Someone told me that Samurai unit would destroy any European footman unit on the battlefield. I guess it would be difficult to arange this fight, not only because of the distance but also Samurai rarely appeared on the battlefield. But I agree with that opinion that it would be slaughering. If I am wrong in any sentence, correct me.

Someone told me that Samurai unit would destroy any European footman unit on the battlefield. I guess it would be difficult to arange this fight, not only because of the distance but also Samurai rarely appeared on the battlefield. But I agree with that opinion that it would be slaughering. If I am wrong in any sentence, correct me.

your absolutly wrong.
considering that both where about equally trained in warfare and fighting skill.
samurai did appear a lot on the battlefield. in fact for most of the time they where the only one to appear on the battlefield in feudal japan together with massed infantry armed with spears. they dissapeared on the battlefield during the shogunate. when there was peace and fighting forbidden by the shogun. and samurai made an elite class wich you coud only enter by birth.

the only battle between western and japanese troops turned out to be a slaughter of japanes troops. cause the refused gunpowder weapons.
pre gunpowder the troops had similair weapons and training.

edit: btw, the main weapon of the samurai was the bow on horse back, and the spear. just like knights where on horse back and the main weapon was mostly axes or maces. both rarely fought on foot.

Your friend sounds wapanese. More than anything else, when people say stuff like that, I'm thinking it's because they are caught up in some sort of absurd fanboy mentality (OHMYGOD, teh ninjaz r awsom). The samurai were probably skilled fighters, but I wouldn't try and compare them to Keano Reeves.

I wouldn't be surprised if Samurais were of higher quality than European infantry, nor would I be surprised if a European knight could easily outperform a Japanese soldier on horseback from the era.

comparing samurais and European foot soldiers is a little apples and oranges... I don't think you'll get a conclusive answer either way. Assuming you're talking pre-gunpowder, the Japanese weaponry was better than European weaponry but that's not enough to equal "kick ass in the battlefield".

Greeneyedzombie, Japanese swords cut much better than the European counterparts that were more bludgeon than cut. There was some TV special that was done a few years ago where they shot a magnum bullet at a katana to see what would happen. You'd be surprised at the results (bullet sliced in half). I will try to dig up a link to it.

Edit: Sorry, wrong gun. It was done with a Colt M1911A1 (0.45 inch). It was later tested against an M2 (0.5 inch/12.7mm) against which the katana lasted through six bullets but broke against the 7th. After reading more, I'll have to partially retract my earlier statements since the first test wasn't very fair against the colt - the bullets apparently sucked. The second one is a little more convincing but I'm no gun expert so feel free to prove me wrong.

Samurai were in fact the elite forces in the battlefield. Before Tokugawa officially united Japan, Samurai were mostly mounted and well-armored warriors well trained with using both spear and bow/arrows. They used katana mostly in close-quarter combat or fighting on their feet. After the end of Warlord era sumurai were no longer strongly needed for their battlefield performance, so they shifted their focus on swordmanship, and wore plain clothes as armors were not required anymore.

Comparing medieval European units and east Asian units is a very difficult and probably meaningless task, as the concept of warfare is totally different. East Asian countries frequently had large scale battles involving up to a million of soldiers (especially in China). Missile attack was also much more emphasized (story like 300 likely won't happen. The much more powerful crossbows would finish them off) . In those situations individual strength becomes secondary to organization, discipline, tactics, war planning and logistics. It wouldn't surprise me at all if 1 well equipped and trained knight could beat 1 sumurai, 1 Keshik or 1 Chinese mounted warrior, but I bet 1000 sumurai would beat 1000 knights.

As someone said earlier, the Japanese (for various reasons) were much later than Europe in adopting gunpowder weapons. In many ways, Japan was still in the equivalent of the European "middle ages" during the 18th century.

Katanas are probably the best swords ever made, but even if they could stand up to .50 cal bullets (which they couldn't) the wielder would be long dead before the sword got anywhere near someone with a rifle (they're not really like they are in the movies guys ;) )

This reminded me of another point. I was recently reading yet another book on WWII weaponry, this time illustrating Japanese guns and rifles. You know that Japanese LMG (Light Machine Guns) and HMG, were as standard fitted with a large bayonet? As if they're leaders somehow pictured the gunner grabbing a v weighty cumbersome machine gun, and charging the enemy. Erm, guys it fires bullets, it's not a big sword.....

Probably differences in culture and customs, but they never really "got" the idea of guns.

I'm mostly with gettingfat, but real life is complciated .....

The Samurai trained as specialists in hand-to-hand combat. But in practice, horse archery was powerful and in battles they fought mostly on horseback with bows; of course, they could fight in hand-to-hand combat and in ceremonial combats.

For the most part, the Elite combat troops of Western Europe were knights, trained to fight not with bows but with shock on horseback. Europe, of course, did have hand-to-hand troops. They had Seargents at-arms, which were well trained, but not with the training to match the Samurai in general.

The best footsoldiers of the Medieval period were the Swiss pikemen, who were often viewed as invincible. Pikemen fought IN FORMATION -- take a pikeman alone, his lack of ability to move laterally or defend behind will be telling, but in formation, they were a terror.

So, the question, without context, is silly:


A samurai, in an arena, was well trained, probably better than a Sergeant at arms

Using their weapons, a Samurai's sword was far superior to anything in the west. However, a dismoutned knight also learned to fight in hand-to-hand combat, but probably 2/3 of his training was fighting on horseback. conversely, his heavy armor may protect against the cutting surface of the samurai sword. So, a dismounted knight with REALLY GOOD armor like plate-mail will be tough to take. Even with chainmail, a samurai sword may not the right weapon to defeat it, but the samurai would be tough then.

On horseback, knights vs. Samurai is simply archers against shock. The samurai could fight with shock, but they didn't train at it like the Western knights.

Against pikemen, if the samurai were on foot, their training wouldn't help. In formation,the pikemen were very strong. If the samurai fought the pikemen one-on-one, the samurai would slaighter them.


Remember the samurai against the Mongols. The Mongols were doomed because they were caught on the beach and couldn't sue their mobility, but they still caused disproporationate losses because they fought in formation.

Best wishes,

Breunor

When I was talking of footman, I meant soldiers fighting on feet, not horseman. And also I meant pregunpowder combat.

I did not studied history beyond that taught in school. Someone told me that in Japan ruled some sort of caste system. Samurai were privilaged group.

They would not have put Samurai's fighting with katanas into game, if they had not these weapons at all. It's interesting to hear that Samurai fought with spears too. But everywere in the world Samarui are bound with these swords.

Crossbows might be efficient to stop certain number of Samurai's, but 1000 crossbows will perish due to Samurai's attack.

comparing samurais and European foot soldiers is a little apples and oranges... I don't think you'll get a conclusive answer either way. Assuming you're talking pre-gunpowder, the Japanese weaponry was better than European weaponry but that's not enough to equal "kick ass in the battlefield".

