100 Medival Knights vs. 100 Samurai

[judasmachine]

100 nuclear physicists with an endless budget and a couple of years.

FTGalaxy

 

[Looney]

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.

Um yeah... because samurais didn't ride horses, right?

 

[UbiSunt]

Easy one,

Medieval knights

1. Longer swords

2. Badass spears, not that bamboo ******

3. Shields

4. Plate armor, not that bamboo ******.

5. Better, and more horses

6. Samurai bows were bamboo ******, good for shooting unruly peasants but not much else.

7. I think the biggest benefit that medieval knights would enjoy is access to better and more wood (spears, shields, etc.) and better breeds of horses, or horses at all for that matter.

 

[Looney]

We're talking about 100 knights vs 100 samurais... if that's the case, then there's going to be group strategy involved... and it's the same strategies as to why the mongols wearing only silk, beat knights in full plate armor.

 

[Baked]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
100 nuclear physicists with an endless budget and a couple of years.

FTGalaxy

Hasn't happened yet. Ask your government about those mystery budgets.

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: Looney
We're talking about 100 knights vs 100 samurais... if that's the case, then there's going to be group strategy involved... and it's the same strategies as to why the mongols wearing only silk, beat knights in full plate armor.

Please give me an example of Mongols ever fighting Frankish heavy cavalry. You are probably thinking of Arab horsemen. The Romans and later the Franks had the same problem with the Arabian soldiers because they refused to engage hand to hand and would run their horses away and sit and shoot their bows backwards at the heavy cavalry.

This would not be an issue with the Samurai because:

A. they would view that as being a pussy and not good strategy.

B. Their horses probably would have trouble outrunning a mule.

 

[PingSpike]

Were the mongols samurai?

 

[InterpolAgent]

This shouldn't be an argument period. Although knights had an advantage with metal armour, it was also their disadvantage. It slowed them down a little. This would also be a burden because all that armour would wear them down quicker.
Samurais were known for precision and technique. Plus they would be faster with their swords because their armour wasn't as heavy. They'd skewer a knight before he would be able to get a full swing.

 

[Legend]

This depends on so many factors, it would be impossible to tell. For instance, what weapons? Knights I almost always think of as large heavy swords. Samurai I can see with katanas, bows, spears, etc.

The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword. If there's no immediate point of weakness, the samurai wouldn't just stand there waiting to be killed. They may retreat, finding that the armor is dishonorable, and ambush the knights camp unexpectedly.

Now if we're on an open field, with the formal sorts of warfare that Europe had back then, and the samurai didn't have spears, the knights would win easily.

 

[GasX]

Originally posted by: Legend
The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword.

And you know this because you have worn armor and trained in swordplay for how long?

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: InterpolAgent
This shouldn't be an argument period. Although knights had an advantage with metal armour, it was also their disadvantage. It slowed them down a little. This would also be a burden because all that armour would wear them down quicker.
Samurais were known for precision and technique. Plus they would be faster with their swords because their armour wasn't as heavy. They'd skewer a knight before he would be able to get a full swing.

The average suit of plate armor was about 60 pounds or so, and its mobility was pretty good according to most people that have worn replicas.

I can't find anything in google about the average weight of samurai armor, except a suit of replica for sale that weights 60 pounds, with its display box. Given replica plate weighs less, I'd suspect the same is true of replica samurai armor.

I actually don't think there is a signifigant weight difference between the two when it comes right down to it.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Legend
The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword.

And you know this because you have worn armor and trained in swordplay for how long?

I know this from common sense. 100s of lbs of armor will slow you down. Samurai were trained from youth to be fast and precise.

I took Tae Kwon Doe as a kid and I could beat people twice my size because I was faster and I hit the right places.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Legend
The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword.

And you know this because you have worn armor and trained in swordplay for how long?

I know this from common sense. 100s of lbs of armor will slow you down. Samurai were trained from youth to be fast and precise.

As opposed to european knights, who were trained to be slow and clumsy.

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Legend
The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword.

And you know this because you have worn armor and trained in swordplay for how long?

I know this from common sense. 100s of lbs of armor will slow you down. Samurai were trained from youth to be fast and precise.

As opposed to european knights, who were trained to be slow and clumsy.

