Samurai
 

I think that they are the formost group to beat in medieval times. I Samurai would own a knight easily. Katana > Long Sword

Impossible to call. Various scholars have debated the issue, including Hank Reinhardt and Ewart Oakshott, but no conclusions have been reached. Contrary to popular beleif, medieval European martial arts did not consist of lumbering about banging people with barely-sharp bars of metal; they were every bit as developed and deadly as their Asian counterparts, and were in many respects quite similar.
It's quite possible to turn cartwheels in a well-fitted suit of armour, even the High-Goth plate from Milan or Wurzburg, if properly fitted to the wearer, can accomplish this.
Also, the extremely fine edge of a good Katana will quite literally shatter like glass if it meets a similar surface. Katanas are especially good at cutting metal; but only flat plates of metal, met at 75-90 degrees. Any less of an angle, and they glance off. If the edge of a Katana meets a similar edge, it will simply break. This is why most parries in Kendo and other traditional Japanese swordplay use the -back- edge of the weapon, to protect the cutting surface. Even European swords, which had much more robust, non-beveled edges, were typically parried with the flat of the blade, rather than the cutting edge, to avoid damaging the sword.

You must also realize that "Samurai" or "Knight" were no indication of martial prowess; they were simply titles of rank and Nobility. Certainly, most of them had some martial skill, and many were exceptional, but it was quite possible to be Samurai or be Knighted and have no martial inclinations whatsoever; although a Knight would be more inclined to do so.

Bottom line, if similarly armed and armoured ( full suit for each, double-handed sword or spear for each ) it is just too close to call, and would come down to the skill, ferocity, and luck of each fighter.

Um actually, not really

First off, it's important to note that the samurai were still around until the late 1800's.

The samurai of the 1500's had really, really crappy steal blades. Eurpopes stealmaking ability was far superior.

That being said, samurai lacked something crucial that every night worth a damn had: A big ass shield.

It is easy to discount the sophistication of midieval nights and think of them as big guys hacking at each other, but they actually trained constantly and were very advanced in their combat techniques. Their training was different, but comparable to that of a samurai would be likely to recieve.

Since the europeans had better weapons and armor, they would most likely win the fight.


Some of my friends have proven this time and time agian in the SCA by whipping the snot out of the SCA's 'samurais'

Don't get me wrong here with the sword stuff: Japanese swordmaking techniques were exquisite, they just didn't have much to work with steel wise.

Some samuris had shields, but they were often light and wooden if they had them at all. I don't think a knight would've been able to out manuver a samuri, they dressed lightly and were very nimble. Then again a samuri sword woudn't penetrate a noble knights armor therfore knight who is redicoulously strong, and nimble in his own right > samuri

Longsword is from a different period. Take a rapier vs a katana, rapier wins as history shows us. On the "awesome to the fucking max" scale however, I think katana trumps rapier. They just look so sexy.

By period, I would bet on the European knight, given that both had similar skill levels. European armor and shield tech was simply far superior. Later period, I would go with Samurai. While rapiers were deadly, a fully kitted Samurai is better equipped than a Renaissance soldier.

Now, take them out of their armo, and the tables turn. The Samurai slaps the kinght around and calls him Susan. Kenjutsu is far superior in unarmored combat than European style, and the Katana has the edge (no pun intended) as well. The converse is true in the Ren-years though. Samurai vs. rapier-wielding fencer would have a very hard time. European fencers were supremely effective in light combat.

Neat mental exercise.

Uhhhh... that's a pretty big assumption. European Martial Arts of the Middle Ages are FAR more advanced than most people know about.
Check out.
http://www.aemma.org/
and
http://www.thehaca.com/

/10+ years SCA + Sword Training (European/Japanese)

Uh, gotcha. I spent time in the SCA as well (only a few years though), have taking training in various martial arts from around the world (Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Russian, Thai, etc), and have enough history courses to have damned near double majored while in school.

Which assumption do you find so damning?

From the Kendo training I've taken (not so much) and watched (a fair amount), the footwork is far better tha the European martial training I've taken (tolerable amount) and watched (a good bit more, I never trained as a wire-weenie, but I watched the heck out of it). Technology is a major factor in either period, as I made obvious in the post, but I always thought the European arts were less than stellar on footwork and mobility, and much of this was due to the fact that hopping around in a large amount of steel and leather was not conducive to being able to last in a long battle.

In any case, the actual outcome would be determined by the individuals. I've personally 'beaten' a Kali-Silat grandmaster in friendly sparring, entirely because I put my Sombo training to good use and he wasn't equipped/trained (or big enough) to gracefully counter it. I am merely discussing certain advantages given the style of training, equipment, and mentality of the periods referenced.

what's SCA?