Greeneyedzombie, Japanese swords cut much better than the European counterparts that were more bludgeon than cut. There was some TV special that was done a few years ago where they shot a magnum bullet at a katana to see what would happen. You'd be surprised at the results (bullet sliced in half). I will try to dig up a link to it.

Edit: Sorry, wrong gun. It was done with a Colt M1911A1 (0.45 inch). It was later tested against an M2 (0.5 inch/12.7mm) against which the katana lasted through six bullets but broke against the 7th. After reading more, I'll have to partially retract my earlier statements since the first test wasn't very fair against the colt - the bullets apparently sucked. The second one is a little more convincing but I'm no gun expert so feel free to prove me wrong.

your wrong about the swords. Yes they have found blunt swords. both japanese and european. it all depended on the quallity and for whom it was made. The function of the sword and design. They have found european swords as sharp as razor edges. The most important difference between japanese high quality swords and european high quality swords is the hardness of the swords. Europe about 48/52 rockwell. japan about 58/62 rockwell. this is all because of the design of the sword.

@Bruenor both knight and samurai trained in hand to hand combat. actually the european martial arts book are much older than the japanese one. and when you compare them you see much simularities in them. same arm locks, hip throwing. etc.
the swiss pikeman where very mobile. you should train with a group in pike formation and you will be surprised how fast you can change direction and formation.

I did not studied history beyond that taught in school. Someone told me that in Japan ruled some sort of caste system. Samurai were privilaged group.

If I remember correctly, the samurai was not a caste until a ruler decreed that no one could become a samurai if they were not born into the class. I think this was about the same time that samurai were phasing out of combat because of an extended period of peace which lessened demand for warrior samurai.

Thanks Greeneyed!

Yes, I do know the Swiss pikemen were mobile, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was trying to say that a pike army was powerful in formation, less so as individuals.

Interesting about the similar techniques. I know knights trained on foot, but I did think that the horseback training was more prominant. It may depend on the period and the area.

Best wishes,

Breunor

If I remember correctly, the samurai was not a caste until a ruler decreed that no one could become a samurai if they were not born into the class. I think this was about the same time that samurai were phasing out of combat because of an extended period of peace which lessened demand for warrior samurai.

the samurai have always been a caste. the warrior caste. everyone with a sword was called a samurai. some where lords, other just warrior families. When the shogunate came to power it was changed to an elite status only wich you could only enter by birth and it became a cast of nobility like the nobles in europe. and from that on they where the only ones allowed to where swords.

Thanks Greeneyed!

Yes, I do know the Swiss pikemen were mobile, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was trying to say that a pike army was powerful in formation, less so as individuals.

Interesting about the similar techniques. I know knights trained on foot, but I did think that the horseback training was more prominant. It may depend on the period and the area.

Best wishes,

Breunor

your correct. for both knights and samurai the sword and horse riding was considered the most importent. although the sword was only used in war as a last resort. the sword was more a symbol, while other weapons where more effective. But it doesn't do for both to be killed by peasents on foot. ;)
I know about these techniques only because I'm studying midivel fighting techniques. and the only way to learn them is from these old manuscripts. unfortunatly most are destroyed. The funny thing is that the oldest manuscript in europe is written by a monk. What is it with monks and fighting?
I think they have to much free time. ;)

Green,

Thanks for the info!

Its good when even older geezers like me can learn things!

Best wishes,

Breunor

It would be interesting to see a samurai duel 1v1 against a european warrior trained in parry & riposte.

Don't discount the european martial arts! In fact Bruce Lee based a lot of his personal martial art on eurpoean parry & riposte.

[QUOTE=Holycannoli;5214343]It would be interesting to see a samurai duel 1v1 against a european warrior trained in parry & riposte.QUOTE]

parry & riposte is the basics of any sword fight. or are you talking about fencing? and what kind of "fencing" are we talking about?

@holycannoli
maybey this will answer your question. if it is about rapier versus katana
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

@holycannoli
maybey this will answer your question. if it is about rapier versus katana
http://www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

That was an awesome read. :goodjob:

Throughout history, the 'caucasian' europeans proved themselves to have a lust for warfare and death which completely outmatched and outclassed all of the more civilized nations. The europeans were the last people to become civilized, and they were the only people who truly understood the 'berzerkanger' mentality. Their only issue with war was the needs to organized large masses of people, they were infamously disorganized, but im fairly confident that as individual skill is concerned, your average japanese samurai is going to be completely outmatched by the earlier europeans.
Its a completely moot point however, as by the time Japan was at the height of its feudal organization, europe had finially become quite civilized, and there is plenty of evidence that japanese samurai performed very poorly against highly organised gundowper infantry.
In short, my understanding of history is that the 'europeans', for the period of their introduction to history via waves of mindless assaults into mesopotamia from the Caucus, to around the time of the Rennasiance, were by far the most cruel and warlike people in the world, and although this is no compliment to them, as individual fighters i doubt anyone could stand up tp them man for man.

I read this article which was posted, and oddly enough what the writer is saying is compeltely contrary to my own understanding. The katana was NEVER a two handed sword, and the japanese samurai typically used two swords, a longer and shorter one, simultaneously. the two handed sword was much older than the katana, and was from a perior period to the actual samurais. The soldiers who used a katana were used to it as a primary weapon, while the rapier was a secondary weapon for soldiers who were used to a musket and probably were uncomfortable with in-fighting. The strength of the rapier was not so much is ability on the battlefeild so much as the fact that you could carry one while still running around with a musket.

As to the earlier date armies versus armies, The europeans were no stranger to archery themselves, of course. European armor was a way to protect them from missles, NOT from close fighting. In this way it was EXTREMELY effective. A handful of knights would operate like a tank, completely invincible to arrows and bolts, and using their lance they could focus all the weight of man and horse + armor to a single point, and since they were also used to spears, the lance was designed to even OUTREACH your average spear, such as what the japanese were used to. The earlier period japanese would probably find themselves compeletely frustarated and lacking in any way to handle european knights, but im sure that if would simply require a shift in the way they did war, if the two encountered eachother.

It is true that the monglos managed to crush the handful of gothic knights sent by the Holy Roman Empire to stop them. However, it is also true that on that occasion the europeans were absurdly outnumbered. It is also true that following this 'skirmish' the mongols decided not to mess with europe. The story is that there were some inheritence issues back in China, however, common sense would suggest that the khan was rather impressed with the knight's performance. This is my opinion.

Idlenesss,

I'm sorry to say that your opinion about the Mongols is not matched by most of the military historians of the 20th century, and I enclourage you to read up on the Mongols. The Mongols did NOT outnumber the Europeans. Mongolia does NOT support a larger population than Europe or any of the major factions then.