Right...and where exactly did I say that?

All I said is that the weight from the armor would slow them down.

I'm thinking heavy calvary. Armor all over the place, both on the person and the horse.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Easy one,

Medieval knights

1. Longer swords

2. Badass spears, not that bamboo ******

3. Shields

4. Plate armor, not that bamboo ******.

5. Better, and more horses

6. Samurai bows were bamboo ******, good for shooting unruly peasants but not much else.

7. I think the biggest benefit that medieval knights would enjoy is access to better and more wood (spears, shields, etc.) and better breeds of horses, or horses at all for that matter.

I don't think you realize how strong good bamboo is. Sure, metal armor is better...but bamboo is perfectly good for spears and bows.

 

[Tom]

How much of the world speaks Japanese ?

How much speaks English or other European languages ?

There is your answer.

 

[machintos]

Samurai!

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: Tom
How much of the world speaks Japanese ?

How much speaks English or other European languages ?

There is your answer.

Who had a policy of Isolationism and who had a policy of Imperialism?

Also, bamboo is one of the best natural materials for bows, and the Japanese bows (though smaller than Welsh longbows) were nearly as powerful. Accurate to 100 yards, and deadly, but not accurate, at 200 yards.

 

[dexvx]

Why are people comparing Mongols to Samurai? Samurai wore light armor. Mongols wore none. Mongols were also better disciplined and were trained to fight as a group with tactics. Samurai are conditioned to be a single man army.

If the Mongols landed, they would've owned Japan.

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Legend

Originally posted by: Mwilding

Originally posted by: Legend
The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword.

And you know this because you have worn armor and trained in swordplay for how long?

I know this from common sense. 100s of lbs of armor will slow you down. Samurai were trained from youth to be fast and precise.

I took Tae Kwon Doe as a kid and I could beat people twice my size because I was faster and I hit the right places.

The average suit of full plate (14th and onward) was like 70 lbs, tops, spread through out the whole body. Plus, curved samuri swords suck against plate armor specifically engineered to deflect blades.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Firebot
The samurais held the whole Mongol army at bay on a beach for 43 days and pushed them back to their ships, until a typhoon finally hit and killed about half of the Mongol force. Read up on the Battle of Kouan - the Japanese also had attack ships where a whole boatload of samurais would board the Mongol ships.

You've gotta be joking me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Invasions_of_Japan

Finally, in 1274, the Mongol fleet set out, with roughly 15,000 Mongol & Chinese soldiers and 8,000 Korean warriors, in 300 large vessels and 400-500 smaller craft. They captured the islands of Tsushima and Iki easily, and landed on November 19th in Hakata Bay, a short distance from Dazaifu, the ancient administrative capital of Kyushu. The following day brought the Battle of Bun'ei (????), also known as the "Battle of Hakata Bay"; the Mongols had superior weapons and tactics, but they were vastly outnumbered by the Japanese warriors who had been preparing for the attack for months, and who had received reinforcements as soon as they learned of the losses of Tsushima and Iki. They held out all day, and a storm that night persuaded the Mongols to retreat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kouan

Same thing happened to Invasion #2. The expeditionary forces landed, were vastly outnumbered by Japanese. However, the main invasion force got owned by the weather.

 

[AbAbber2k]

This thread is hilarious because half the people responding got all their 3l33t info from movies which teach us a) European Knights are slow, untrained, and stupid. And b) A Samurai wielding a Katana can cut through a bus.

And now, a list of completely retarded arguments from all the posters who obviously don't know wtf they're talking about!

They'd skewer a knight before he would be able to get a full swing.

The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword. If there's no immediate point of weakness, the samurai wouldn't just stand there waiting to be killed. They may retreat, finding that the armor is dishonorable, and ambush the knights camp unexpectedly.

I took Tae Kwon Doe as a kid

And of course, anyone who used the Mongols vs Samurai argument is an idiot and should stfu. No ****** the Mongols got owned when they landed on a BEACH and were met with resistance. Duh? You think the Americans took the beach in WWII because they had l33t samurai fighting skillz? Do you have any idea how MANY people we landed? Overwhelming numbers ftw.

Ignorance FTW!