Moonduck:
I find the assumption that a "...Samurai would own a knight easily." to be a bit brash; and I think that Japanese Sword Techniques (Ken-Jitsu/Kendo) are over rated. I've spent quite a while training in both and I've found that there is a wealth of both Sword and Unarmed Combat Arts from Europe that (IMHO) are just as effective as anything from Japan.
No offense NeverBorn, but as was mentioned by other people in this thread the simplistic comparison of a "Knight" VS a "Samurai" is not really specific enough (time period, Nationalities, Equipment... etc) to assume anything.

Mael:
the Society for Creative Anachronism is a Medival Recreationist group the seeks to relive the middle ages the way it ought to have been. Including full contact "Sword" Combat.
They're on the web at www.sca.org

Moonduck, Do you still Practice? I'm in the Mists, West Kingdom.

I have to agree with the majority here that the matchup is too imprecise to call. If we are talking fully equipped from each appropriate time period, remember that a Knight was equipped to fight on horseback, therefore a horse would be considered part of his standard equipment. Full plate armor was not designed to be worn on foot. The mideval footsoldier is in a different class, wearing different armor. (then we have to decide from when, as the ability to extrude metal into wire, to make a chain type armor didn't appear in europe until later) (pardon my use of the vague date)

So if we drop the standard equipment stipulation it all comes down to the man. Its a test of individual.

Unless it was Miyamoto Musashi. He would wipe the floor with any old knight.

They are right this topic is a bit unspecified. If you take both example at say the height of their popularity, in unmounted combat, and equal to skill. Then yes the fight would very interesting indeed. The knight wearing about 60-80 pounds more equipment (think traditionally dressed tournament armor) therefore taking his agility down quite a bit. The samurai now has the advantage of speed and agility however his weapon is ill equipped vs. someone in armor, meaning that his strikes would have to consist of lunges and thrusts, he would have to be a hell of a lot more accurate. Traditionally Samurai did not carry shields (I know some did just generally) so therefore all parrying and blocking will have to be with his katana and wazakazi (sp?) Remember also that dual wielding weapons wasn't familiar to Japan until Musashi brought his style back with him from learning with spanish fencers. Forgoing that let's assume the Samurai is versed in such fighting styles and is using his katana and wazikazi, giving him a bit of leeway as far as parrying goes, and making it a bit easier for him to score his accurate strikes. Now contrary to popular belief Knights weren't all THAT ponderous in their full armor and were benefitted with a lot of movement. Their use of weaponry can be put into a "martial" arts form of its own and they were quite formidable with their own weaponry. Just because Eastern nations were more prolific with different styles of marital arts doesn't mean they were the only nations to have it. Now all things considered in my own mind I would give the likelyhood of the first strike coming from the knight seeing as how the samurai might be more cautious in planning his hit. I think I would give the advantage to the knight simply cause of his ability to take a body hit and counter because of his armor. All though I would have to say the Samurai would indeed be more skillful as far as use of his weaponry goes. If you forgo defense to concentrate on attack, you have to be pretty damn sure your attack is effective.

Anyway just my 2 cents, interesting thought though

I've gained a great amount of knowledge by reading this thread =)
How does everybody know so much on the topic? Research?

Fanatical interest, books, and time my friend lots and lots of time

The Samurai started off as archers, firing at their enemies from horseback.So there.

"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
----------

Samuel P. Huntington

A katana is a very fast effective weapon, but the armor moght slow it down a little. I take iaido and I would never try to use my sword on a suit of armor.

That's what I was saying, armor reduces the Katana's effectiveness to only thrusting as slashing against armor would simply break your sword. Thus your strikes would have to be extremely accurate, aiming for the armpit/shoulder, neck, groin, and the back of the knee. Fairly small targets, also a miss could mean a shattered weapon. Not saying it's impossible, I would just have to give the advantage to the knight.

What makes you think the Samurai would be more trained than a knight in swordplay? I dont think you can really put the 2 against each other. Weren't Samurai soldiers, while knights were usually officers/nobility, there weren't very many of them.

hmmmm. . . read my post a little further up, I'm pitting a tournament trained knight against a samurai. And while not the same Samurai and Knights were similar in that they were usually upper class nobility. My assumption that Samurai would be better trained in swordplay than a knight comes from my rationale in my previous post where sacrificing defense for offense you better be pretty sure your offense is damn good. Simply put as a Samurai you have a lightweight armor usually made from wood, or occasionally (sorry my spelling is a little poor) metal, however it is in no way comparable to a knights tournament armor where almost their entire body is encased in metal. Now of course their are a hundred different variations you can use in pitting your two warriors against each other. But for the sake (hehe sake` ^_^) of argument I'm using a knight and samurai at the height of their popularity.