Liddell Hart was probably the first modern historian to state the now majority view, that the Mongols had probably the greatest military machine in history, although Gibbon had discussed it.

The European armies, especially the knights, usually had poor cohesion. The Mongols fought brilliantly, with their feigned attacks and withdrawals, (Mangadai tactics), their tremendous intellgence (sending spies years ahead of attacks, psychological and devastating warfare (flinging dead bodies into fortresses, learning seigecraft from the Chinese).

They also had many technological advances. Their silk shirts would allow arrows to be extracted without increasing the wound, a brilliant innovation.

The Mongol mobility was too much on any flat terrain. Baybers and the Mamelukes could defeat them in the Middle East, where the Mongol horses had trouble finding forage, and the Mongols couldn't put up a great resistance. Note that Alexander Nevsky could defeat the Knights but wouldn't even try to take on his Mongol overlords.

For sources, there are so many I'll just touch the surface -- Liddell Hart's strategy, Chambers' The Mongol Invasion of the West, the Cambridge Medieval History, Legg's The Barbarians of Asia, Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, David Morgan's The Mongols. For a contemporary source, we have quite a few also, starting with Rashid al Din, Marco Polo, etc. I can EASILY give you another 10 sources.

Subudai conquered what we now view as Russia and the Ukraine with perhaps 12000 troops, as great a compaign as there has ever been in Military Hsitory. The defeat of Kwarazem is equally great, where Mongolia defeated Kwarazem (Persia +) which outnumbered them greatly. When China was conquered, the Mongols were also horrendously outnumbered.

The Eurpoeans were considered the weakest of their potential enemies. The most difficult part ofthe conquest of Europe was to be the conquest of Hungary, because the Hungarians were also light cavalry experts.

Both the Moslem world and Christian world were saved when great Khan's died and Mongol armies withdrew (deaths of Ogedei and Mangke). Hart is NOT the only historian who feel that the Mongols were the gretest in history, it is now the concensus view of military historians.

Indeed, J. Bury once asked why the Huns seem to be so well remembered of all of the tormenters of the Romans? His conclusion (In his book The Barbarian Invasions) was that the poorly planned, improvised attack of the Huns has been remebered with the invincible, well planned storm fromthe Nomads of the steppe for the 13th century.

A good, recent, readable book on the weakness of Western Military in the Medieval period even realtive tot he Moslems (let alone the MONGOLS!!) is Medieval Warfare, edited by Keen.


Best wishes,

Breunor

I was saying that in that one specific instance the mongols outnumbered the europeans...this is not false...I know about the mongols. Its true that the russians acted like they were more numerous than they were, but that is totally irrelvant...read more carfully...
I alluded to your claim about the excuse for the mongols not invading europe, but i disputed it being the whole story...seriously read what i say more carfully and think about it, it is NOT inconsistent with the facts which you seem to know.
Since the mongols did not invade europe proper, this is the only offhand instance of knights vs mongols, and is a footnote in history really.
Where did the huns come from? what do the mongols have to do with huns?
The mongol conquest of Russia is pittance compared to the spanish conquest of the new world, in terms of numerical difference.
There are few genuine struggles between europeans and non europeans...ironically. They were generally quite preoccupied with killing eachother, and only some scattered and rather poorly conducted crusades were the only exceptions, so comparisons are not so easily made, in general.
However, you CAN take the crusades as an example, where it would be quite common for a handful of knights to find victory outnumbered 100 to 1.
It seems that western europe had this attitude like oh, these 20 guys can destroy thousands of these unchristian barbarians....and sometimes they actually were right....
Alexander Nevsky managed to kill a handful of Livonian heavy cavalry with masses of foot soldiers. just barely. This does not speak well for your argument lol. Not to mention that europe was shocked that this army of say, 50 heavy cavalry could actually be overwhelmed by foot soldiers, even if they were only Livonian, who were not nearly as heavy as gothic knights. Historians agree that Russians also overesitamed the size of the Livonian force.

Idlenesss,

Liddell Hart was probably the first modern historian to state the now majority view, that the Mongols had probably the greatest military machine in history, although Gibbon had discussed it.

They gennerally forced there subjagated tribes to fight for them. resulting in massive armies. wich haven't been seen till the WW.

The European armies, especially the knights, usually had poor cohesion. The Mongols fought brilliantly, with their feigned attacks and withdrawals, (Mangadai tactics), their tremendous intellgence (sending spies years ahead of attacks, psychological and devastating warfare (flinging dead bodies into fortresses, learning seigecraft from the Chinese).

Rumors say that brought the plague in the world ;) well the threw them in the cities. The first biological warfaring nation in the world.

The Mongol mobility was too much on any flat terrain. Baybers and the Mamelukes could defeat them in the Middle East, where the Mongol horses had trouble finding forage, and the Mongols couldn't put up a great resistance. Note that Alexander Nevsky could defeat the Knights but wouldn't even try to take on his Mongol overlords.

don't forget they where first trained by the mongels when they where there vassals. If I remember correct they where then given to the egypts as a gift. Where they former vassals quickly became master while overthrowing there new masters.

The Eurpoeans were considered the weakest of their potential enemies. The most difficult part ofthe conquest of Europe was to be the conquest of Hungary, because the Hungarians were also light cavalry experts.

Light for european knights. and what a shamefull defeat it was. :( 50000 knights versus 12000 keshiks?


Ps If I;m wrong about the mongols feel free to correct me. Its been 15 yrs since I read about them.


I was saying that in that one specific instance the mongols outnumbered the europeans...this is not false...I know about the mongols.

are we talking about armies or population? they had a larger armie but europe never has seen the bulk of there army. In fact europe was considerd weak and only a small expedition was deemed nesscacery to conquer europe. And only the timely deaths of the khans saved europe.


Where did the huns come from? what do the mongols have to do with huns?

they came most likely from the same birthplace. The steppes of mongolia.

eachother, and only some scattered and rather poorly conducted crusades were the only exceptions, so comparisons are not so easily made, in general.

there where 4 crusades and only the first 2 where done properly. the others where only conducted for the money.

However, you CAN take the crusades as an example, where it would be quite common for a handful of knights to find victory outnumbered 100 to 1.\

This only happend 2 or 3 times. Wearing gambesons and chainmail proved to be quit effective in stopping arrows.

It seems that western europe had this attitude like oh, these 20 guys can destroy thousands of these unchristian barbarians....and sometimes they actually were right....

quite absurd, but sometimes true.

QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Idlenessss;5215521]As to the earlier date armies versus armies, The europeans were no stranger to archery themselves, of course. European armor was a way to protect them from missles, NOT from close fighting. In this way it was EXTREMELY effective.

It was also designed to protect from close fighting. Or you would lose your knights the moment you charged into infantry. It was designed so that the best protection was in front, and gave protection against stabs and cuts from below. When the fighting became more against infantry the leg armor became more important. Before that it was mostly chain shirts. You can already see this with the romans.

