- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who would win…A Knight vs A Samurai
Posted on 3/10/22 at 8:44 am to fr33manator
Posted on 3/10/22 at 8:44 am to fr33manator
All other variables being roughly equal (skill, strength, horse, experience, etc), the knight probably wins 7 or 8 out of 10 fights. Their equipment is simply better suited to killing a Samurai than a Samurai's is to killing a Knight.
0
Posted on 3/10/22 at 8:50 am to SEClint
quote:
His sword would slice through a knights sword..first off.
You're getting your history from comic books. The katana was good for killing unarmed farmers and nothing else. it was a shitty design made with inferior material. Japan has very little iron ore and what they do have is poor quality. Ore quality is not that important in modern steel-making but in the medieval era it was supremely important. The Japanese tamahagane steel would have been mid-grade at best in medieval Europe.
Posted on 3/10/22 at 8:51 am to Palmetto98
On horseback, the knight wins.
This is akin to asking who wins between a boxer and an MMA fighter, at the same level in their sports. It depends on the rules of the fight.
This is akin to asking who wins between a boxer and an MMA fighter, at the same level in their sports. It depends on the rules of the fight.
Posted on 3/10/22 at 8:56 am to fr33manator
ITT we find out who the OT weeaboos are. Knight wins this easily in reality. Plus the Samurai image that pops up in most peoples heads is from the sengoku period which was in the 1600s, so this is actually way past the heyday of medieval European knights and pretty much any heavy cavalry unit from Europe by this time (knight or otherwise) would be in full plate armor. Absolutely no way the samurai wins. Think less of your idea of a knight and more the image of a conquistador or John smith/Francis drake. If we’re talking about a 1200s matchup of samurai V knight the knight wins just as easily as I doubt the samurai had any weapons at the time that could even penetrate their armor without swarming the knights getting them on the ground and stabbing them through the slits in armor. Also to the person who mentioned English longbows vs French knights. That was agincourt in the mid 1400s and longbows had to be employed in certain defensible positions with the right terrain. Real life wasn’t age of empires, total war or dynasty warriors.
Posted on 3/10/22 at 8:58 am to fr33manator
I'm not sure who would win, most likely the knight.
However, should the Samurai win, I love the fact that he would have taken the knights head as a prize to be returned to his master for recompense.
Youtube - the Shogunate
However, should the Samurai win, I love the fact that he would have taken the knights head as a prize to be returned to his master for recompense.
Youtube - the Shogunate
Posted on 3/10/22 at 9:21 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
ITT we find out who the OT weeaboos are.
Yup. Myth over reality
Posted on 3/10/22 at 9:22 am to Palmetto98
Pootie Tang
Posted on 3/10/22 at 9:27 am to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
That was agincourt in the mid 1400s and longbows had to be employed in certain defensible positions with the right terrain. Real life wasn’t age of empires, total war or dynasty warriors.
Yeah I’ve notIced the English are sore losers about losing the Hundred Years’ War lol
Posted on 3/10/22 at 9:29 am to Palmetto98
Didn't we basically see this minus the horseback part with the Mountain vs. the Red Viper?
Posted on 3/10/22 at 9:31 am to Palmetto98
quote:
Yeah I’ve notIced the English are sore losers about losing the Hundred Years’ War lol
Well yeah. Wouldn’t you be sore about fighting a war for a hundred years and end up losing?
Posted on 3/10/22 at 9:54 am to Darth_Vader
Yeah steel and armor alone gave the Spaniards the ability to shred through the aztecs and Mayans
Posted on 3/10/22 at 12:32 pm to Palmetto98
quote:
Yeah steel and armor alone gave the Spaniards the ability to shred through the aztecs and Mayans
Once again you’ll never evolve weapons to beat armor you haven’t come into contact with, or weapons to beat such armor.
Plus there were resources and metallurgy to consider.
Posted on 3/10/22 at 12:34 pm to Cash
quote:Better example was already given, Ser Jorah vs the Dothraki 1 on 1.
Didn't we basically see this minus the horseback part with the Mountain vs. the Red Viper?
Dothraki guy landed the first blow, which was ineffective against Jorah's armor. Jorah then killed him.
Posted on 3/10/22 at 12:52 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Yup. Myth over reality
Well, the entire premise was silly - "No bow, on horseback"
So, medieval heavy cavalry versus, what? "Didn't exist guy?" Because most of the Asian forces were horse archers. Wonderful ones.
How did the Mongol bow do against medieval knights? Pretty well.
And all the guys going on about swords - the scholarship is constantly changing on this, but swords were personal arms, prestige items, heirlooms. Most mounted knights fought with polearms in real battle, either lances or whatever their regional flavor of pick/axe/fauchard headed pole, etc. These weapons broke - a lot. Part of the reason knights traveled with a squire (rich ones more than 1 squire) was to watch their back and carry spare arms.
When the sword came out, that was akin to a modern special operator drawing his sidearm. Even the longer, Gallic pattern swords (evolved from proto-knights of Rome) were not great from horseback. Poles for infantry kept getting longer to give them reach to dismount knights - combined with archers and gunpowder, these longer polearms wielded by levies of lower status infantry ultimately proved to be the literal and figurative downfall of the elite medieval knights.
Posted on 3/10/22 at 12:56 pm to Palmetto98
quote:
Yeah steel and armor alone gave the Spaniards the ability to shred through the aztecs and Mayans
Not exactly - the Aztecs being absolute dicks to everyone caused them to ally with the Spaniards. The core troops from Spain with cavalry, cannon and armor were critical on the battlefield, but it was the masses of native allies who hated the Aztecs that evened the odds for Cortez and company.
Posted on 3/10/22 at 12:57 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Well, the entire premise was silly - "No bow, on horseback"
Even so the Samurai doesn’t win. The Japanese were not the mongols. Island people versus Steppe people
Posted on 3/10/22 at 1:09 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Even so the Samurai doesn’t win.
Meh. Still comes down, largely, to the individual. "Best" against "best" would even be close.
The medieval period is a long time - centuries. A knight who was with William at Hastings wouldn't have had any significant armor advantage over a contemporary in Japan. Now, as we go later and later and talk about full Maximillian plate of the 16th Century? That guy is going to be tough for the Samurai to hurt.
So, again, it comes down, largely, to individual skill (for this hypothetical East vs West showdown) in a 1 on 1 engagement until such time as the West's technology had outstripped the Japanese potential to kill/seriously wound with 1 or 2 blows, probably about 1400 or so.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News