correct me wrong, but they struggled against the arabs in their crusades if I remember correctly.

EDIT : typo galore

The Crusades were not fought entirely with Knights. Most of the fighting was done by a "peasant" army. When the foot soilders started loosing, the Knights mostly Knights Templar would come riding in and clean up shop.

maybe I am not too well educated on the history of Crusades, and you are probably right about the mainstay of Crusades army consisting of less heavily armed/trained units. Just curious though, is there any evidence the knighs did "clean up shop" when they were engaged? I love reading on war history, and it would be nice if you can enlighten me more on the Crusades TIA

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Man, this thread is way to full of inaccuracies, I can't even begin to point them out. Read a few books on Medieval Europe and Medieval Japan, then realize why this argument cannot take place with any sense of fact.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Man, this thread is way to full of inaccuracies, I can't even begin to point them out. Read a few books on Medieval Europe and Medieval Japan, then realize why this argument cannot take place with any sense of fact.

Actually, knights did invade the orient and completely laid waste to leather/wooden armor with their straight blades.

 

[HamSupLo]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: Martin
70% of you seem to be ignoring the fact that Knights were mounted. Not only that, but they were mounted on the largest, fiercest horses, which had armour and were trained to kick and bite. What's a guy with a light, slashing sword and effectivly no armour going to do against a 1 ton animal charging at 40km/h?
http://flammensorden.laiv.org/Ridderen-til-hest/horse-knight.jpg

samurai also had mounted units.. heavy, better armored knights were soundly defeated by the mongols who were quicker and more manuverable.

everything sounds fine and dandy on theory, but you never know what would really happen until you put it to a real world testament.

don't get me wrong, I have been known to be partial to heavily armored units when playing RTS or MMORPG games, but thats only because they are games


I and HamSupLo provided excellent instance of real battles that actually took place. now, can anyone point to the links where the knights had displayed some glorious victories? correct me wrong, but they struggled against the arabs in their crusades if I remember correctly.

Unless you point out an actual samurai vs knights, you're just speculating, like everyone else. The mongols were not samurai - like the knights, they were also primarily mounted. Even then, you are talking armies vs armies (these include many different units and also tactics, strategy, logistics, etc), not entirely relevant comparison.

In the end, you have to convince me that a lightly armoured man with 2 swords would defeat a heavily armourned man AND horse, which you really can't do.

In reality, cavalry charges had to be repulsed using pikemen/spearmen, who heavily outnumbered the horses. There was a reason no one ever used swordsmen against cavalry.

I bolded that part because VanillaH and I have alluded to the Mongol invasion of Easter Europe. I emphasize that because it negates the advantage that Knights have with their heavy armor. The mongols routed them despite being lightly armored because they were faster. It helped them draw their enemy out for flanking and ambushes.

If you want another example, the Greek Phalanxes were unbreakable until the Romans came along. The legions defeated the phalanxes because they were more manueverable and can cut them down once they got in for close quarter combat, which the greek were at a disadvantages with their long spears.

heavy armor != advantage

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

True, HamSupLo, but curved blades are meant for slashing and easily glance off a knight's armor. The knight's straight bladed swords cleave through leather and light wooden armor like it's not even there. Unless a Samurai got a very lucky piercing shot through the armpit of a night who's got their arm raised, or something equally difficult, the Samurai wouldn't stand much of a chance at all.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Man, this thread is way to full of inaccuracies, I can't even begin to point them out. Read a few books on Medieval Europe and Medieval Japan, then realize why this argument cannot take place with any sense of fact.

Actually, knights did invade the orient and completely laid waste to leather/wooden armor with their straight blades.

We aren't talking about the orient as a whole, we are talking about Japan. Specifically the medieval era of Japan in which they had little contact with Europeans, and the 250-year Period of Isolation (Edo Period).

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Man, this thread is way to full of inaccuracies, I can't even begin to point them out. Read a few books on Medieval Europe and Medieval Japan, then realize why this argument cannot take place with any sense of fact.

OMG OMG! No way a squad of x-wings could take out the enterprise. There is no way we could ever test that. You guys are way wrong on facts on protons, photons, and mofotons I couldn't even start.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: VanillaH

Originally posted by: HamSupLo

Originally posted by: Martin
70% of you seem to be ignoring the fact that Knights were mounted. Not only that, but they were mounted on the largest, fiercest horses, which had armour and were trained to kick and bite. What's a guy with a light, slashing sword and effectivly no armour going to do against a 1 ton animal charging at 40km/h?
http://flammensorden.laiv.org/Ridderen-til-hest/horse-knight.jpg

samurai also had mounted units.. heavy, better armored knights were soundly defeated by the mongols who were quicker and more manuverable.

everything sounds fine and dandy on theory, but you never know what would really happen until you put it to a real world testament.

don't get me wrong, I have been known to be partial to heavily armored units when playing RTS or MMORPG games, but thats only because they are games


I and HamSupLo provided excellent instance of real battles that actually took place. now, can anyone point to the links where the knights had displayed some glorious victories? correct me wrong, but they struggled against the arabs in their crusades if I remember correctly.

Unless you point out an actual samurai vs knights, you're just speculating, like everyone else. The mongols were not samurai - like the knights, they were also primarily mounted. Even then, you are talking armies vs armies (these include many different units and also tactics, strategy, logistics, etc), not entirely relevant comparison.

In the end, you have to convince me that a lightly armoured man with 2 swords would defeat a heavily armourned man AND horse, which you really can't do.

In reality, cavalry charges had to be repulsed using pikemen/spearmen, who heavily outnumbered the horses. There was a reason no one ever used swordsmen against cavalry.

I bolded that part because VanillaH and I have alluded to the Mongol invasion of Easter Europe. I emphasize that because it negates the advantage that Knights have with their heavy armor. The mongols routed them despite being lightly armored because they were faster. It helped them draw their enemy out for flanking and ambushes.

If you want another example, the Greek Phalanxes were unbreakable until the Romans came along. The legions defeated the phalanxes because they were more manueverable and can cut them down once they got in for close quarter combat, which the greek were at a disadvantages with their long spears.

heavy armor != advantage

let me reiterate what I've already said
1. armies - irrelevant.
2. Horses bring the advantage, not the armour.
3. Show which leaders used equal numbers of swordsmen to repulse cavalry charges as a sucessful battle tactic.

 

[HamSupLo]

so we are talking about one knight vs one samurai and not armies? i don't get your argument since this thread was started with armies vs armies. anyways, i think this debate is moot since awar between knights and an lightly armored asiactic army was fought and decided like 800 years ago.

if you're going with a mounted knight vs samurai foot soldier debate, that is unfair since samurais fought mounted too.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
Man, this thread is way to full of inaccuracies, I can't even begin to point them out. Read a few books on Medieval Europe and Medieval Japan, then realize why this argument cannot take place with any sense of fact.

OMG OMG! No way a squad of x-wings could take out the enterprise. There is no way we could ever test that. You guys are way wrong on facts on protons, photons, and mofotons I couldn't even start.

Cute.