A handful of knights would operate like a tank, completely invincible to arrows and bolts,

??? invinceble? I thought not. We did some tests, and yes it would protect you against arrows, but if you shoot a few thousand arrows then I can garrantee you that a lot of knights will die. Its amazing how many arrows will find those openings in your armour.

and using their lance they could focus all the weight of man and horse + armor to a single point, and since they were also used to spears, the lance was designed to even OUTREACH your average spear,

after 1 or 2 charges the lance would break, and most knights would drop the lance after hitting the enemy and us a handweapon. Then try to retreat pick up new lances from there own lines and charge againg. Knights tactics where the same as any other cavalary. Hit and run.
Stop the charge and your knights are death. It was not so much the lance wich did the damage but the horse plowing through enemy ranks of footsoldiers while the knight wacked away with an axe or mace.

the earlier period japanese would probably find themselves compeletely frustarated and lacking in any way to handle european knights, but im sure that if would simply require a shift in the way they did war, if the two encountered eachother.

The main difference between knights and samurais, whas that the samurais quickly abbandond iron/steel armour. In the early times of the samurai they where verywell used to fighting steel armour and what tactics to use. They where actually earlier with full plate then the knights of europe.



I read this article which was posted, and oddly enough what the writer is saying is compeltely contrary to my own understanding. The katana was NEVER a two handed sword, and the japanese samurai typically used two swords, a longer and shorter one, simultaneously.

Your thinking of mushashi he was the first pratictioner of 2weapon fighting.. the katana has always been a "bastard" sword.
Don't forget that the katana had many different forms and shapes. the katana as we know today originates from a bit before the shogunate, and that is what the article is about.

the two handed sword was much older than the katana, and was from a prior period to the actual samurais. The soldiers who used a katana were used to it as a primary weapon,
Throughout history the sword has always been a secondary weapon. the main weapon on foot was the spear/pike. on horseback it ws the bow/spear

while the rapier was a secondary weapon for soldiers who were used to a musket and probably were uncomfortable with in-fighting.

like the katana the rapier had many forms and shapes. It originates from around 1400. when there where no muskets. and was used on the battlefield. this shows by having a broader and thicker blade on rapiers from that time. The looked more like 1handed "bastard" swords then the rapiers as we think of them today. Your thinking of the rapiers used by the musketeers?

The strength of the rapier was not so much is ability on the battlefeild so much as the fact that you could carry one while still running around with a musket.

No the strength of the rapier is that you can deliver quick punctioring wounds.. 1cm deep wound is deadly/incapacatating while a 20 cm cut/slash might not. the blade is very agile and changes directions quickly.
So when you think of 17century rapier and katana (wich most people think of when thinking of these weapons.) the article is absolutly correct.
rapiers varied in lenght form 3foot to 5 feet. with sharp edges to bieng completly blunt.

Idlenesss,

Ah, I think I see where we disagree.

Yes, the European knight, MAN FOR MAN, could do amazing things, and for small numbers, was probably the most powerful force in the Middle Ages.

The problem with Westerm Warfare, however, was that the European knights usually didn't fight well as armies. It doesn't matter that maybe they could have, they didn't. There were so many protocals, that even powerful kings had toruble getting them to fight together. They also didn't fight well with other arms. Medieval battles are full of the knights charging off, and not fighting as an army.

I agree with you that they could do amazing things. But military historians usually rate armies in how they fight AS ARMIES, and this is where the knight were poor.

The reason the Mogols are considered the greatest ARMY in history, slightly ahead of the Romans, is how they used reconnaissance, formation, and discipline to fight as an army, where they probably exceeded any other force.

Of course, the knights had tactical weaknesses, esepcially against spear armed or piked armed formations that were in entrenched positions, and also against powerful archery armies like longbowmen.



Thinking of itin a different way, we see that in Europe, the knight became the main fighting force in the late Dark Ages and Medieval period. This occured because with their armor and horses, they were powerful. However, the cost of these rmes limited them to the nobility, so 3 -5% of the porpulation perhaps was the fighting elite. They were professionals and needed to devote their time to learning to fight.

So, yes, be design, the European armies had powerhouse knights that could outfight others without that training, armor, and horsemanship; but, also, necessarily it meant that only a small part of the population were trained as soldiers. Armies in the Moslem world and Mongols mobilized larger armies. the mongols were devaststing because they used their entire population as a cohesive force better than anyone else. The Europeans could not have beaten them becuase they had few knights who wouldn't take orders from each other, agreee on command, and all of that stuff. Man-to-man, the European knight was a power to behold but that doesn't always matter in war.

I do agree, though, that when knights did fight well, they oculd overcome substantially greater force and often did. When the integrated (like the Knights of St. John at Malta) they could be amazing.

Best wishes,

Breunor

White knights on horses in there shiny armour wants to be heroes. its part of the code of chivalry. But if history teaches us one thing, than that is that heroes get killed. Especially if they all start running of racing each other to be a hero. ;):D

But ok, this is all leading up to, once again, my original point, since the original question was about hypothetical 1 guy versus 1 guy. Europeans were generally uncivilised, brutal, and disorganised until say the Rennasiance. But their individual skill in war, as well as their love for war, so outmatched every other people, that this is perhaps why noone every really bothered with a invasion of europe, even tho many more civilized, organised, larger army nations often touched their borders. These psycho europeans had a knack for makign war rather unpredicable. The mongols might have talked, amongst themselves, such rhetoric like these people are so weak they arent worthy of conquest, but I bet the generals who saw them fight secretly were a little intimidated, at how much europeans seemed to genuinely love fighting. Confucious mentioned, and the Tao de ching emphasized, that people who love to die can never be conquered. These bizarre, berserker europeans, always baffling to their enemies, would genuinely LOVE you for being their enemy, for offering them death, a way to seek 'glory'.

To note, the statement regarding samurai and firearms (that they were late into adopting it) is a bit misleading.

The warlords who could, adopted firearms as soon as the first europeans arrived, in the sixteenth century. By the end of that century, japanesse firearms were among the finest in the world, and Japan can stake a claim to being one of the if not the first nation where line fire tactics were used (hence compensating for the low accuracy of the weapon)

The idea that the Spanish could have invaded Japan in the era was, by and large, completely unfounded ; even waving aside all the logistics and transportation impossibilities, Japan was more populated, better able to mobilize very large armies, with armament that was comparable in terms of technology and superior in terms of quality.

However, after the unification of the country, Japan closed itself off, and progress on firearms stopped virtually completely ; they were also heavily restricted in usage. Hence why by the nineteenth century they were so far behind.

As for the original question itself, both the knight and the samurai are so shrouded in myths and movie conventions today that trying to explore it in depth is rather futile. Besides which, the answer depend largely on the exact condition of the combat.