I'm going to go with Knight purely for the fact that they trained extensively in offense and defense. Plus as was mentioned before their armor is superior. I'm sure many noble boys grew up training to become swordsmen/knights. I think if the armor was supurbly made to fit the knight perfectly he wouldn't be THAT restricted.

Some good arguements here..I dont know much about european swordfighting, or armour/weaponscrafting, but a modern or late era Katana CAN cut through steel, given a high quality blade and skilled swordsman. Shit, I've seen a modern katana make a noticeable mark in concrete. Granted, the blade was trashed...

I suppose I'm biased towards a Samurai winning. I see the knight being outmanuvered, and even if the Katana couldnt penetrate the Knight's armour, its likely the Samurai could manuver around back of the knight, and thrust his sword between the joints in the plate armour.

Its really sort of a stupid arguement. Eurpoean Knights were equipped for COMPLETELY different combat than Japanese Samurai. Its sort of like saying apples are better than oranges, or chocolate is better than vanilla. If the two sides were really in a conflict, way back when, they most likely would have adapted in order to defeat their opponents.

I don't think it would be that hard to keep the samurai in front of you, plus if you have a shield the knight would have an even better chance of winning. I don't think the knights moved like molasses, I like how people automatically assume that since it's from the east they can automatically win because they are all martial arts masters.

Ok, All you guys just got put on my buddy list. I've been doing SCA for 21 years, And I would love to see a bout between Miyamoto Musashi and William Marshal. Both top of the line in their fighting styles.

Only if the Katana would go thru the armor.

I am a Iaido student and I thing the Katana is the best sword in the world, but all weapons have their limitations

Best weapon in the world? For what purpose? A bolt-action rifle is a better weapon at any range beyond about 4ft. A good knife is a better weapon inside the katana's reach. Best overall? I'd take a good tank. Best sword? Likely a good rapier. Historically (though I cannot remember one damned cite for this, sorry), rapier users bested katana wielders time and time again. Rapiers were phenomenally deadly.

Actually he said ". . . best SWORD in the world. . . " he didn't say weapon. And again best sword depends on your enemy. Facing heavy armor with a rapier is not the best weapon choice, although going against lightly armored foes at the height of rapier use, of course the rapier is the best choice. There's too many factors to consider when saying which bladed weapon is a better choice in a particular situation. Also at the pique of rapier popularity the preferred dueling practice was with a rapier and a offhand dagger. A method made popular by Spanish fencers, which was taken back to the east by Musashi and adapted for katana use, using a offhand wazikaze (sp?).

WTF? Forgive my biased oppinions due to the four years plus I've spent learning a variation of Kendo known as Myojinsoga, but this needs to be said. A Samurai who runs is not a Samurai. However Knights have been known to turn a tail and flee from the fields of battle many a time and still hold the title of Knight. A Samurai is willing to lay down his life at anytime without question. Ahhh the beauty of literature that is Musashi's book of the five rings. A master of the blade so magnificant that he later fought his opponants with sticks and still humiliated them...

"Facing heavy armor with a rapier is not the best weapon choice"

Come again? Rapiers in the hands of a skilled user were quite effective against most heavy armours. They target the unprotected ares rather easily. Firearms and rapiers are what killed heavy armour use on the battlefield. Sure, a rapier would have a bit of a time against someone in Maximillian plate, but very, very few people owned or fielded Maxi plate. Heavy armour was more often chain or a combo of plate and chain, either of which were eminently defeatable by proper use of a rapier.

Musashi studied in the West? Don't recall that, but I don't claim to be a scholar....

You are correct a rapier in the hands of a skilled fencer could defeat someone in heavy armor, but no it is not the best weapon to use. Going up agains someone in heavy field armor or even maximillian plate the best weapon would be a warhammer, in my opinion at least because lord knows that's enough right there to start a debate amongst SCA enthusiasts. Firearms and rapiers succeeded heavy armor combat not because they were a superior weapon choice but because it afforded a more mobile unit that could be outfitted quickly and with less expense.

And yes Musashi did come west and studied European fencing.