BTW, the Kite shield was one of the most versatile weapons ever created. Not only was it used for defense, but it could slam the opponent or be swung in a cleaving motion for sharp blows to the enemy's head. In addition to deflecting attacks, many shields had no metal, so a cleaving blow from a sword could actually cause the sword to EMBED in the shield giving the knights additional opportunities to strike at their foe.

FACT: Both Knights and Samurai were highly trained individuals... since they were old enough to pick up a training sword. Bother were also trained to grabble and use unconventional fighting techniques, like using the hilt or butt of the sword to strike the opponent when they were to close to use a full swing.

FACT: Not all "knights" used impossibly huge swords like in movies and video games... many favored weapons that could be wielded in addition to a shield.

Who would win? I don't know. Personally I think it'd be pretty damn close and dependant on the environment. Basing the argument purely on equipment Knights definitly... samurai armor just can't compare and a sword like the katana isn't built to get through plate and chain. Based on training I have to go with a draw, since both are elite warriors trained since their youth and are both not only skilled with their weapons but without them as well.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Why are people comparing Mongols to Samurai? Samurai wore light armor. Mongols wore none. Mongols were also better disciplined and were trained to fight as a group with tactics. Samurai are conditioned to be a single man army.

If the Mongols landed, they would've owned Japan.

I don't know. Thats what's most annoying about this thread. The mongols were not the japanese so I don't even see how this is even relevant. They didn't have the same bows or training, or the same horses, commanders, etc, etc...they weren't even the same ethnic makeup since mongol is a broad term refering to anyone on their side. And that included everyone from christians, to arabs to the chinese. Were the samarui even trained to fire from horseback like mongols did? From what I've read it wasn't an easy skill to learn.

The mongols did land, and each time after defeating/pushing back the japanese a typhoon wiped out their attacking force that was relying on ships to supply them. While I've read various accounts of whether the mongols were initially successful or not, the weather always seems to be blamed for their ultimate loss.

Regardless, even if the samurai HAD defeated the mongols in a direct battle that is not proof that they would have defeated european knights. Rock, Paper, Scissors. Just because rock smashes scissors, doesn't mean it defeats paper.

 

[AbAbber2k]

BTW... I thought Brian Boitano defeated the Mongols...

 

[Legend]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
This thread is hilarious because half the people responding got all their 3l33t info from movies which teach us a) European Knights are slow, untrained, and stupid. And b) A Samurai wielding a Katana can cut through a bus.

And now, a list of completely retarded arguments from all the posters who obviously don't know wtf they're talking about!

They'd skewer a knight before he would be able to get a full swing.

The armor or the large swords are not advantages however for the knights because the samurai would be 5 times faster and would strike at a point of weakness before the knight could even begin to move his sword. If there's no immediate point of weakness, the samurai wouldn't just stand there waiting to be killed. They may retreat, finding that the armor is dishonorable, and ambush the knights camp unexpectedly.

I took Tae Kwon Doe as a kid

And of course, anyone who used the Mongols vs Samurai argument is an idiot and should stfu. No ****** the Mongols got owned when they landed on a BEACH and were met with resistance. Duh? You think the Americans took the beach in WWII because they had l33t samurai fighting skillz? Do you have any idea how MANY people we landed? Overwhelming numbers ftw.

Ignorance FTW!

Now that you've made an ass of yourself, would you like to respond to my comments? Or does the "OMG OMG DUMBASS" going to be it?

Somone asked me if I had ever used a sword. I hadn't, but I have fought. It doesn't matter how much meat/armor you have, or how big your sword is. Whoever strikes first with a decent amount of power will take the opponent down. Speed and accuracy is everything. Knights were part of an army in Europe, not the army. So their role was much more specialized, whereas samurai kind of did everything.

Other posters have made comments as if the samurai are just going to go up in traditional European battle and swordplay with the knights or strike their armor and have their weapons shatter because of the sophisticated armor. That's not how the Japanese fought.

I honestly don't know who would win, as I said in my original post. There's many variables, but my comment was in response to the idea that samurai would sit their and be crushed by stronger, heaver materials.


Some people have mentioned that full body plat armor and sword only weighs 70 lbs. I find this very hard to believe. Is there a link to something like this? How well can you move in this?