But ok, this is all leading up to, once again, my original point, since the original question was about hypothetical 1 guy versus 1 guy. Europeans were generally uncivilised, brutal, and disorganised until say the Rennasiance. But their individual skill in war, as well as their love for war, so outmatched every other people, that this is perhaps why noone every really bothered with a invasion of europe, even tho many more civilized, organised, larger army nations often touched their borders. These psycho europeans had a knack for makign war rather unpredicable. The mongols might have talked, amongst themselves, such rhetoric like these people are so weak they arent worthy of conquest, but I bet the generals who saw them fight secretly were a little intimidated, at how much europeans seemed to genuinely love fighting. Confucious mentioned, and the Tao de ching emphasized, that people who love to die can never be conquered. These bizarre, berserker europeans, always baffling to their enemies, would genuinely LOVE you for being their enemy, for offering them death, a way to seek 'glory'.

Stop making those hollywood asumptions that midevil europe was uncivalized and barbaric. They where no more warlike or unorganized then other civelazations from that period. if anything the mongols where for more interrested in warfare and dying then the europeans. what you are discribing is more aplyiable to the vikings then to the other civs from europe. Clearly you need to study more on midevil history, there social structure and the things that influenced there daily life.
Your quoting of cunfucious and the Tao de ching, referes to the steppe nomads of mongolia. not europe.

To note, the statement regarding samurai and firearms (that they were late into adopting it) is a bit misleading.

The warlords who could, adopted firearms as soon as the first europeans arrived, in the sixteenth century. By the end of that century, japanesse firearms were among the finest in the world, and Japan can stake a claim to being one of the if not the first nation where line fire tactics were used (hence compensating for the low accuracy of the weapon)

The idea that the Spanish could have invaded Japan in the era was, by and large, completely unfounded ; even waving aside all the logistics and transportation impossibilities, Japan was more populated, better able to mobilize very large armies, with armament that was comparable in terms of technology and superior in terms of quality.

However, after the unification of the country, Japan closed itself off, and progress on firearms stopped virtually completely ; they were also heavily restricted in usage. Hence why by the nineteenth century they were so far behind.

As for the original question itself, both the knight and the samurai are so shrouded in myths and movie conventions today that trying to explore it in depth is rather futile. Besides which, the answer depend largely on the exact condition of the combat.

Where did the spanish come from? they have never been to japan. Only the portugese first and later the Dutch, then the americans. during the portugese period firearms whre rare, for they where only willing to trade it to those who converted to christianity, wich few japanese where willng to do. with the coming of the dutch it changed. and became availeble to all who could pay for it.

Im not making hollywood assumptions. This is true man, Sure the vikings are famous for this, but even in the high middle ages its easy to forget that behind this facade of chivary and prtotecting the weak in european knights was a basic, unadulturated bloodlust and a longing for, and lifelong preperation for, death and murder. Those rare moments in europe where there was a generation of peace, the knights would resort to in fact killing random people. In fact at one time the peasant population suffered so much from serial killer knights that a law was passed, thou shalt not kill peasants on wednesdays. This sounds like a joke, but man its the crazy truth.

Its an late rennesciance/early victorian age view that people in the middle ages where only preparing and lusting for blood and war. ITs true life was harsh, espescially in the early middle ages, and fighting was a nesscesaty. Especcially during the time of the carrolingen dynastie. but what you are discribing is wrong. documents and manuscripts show life was different. and depending on the country you lived in. Chivelary as we think of, is about france and in some extent the italien city states. The only civ who had a warrior cult where the vikings. yes there where bandit knights and the wrecked the country side in southern france and along the river rhine. But most of the country was quit peacefull for that time. Most wars where fought in france and between the italien city states, where live as a peasant wasn't pleasant. But in germany or england the nobility actually respected the peasants/yeoman, who could have a lot of power.
Basicaly your thinking to generic.

Forget your Medieval Romances! You do not want to go back in time and accidentally bump into some nice english knight in a dark alley! You would be in such a better situation to meet the gentleman soldier of Japan! Knights were pure evil! they were the boogeyman! fear them!

I'm not talking about romances. I'm talking about facts supported by research.
you have such a wrong view of both knights adn samurais.

The portuguesse at the time were subjects of the spanish king, and if anyone had tried to invade (not that it'd have happened, but you know) Japan, it'd have been the Spanish, not the portuguesse.

unlikely, as the pope divided the world between the portugese and spanish kingdoms. america for the spanish, and the west indies for the portugese. And good christians they where they wouldn't dare going against it.

The following link proves to be very interesting concerning this topic:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Greeneyed, even so, at the time the Japanesse started thinking there might be a threat, Portugal was under Spanish control.

Samurais were more like knights or officers, you don't really have a huge army of samurais so it is an unfair comparison. To have a fair comparison, the european footman must be outfitted in the best of equipment and training. The katanas were specialised in fighting relatively unamoured warriors so it might suffer poorly against amoured European footman.

Well I think the article from this link is a little funny... its obvious that hes trying to give the european knight handicaps and hope that they would kill eachother. but he mentions in a by the way sort of way, ok the kanana cant do diddly against plate armor, and the knights gonna be over a foot taller and in better shape than the samurai, and his sword is more versatile and has longer range than the samurai, and so on. u have to make it a crappy knightwearign chain and accidentally left his sheild at home, and ignores everything the silly samurai does. then MAYBE they just kill eachother. Ya unlikey,...that samurai, and 30 more, are all dogmeat. Then the knights gonna have a blast going to the villiage and massacreing the entire populace, and go home and talk about what a good christian he was.
Another thing he forgot to gloss over would be, hypoetically, what would happen if the two allowed to be in what he acted was their more typical and traditional method of warfare,i.e. the knight using weight and shock to run down the other guy. The europeans bred their horses very carefully, so they could support the weight of so much armor, as well as being very fast, and since practically immune to arrows, asnd the relative donkey, more or less, the samurai was riding, the battle would be something almost tragic to observe. Marticularly when you imagine how much it must mutilate a person to be run thru with so much force with a lance, something like being hit by a locomotive, I guess.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned the scarcity of iron in Japan. The armour of the samurai is light compared to European plate armour. The best bet a samurai has is to aim at the joints of a well-armoured knight. He might be quick enough to do so, but if the knight manages to catch him with a stroke of the broadsword...

Anyway, if you're talking about overall battlefield performance, I would favour the samurai, since I believe in the superiority of the mounted archer (unless it is opposed by a large, organised and skilled force of archers with sufficient range). Besides a katana and a spear, the samurai is also armed with a longbow that dwarfs even the famed English ones. Furthermore, the Japanese longbow is curved, giving it even more power. If I'm not mistaken, the samurai was trained to shoot on horseback. Knights would have no answer to such a ranged and mobile force, assuming they aren't accompanied by longbowmen.