Are we giving the european armour a little too much credit. Philopino stick fighting was designed specifically against plate armour and that was bloody effective. They were just sticks. Why couldnt an extremely hard, sharp blade be used the same way? Sheilds could be as much of a hindrence as a bonus. It protects you from harm but also blinds your vision. If an agile opponent moves the blind side your fucked. Anyone who has trained martial arts will tell you fighting isnt just about trading blows. It is about being in the best position to execute the correct attack and best defence. The faster fighter could move around the opponent and merely push them off balance. It is easy when you have the right angle. If you can get a fully armoured opponent on the ground its game over. The samarai did wear armour but admittidly it was abizmal. I would go for the samarai not only for these reasons but they would rather die fighting than flee and live. Sun Tzu always said attack on 3 sides. If you dont give your opponent an avenue of escape they will fight heaps harder because they ahve nothing to lose and thus can conquer their fear. It is like a cornered animal will fight a hell of a lot harder if they know they are cornered. Samarai trained for that type of mentality through all their life. Knights didnt.

Okay, no disagreement on warhammer being better against armour than a rapier. I didn't say that the rapier was the best weapon, I said it was probably the best sword overall. It works well against both armoured and unarmoured opponents and the fighting style is such that it can effectively handle other styles well.

Um, no. Firearms, early firearms, were hideously expensive and extremely bulky/non-mobile. Arquebusiers were well known to be shoot or move troops, unlike archers. The were literally handcannons and were bulky and difficult to use. They also ate through armour like crazy, thus they were kept on the field. And rapiers were no less expensive to make than broadswords given that much more advanced metallurgy was needed to make good rapier blades, and balance was far more important.

Rapiers and firearms succeeded heavy armour because they were so effective against heavy armour that it was no longer cost-effective to field the armour. It had nothing to do with the expense of firearms and rapiers.

If you are saying that armour was expensive and thus they stopped using it due to expense, we will disagree. Any well-to-do person on the field (read Noble) was buying his own armour, or had armour that was gifted to him by someone wealthy. If you were putting your high-bred butt on the line, you were damned sure going to wear as much armour as you could. They stopped using it only because arquebusiers blew through it like it wasn't there. If it doesn't work, why buy it?

I'm not intending this as calling you out, but do you have a reference for this? I'm not disbelieving you, I would just like to read the account myself as I am very interested in Musashi (who isn't that enjoys such topics as medieval fencing, Samurai swords, and military history and philosophy?)

Nope. Western armour was incredible stuff. Best personal armour in the world.

Er, check your facts, bro. Filipino "stick fighting", as you call it, existed long before the Spaniards invaded the Phillipines. Additionally, the Filipinos did not use sticks against the Spaniards, they used long knives, short swords, work knives, and only used sticks as a last resort. Another factor here is that the Spaniards were not in any way, shape, or form using heavy armour as we are discussing here. The armour they were using was generally a steel breastplate combined with an open face helmet with a broad brim. If you think about it, a stick is fairly effective against such a set-up provided you hit your target properly.

Filipino martial arts isn't about stick-fighting, excepting some more modernized arts. It is about training with sticks so that you can move to blades when you are ready. My Kali-Silat instructor always made damned certain that we understood that the sticks were for training, but that we should visualize them as blades. We also did a good bit of work with wooden training knives as well.

No, you turn, or you just make sure the shield is moved between you and your foe. Ever used a shield? It's educating. In Western martial arts such as a knight would use, the use of the shield was as important and practiced a skill as using the sword, and about as difficult to master too. Shields do not blind you unless you are using some towering monstrosity like the Romans used in formation fighting.

Not really. It isn't that hard to get up off the ground in well-made armour. That stupid myth about knights needing to be lifted into the saddle by a crane when armoured is garbage. It was referring to very late period tournament armour that would never have seen the battlefield. It is no exagerration to say that a fit knight in properly fitted plate could turn cartwheels ont he battlefield. It may look bulky and hard to move in to you, but when trained, it is very easy to move in.

You should also think about how much harder it is to "simply" push over a man in an extra 80lbs of armour. It's not a simple task, especially when he does not want to be pushed over. If it were that easy, armour would have never survived as long as it did.

As I've alluded to, I've trained in Kali-Silat (a Filipino knife-fighting art) and SCA fighting (a Medieval Western style). I was easily able to apply my Filipino style footwork while wearing Western armour. It was harder work as I wasn't used to it, but I could do it.

I'm sure the "true" samurai would do that. I am equally as sure that the majority would not. I am also completely certain that I could find historical examples of Samurai fleeing from a battle simply because winning a war is more important.

Doh! Sorry Apollo, I didn't see your post. I don't practice anymore. I destroyed my knee on the job a while back, and fighter practice became a thing of great pain. If I can get it rehabbed, I plan to try and get back into it.