East Asian countries frequently had large scale battles involving up to a million of soldiers (especially in China). Missile attack was also much more emphasized (story like 300 likely won't happen. The much more powerful crossbows would finish them off) . In those situations individual strength becomes secondary to organization, discipline, tactics, war planning and logistics. It wouldn't surprise me at all if 1 well equipped and trained knight could beat 1 sumurai, 1 Keshik or 1 Chinese mounted warrior, but I bet 1000 sumurai would beat 1000 knights.

Actually, the Persians relied on archery very heavily. In fact, in the actual battle of Thermopylae, the battle was supposedly concluded by showers of arrows, even more than the movie or comic show. Apparently, Xerxes got tired of the slaughter and decided to just finish off the surrounded Greeks with arrows. There is some archeological evidence of this.

And crossbows are not actually that powerful. The virtue of the crossbow was its user-friendliness. Any peasant could train and fire a crossbow quickly, much like muskets later on. A late medieval arbalest might pack a punch, but seriously, when you are talking about battlefied performance, longbows are superior. They have greater range and not much less penetrating power. And, AFAIK, the Chinese crossbows were not designed for accuracy or penetrating power. They were meant to fire rapidly and in masses. That's why you get things like the Zhuge crossbow (Chu-Ko-Nu).

Lastly, the hoplite battle formation was actually good at blocking out arrows. How do you think the Greeks lasted for more than a day? It was only later when they were surrounded and had to break formation and charge that they could be killed off with missiles.

I will just ignore Idlenessss posts, as they include more errors and false assumptions that his name has s.

My two cents, focused on "same technological level" (ie knights at their height, against Samourai at their height, no gunpowder).

Japanese armor had though metals in it. The Samourai didn't use shields.
Sure, their katanas are fine weapons, lighter than European swords, so they are faster and easier to use. However, the European sword are heavier, so I'm not sure the katanas really is at and advantage: I doubt a Katana can easily break an heavy sword, but the opposite may be true with some side blows.
However, I think a Samourai may be surprised by the shield, and may have some difficulty to cope with it, while the knight is used to fight against someone with one sword. And the Samourai may also have difficulty to cope with weapons he may have not be used to, such as axes, or especially flails.

Regarding cavarly: I think European horses were heavier, with barding, and the knights were armored to. I suspect the European lances were perhaps longer.

So I think a charge of European knights against a charge of Samourai would probably have ended in the end of the Samourai.

However, the knights did not used bows at war(a weapon for peasants!), so the mounted samourai with their bow would have been deadly to the European. An arrow could punch through an armor if close enough, and could easily kill or injure the horse. European armor was superior to Japanese, but it was also a lot more expensive, so it was not possible to equipe ALL the knights with full heavy armor and barding.

Someone said the Europeans were not as organized as the Samourai, so 1 vs 1 the knight would win, but 1000 vs 1000 the Samourais would win.

I do not agree with that 100%. Knights knew how to fight with a minimum of organization. A knight stuck in the middle of melee figthing, even if having the advantage of the height and armor, could have been strucked down by a "mob" of footman. So they knew that an organized charge was better.
But they were also trained, through various tournament, to fight relatively isolated.
So I think they could have had the discipline sufficient for an initial organized charge, and then know how to fight in a disorganized melee.
Conclusion: small force vs small force, the knights have good chance to won.

However, the knights were not used to fight in really large forces.

So 1 vs 1, the knight has good chance. 1000 vs 1000, I think it's still "small enough" for the European to manage. But when reaching larger armies, like 10,000 vs 10,000, then the discipline of the Japanese would perhaps help more.

Assuming that the Japanesse would have ridden a DONKEY is just ridiculous ; he would have been riding a small horse, a pony, similar in capacities to the mongol horse (itself a pony) ; I don't think there is much need to editorialize on the fact that, pony or not, these horses were quite capable (though not the cavalry charge sort). In addition, while the knight's full armor you describe might have saved him from arrows ; you would have needed horse barding as well to avoid the samurai simply shooting at the horse ; this in turn would have diminished the endurance of the horse (note that very few historical battles actually involved horses in full barding ; it was a very late innovation)

Moreover, assuming that the knight would be ideally armed for horse combat while the samurai would be wielding his katana, or at best, a bow, is tragically misinformed. By the time full armor such as you describe was being used in Europe, the japanesse had become quite aware of the potency of long polearms, and the naginata and yari had become prominent weapons, while the katana had essentialy become a sidearm. How these polearms, in the hands of a trained samurai, would have fared against a charging knight, is far from a settled question (It's worth noting that the samurai likely would NOT have tried charging back ; the notion of the samurai charge has been challenged recently by historians)

The naginata especially is rather interesting with regard to a samurai vs knight, as it is noted as being particularly useful in negating an enemy's height and build advantage AND at shoving an enemy off its horse.

In full warfare, medieval japan trounces medieval europe by simple virtue of being far better able to mobilize large armies. Europe did not begin to compare with what the Asian nations could achieve on that side.

Moreover, assuming that the knight would be ideally armed for horse combat while the samurai would be wielding his katana, or at best, a bow, is tragically misinformed. By the time full armor such as you describe was being used in Europe, the japanesse had become quite aware of the potency of long polearms, and the naginata and yari had become prominent weapons, while the katana had essentialy become a sidearm. How these polearms, in the hands of a trained samurai, would have fared against a charging knight, is far from a settled question (It's worth noting that the samurai likely would NOT have tried charging back).

Well, if we are talking about one horseman vs. another, you have the gendarmes and heavy Polish lancers. I think the Japanese would do better by sticking to using their bows.

@Oda: who were you answering to?

Err, what point are you trying to make?

First, the samurai would not necessarily be fighting on horse. Second, against a fully armored horse-knight combo, a japanese bows may not be that succesful (and can we please do away with the Agincourt myth? No, longbows were not that deadly against armored knights).

Steph, for the most part, I was answering Idle. Yes, I know, probably wasting my time, but I was answering him for the benefit of other readers of the thread more than his own.

Err, what point are you trying to make?

First, the samurai would not necessarily be fighting on horse.

Well, I assumed we were talking in terms of a duel, whether on horseback, in which case the Europeans have versions of the Japanese long spear on horseback complete with heavy armour, or on foot, in which case a long spear doesn't matter. Knights don't necessarily fight on horse either, and for the sake of fairness, we have to assume that they are either both on horseback or on foot. Anyway, I did say that the general battlefield performance of the samurai should be better.

Second, against a fully armored horse-knight combo, a japanese bows may not be that succesful (and can we please do away with the Agincourt myth? No, longbows were not that deadly against armored knights).

The point of Agincourt was the knights lost their advantage of mobility and became easy targets for the longbows. The horseback samurai also has mobility and a powerful missile weapon. There's no question that the knights are outmatched, unless they somehow engage in close combat, which the Japanese would do well to avoid.

Besides a katana and a spear, the samurai is also armed with a longbow that dwarfs even the famed English ones. Furthermore, the Japanese longbow is curved, giving it even more power. If I'm not mistaken, the samurai was trained to shoot on horseback. Knights would have no answer to such a ranged and mobile force, assuming they aren't accompanied by longbowmen.Actually, i do not believe that the Japanese bows would outrange the long bow. During the Hideyoshis invasion of Korea during the 16th century, it was recorded that Japanese archery were inferior to both the Chinese and Koreans defender. The weapon that carried the Japanese forward was their European guns that they bought from the Portugese.

And crossbows are not actually that powerful. The virtue of the crossbow was its user-friendliness. Any peasant could train and fire a crossbow quickly, much like muskets later on. A late medieval arbalest might pack a punch, but seriously, when you are talking about battlefied performance, longbows are superior. They have greater range and not much less penetrating power. And, AFAIK, the Chinese crossbows were not designed for accuracy or penetrating power. They were meant to fire rapidly and in masses. That's why you get things like the Zhuge crossbow (Chu-Ko-Nu).
The crossbow is a powerful weapon storing more energy in its arm than any bow can, it would be easier to aim and shoot as well, it was a favourite weapon of the Chinese and they used it to good effect destroying several nomadic tribes. The Chukonu is a novelty weapon that never saw massive use. Lastly the hoplite formation was abandoned with the greek for good reasons, lacks flexibility.

its not so much the scarcity of iron that plays a role, but the quality. its one of the worst in the world. But it has nothing to do with who is the better fighter..
katanas are about the same weight as european 1and a half swords. but there balance point is ussually closer to the grip and the curveture makes it easier to manuevre and change direction in a strike. So between the swords it comes down to manuevrebility (katana) and range (bastardsword. although both are mostly the same length the curveture of a katana makes it a bit shorter.
Its true a crosbow can store more energy in its shot, but it will also lose it quickly. Its only effective up to a few hundred meters. about around 300 meters. a bow can shoot much further up to 800 meters. a crosbow is designed to be effective shooting straight, but a bow gets its power fom falling down in an arc. But it takes really long to train a archer. hence the favor of crossbows.
about horses. Most war horses remained small, a bit larger then ponys. There only became large breeds of horses in 1800 and later.

but the whole point of who wins between knights or samurai is moot. they use 2 different fighting styles wich are not comparrable. In a one on one fight it just comes down who knows his weapon best and has the most skill with it, and can best adapt and react to the opponnent.

Actually, i do not believe that the Japanese bows would outrange the long bow.

Perhaps not. But, in any case, I did say we should assume that the knights are not accompanied by longbowmen.

The Chukonu is a novelty weapon that never saw massive use.

I didn't say that they were used massively. But they do provide an insight on how the Chinese approached the use of missile weapons. Refer to the post directly above for more info on crossbows.

Lastly the hoplite formation was abandoned with the greek for good reasons, lacks flexibility.

And how is this relevant to what I said? I merely said that the hoplite formation was good at blocking out arrows, and hence the relative success against Persia at Thermopylae.

a bow can shoot much further up to 800 meters.
:lol:

A few modern archers have regularly achieved distances of 350-450 yards with reproduction longbows. Inigo Simot loosed an arrow 462 yards 9 inches in 1914

So we can suspect an English longbow, with flight arrow has a range of at most 450 yards. At that range you don't hit much. Let say 150 to 200 yards is a bit more reallistic.
Modern archer would tell you that above 80 yards, aiming is very difficult. You cannot achieve range and precision at the same time.

A galloping horse can make 400 yards / minutes.

It means the archer, if he wants to aim, has about 12 seconds to shoot at the incoming knight (the time the knight needs to go from 80 yard to the archer).

English archer were expected to manage a rate of fire of 10 aimed shorts a minute. That's 6 seconds for a shot.

So you have AT MOST 2 shots to hit an income galloping horse... That's not so much.

Archers are not very dangerous to cavalry of alone. They can become dangerous when they can fire enmasse, and don't need to aim very carefully, when they can shoot from 200 yards, when they have 30 s to shoot before the knights reach them... When they can double their rate of fire as they don't need to aim...

So they can loose 10 arrows and hope some of them will it something.

I'm talking about a war bow with a pull of 180/240 pounds or more.. the max you can shoot is around 800 meters. but the mostly trained to shoot in an arc at around 500 meters. Midevil archers didn't need to be acurate, its al about masses of arrows raining down on a certain point. the training was in getting enough strength to pull the bow. But if you go for accuracy 80 meters, perhaps a 100 meters is the max.

With my group we did some testing, archers can shoot up to 12 arrows a minute. only a few people are strong enough to pull a real war bow. 120 pounds for most people is the max. most archers only had about 20 arrows for the whole battle. after shooting 2 arrows it was wise to run, see post above about knights.

@aelf,
the succes of the spartans against the persia, was mostly cause of the armour of the spartans (big shield and bronze breastplate), and the lack of armour of the persians. Heavy armour is deadly in the dessert. But great if you want to be cooked alive. :)

I'm talking about a war bow with a pull of 180/240 pounds or more.. the max you can shoot is around 800 meters. but the mostly trained to shoot in an arc at around 500 meters. Midevil archers didn't need to be acurate, its al about masses of arrows raining down on a certain point. the training was in getting enough strength to pull the bow. But if you go for accuracy 80 meters, perhaps a 100 meters is the max.

What do you call a war bow? Can you be more specific? Would you have a link or a picture?

a war bow is the same as a normal english longbow. But the bows of today don't have the same pulling power as the bows they used for war. A normal hunting bow has on average a strength of 30 pounds. the real heavy bows for todays standards range around 120 pounds. wich is impossible for most people to pull. In england there is a guy who can pull 180 pounds, but that is still less than what records show that the english yeoman used to train with. For them it was required to pull at least 180 pounds, but it was not uncommon for them to pull 240 pound bows, wich they used in war.
Modern bows uses pulleys wich makes for a totally different shooting experience. and thus can give a wrong idea of how far a bow can shoot.
my ranges for what a midevil archer can shoot is what we have learned from studying documents for that time. It shows how much they had to train, and how far they had to be able to shoot. Accuracy was moot, as long as you could land your arrows in 1 square meter on a certain distance. ussually 500 meters. or 400 meters. I'm not sure wich one is correct. I should look it up again. But as you said, they didn't have a lot of time to shoot at knights if they where in the open. But they certainly would wreck havoc on infantry.

Every sources I've read agree that the range of longbow is at most 450 yards.

Can you provide us with a link backing your 800 meters?

You don't have any problem claiming that English yeomen could all easily use a 240 pounds bow, while writing "the real heavy bows for todays standards range around 120 pounds. wich is impossible for most people to pull", do you?