I am in the lovely barony of Tir-y-Don in the Kingdom of Atlantia. We're right next door to Marinus, the demenses of Duke Michael of Bedford, if you've heard of him.

It should be noted that rapiers were civilian weapons, notorious for breaking in duels and not taken seriously by contemporary military minds. Rapiers became popular for deciding affairs of honor in duels to first blood, because of reach and precision, not killing potential. Ren soldiers used backswords, broadswords, and cut and thrust weapons of a sturdier make- rapiers are fast, and a great weapon to draw first blood with, but when used against an opponent on the battle field usualy got one killed- other problem was that the rapier produced a small puncture wound- often fatal in the long term, but it did not cause enough trauma to put a man consistantly down and out, thus even a lethal strike with a rapier resulted in the rapier user getting struck down too.

The samurai trained well, and so did kinights, the question would, I think, be one of equiptment and armor- Do they have their armor, horses? is it a one on one duel or a melee?

Reading through these posts, I'm certainly humbled by the amount of knowledge the rest of you seem to have. While I'm no sword fanatic, I'd like to point out several things:

- To a samurai, the opponent's death is equivalent to victory. It doesn't matter whethery the samurai himself is killed, as long as his opponent dies with him. Anyone who has taken kendo or iaido knows this already - after all, the techniques focus on aggressive attack, sweeping the opponent's blade with the same motion you attack with, counterattacking before the opponent lands his strike, etc. There is little or no emphasis on self-preservation.

- Kendo doesn't present an accurate picture of Japanese swordsmanship. Kendo is practiced indoors, on polished hardwood floors in controlled environments where your opponents have identical combat styles. Second, even keiko does not (and really, cannot) take into account the lethality of a real blade. Having a shinai come down on or across your collarbone is not a point, but if it were a live blade ... And much like other martial arts, your back is not a legal target in kendo, which results in an entire system of fighting that seems akin to suicide on a real battlefield. My point being that kendo cannot be used as a model for true sword combat; even its competitive free-sparring aspect is more sport than combat technique.

*shrug* I've seen too many swords that I would call a heavy rapier show up in historical paintings and woodcuts. A civilian rapier may be a useless battlefield implement, but a late-Ren fast and light (comparatively, of course) cut-and-thrust with protective handguard still counts as a rapier in my book (especially when generalizing broadly on the Internet =P ) and these are the swords I am referring to. Rapiers were around far longer than Ren times, and, to be honest, the level of tech I am really referring to is post Ren or very late Ren. I'm thinking buffcoats, pike, and shot.

Fencing during the Napoleonic era was the swordplay of choice, military and civilian. Cavalry used heavier blades, but that is to be expected. Again, a heavier bladed sword was used than the civilian rapier you are referring to. It is still, in broad sense, a rapier - straight, sharp blade designed for thrusts and slashes, bearing a protective guard for the hand. I mention this era because it is, my personal opinion, the height of martial skill in the art of fencing.

Moonduck- ok- many of those weapons from woodcuts are highly effective- as long as you discount the civilian only rapiers, which you appear to be quite willing to do- what you call a heavy rapier I call a later era cut and thrust sword (I just get touchy beacause many of the uninformed think the dueling rapier was a battlefield weapon-) sorry for the nomenclature mis- understanding

I think a samurai would prevail over a knight in single combat. The samurai would be able to use his agility to out manuver a midevil knight. In a larger battle with thousands, the samurai's lesser armor would make them weaker I think. They would be able to capitalize on a wave of steal. Samurai would certainly be the better trained of the two!

Fire, no need for apologies whatsoever! I've read a number of your posts, and they are consistently well thought out and well informed. I was actually thinking that I was over-generalizing in my earlier posts and hoping no one would call me on it =)

matt_mll, take some time to read on waht European knights did for training. I think that you'll be surprised. Most people think that knights were untrained, over-burdened oafs because they wore all that armor. Quite the opposite, they trained just as hard and as long as Samurai, and under just as regimented conditions. A proper knight was a well-rounded combatant capable of lancework, sword, mace, dagger, and unarmed combat. The Europeans just didn't stylize their combat so much or write about it in the poetic way that the Japanese did.

In fact, as a student of of a number of different Eastern forms, I was surprised to see the striking similarites between Medieval unarmed combat and Japanese Jiu-jutsu. It follows logically that the human body only moves in certain directions, so all grappling and throwing arts would be designed from similar bases, but the similarities were still amazing.

The armed styles were totally different, but that is because the knight used shields. Shields change things massively.