Are you sure your range of 800m doesn't come from the entry of the +6 (+12 against Japanese smourai) Elven Mythril nuclear bow of your favourite RPG?

Someone told me that Samurai unit would destroy any European footman unit on the battlefield. I guess it would be difficult to arange this fight, not only because of the distance but also Samurai rarely appeared on the battlefield. But I agree with that opinion that it would be slaughering. If I am wrong in any sentence, correct me.
Who are we talking about here? Is the European soldier some poor smuck of a serf who isn't trained, doesn't want to be there, and is armed only with a sharpened stick? He'd get slaughtered by a Samurai, and a group of such men would get destroyed by a group of Samurai of similar number.

Now, if we were talking about Swiss pikemen, with English longbowmen hiding behind the hedge of pikes, against an equal number of samurai on foot....that's very, very different, and I think the Samurai would probably lose that one.

Comparing the Samurai, who were, in general, highly trained fighters with European foot soldiers isn't a very good one, especially since many of the Samurai fought on horseback. Comparing the Samurai to medieval European knights would be a better and more interesting comparison.

haha u know, a lot of this is a joke to me, so im being a little silly, so Im sorry if im offending anyone, but I just think its great, that u guys are saying im wrong and crazy, and then you repeat exactly what I said!
The very idea of a battle would be ridiculous. And europe went through so many states. 'European footman' is such a vague term...while samurai remained rather similar, in essence, for centuries. They changed their weapons and tactics a ltitle, and their importance and function changed a little, but they were the same basic stuff. A 'european footman' could be anything from a Saxon huscaler to a dismounted knight to a pikeman. And the circumstances of a large scale battle are equally confounding.
But to try and be serious about it. I think the europeans, if nothing else, proved that their ability in war and individual combat was, over the centuries, unmatched.Although the Samurai certainly have a reputation for their discipline and skill in warfare, Europe in general simply seemed to take war more seriously than Japan. You could compare a samurai with a musketeer. He was not purely a soldier, he was also a sort of diplomat. Knights were, more than samurai, in my opinion, whatever their equipment or era, fully bred and trained for killing other people. They never needed much of an excuse to do it, and they looked for adversaries all over the known world. Ive done a little reading on translations of the Japaese manuals for combat, and some of the medieval ones, and in my opinion, the europeans were much more direct, focusing on a single purpose (kill the other guy) and detailed, which belies a stark difference in their attitude. Forexample, the Japanese gave advice such as fight with your back to the sun, and make no expression while you fight, do not turn your head or shift your eyes, train your perephiral vision, which european amrtial text were more along the lines of, if you get in this position, then you can to this and this to get a lock on the other guy and use the hilt of your sword to rip his hand off. Include the perhaps less, but still vital details of kngihts having simply superior equipment, armor, weapons, and/or horse, as well as their advantage in size, and you get what should be the obvious outcome of a hypothetical duel.
I have read somewhere, but im not sure i beleive it, that a well trained longbowman was able to kill a man from 400 yards. Sounds insane to me. How can the arrow's trajectory remain that accurate? anyway, yes, the europeans outmatched everybody in archery as well, I think thats a safe claim. Pretty much everything having to do with killign stuff, europeans were king. The longbow was not actually different because it was long, haha. There were some other delicate ways to construct a longbow which gave it the range it had. Just because a bow is 6 feet long doesnt necessarilly mean its going to have a lot of range and power.
Knights fought mounted archers all the time. Man the turks were famous for their mounted archers. They probably greatly outclassed the japanese version. The knights were not 'countered' by them, however. Armor and mobility. Knights were jsut seriously powerful.

What is this craziness about thermopylae. Peopel seem so misinformed.
The greeks were slaughtered at thermopylae. It was a narrow mountain pass, not some major greek city. It was a very small engagement. The only reason it was significant at all is that the persians were very impressed that the spartans steadfastly refused to surrender, even though they knew they were facing certain death. Certainly the persians lacked peopel with that sort of conviction in their armies. But as far as rating the spartan technical 'success' at that battle, no, of course, they lost haha. What do you expect?
The spartans were not always this resolute. There were times the spartans acted a little whimpy, for example, in their battles against Athens and Thebes. And especially when Sparta got a little money, it ruined their courage...nevertheless the greeks in general (not just the spartans) would require on average a lot more percentage of casualties in their ranks to route than any other nation I know of, comparing them for example, of even the elite forces of France under Napoleon.

The notion that the samurai essentialy remained the same throughout the centuries is rather laughable, Idleness. The name remained the same, much like its closest European counterpart, but the warrior, their equipment, their strategies fundamentally evolved, from ritualized duels earlier, to far more effective training later.

Moreover, your dismissal of such comments as "fight with your back to the sun" and the ilk as unimportant is rather mystifying. Yes, teaching people what parade to use against what attack is important, but so is learning how to achieve tactical superiority in a combat (ie, maneuvering your opponent so the sun is at his back, making good use of the terrain around you, etc.

Aelf, I was responding to a post that stated the knight should fight using his abilities to the best ; if that it so, so should the samurai, irrespective of whether that means horse vs horse, horse vs foot or foot vs foot.

Obviously a traditional western cavalry duel, wherein both sides would charge at the other with lowered spear, would go to the knight ; that's what he was trained to do.

Its true a crosbow can store more energy in its shot, but it will also lose it quickly. Its only effective up to a few hundred meters. about around 300 meters. a bow can shoot much further up to 800 meters. a crosbow is designed to be effective shooting straight, but a bow gets its power fom falling down in an arc. But it takes really long to train a archer. hence the favor of crossbows.I don't see why you assume a crossbow shoots a bolt with a flatter trajectory than an arrow from a bow, unless the crossbow bolt travels at a higher velocity, which it does not.

I didn't say that they were used massively. But they do provide an insight on how the Chinese approached the use of missile weapons. Refer to the post directly above for more info on crossbows.No it does not, lets ask a more direct question, how? The post directly above contains some misconception which i hope to correct.

And how is this relevant to what I said? I merely said that the hoplite formation was good at blocking out arrows, and hence the relative success against Persia at Thermopylae.It is relevant to someone who has heard of the battle of Carrhae, horse archer and static formation does not mix.

No it does not, lets ask a more direct question, how? The post directly above contains some misconception which i hope to correct.

What exactly? That the longbow has a longer range and more penetrating power than normal crossbows? That is pretty much an established fact.

It is relevant to someone who has heard of the battle of Carrhae, horse archer and static formation does not mix.

Yeah, and relevance to Thermopylae?

@elrohir

My mental state was based on Holywood movies. I said I did not studied history. My purpose was to begin an interesting thread, not neccessarily participating in ;)

I believe that pikes fall to any sword, so maybe pikes are bad example. I do not know the tactics, but on movies I saw, Samurai struck once and the opponent lay to the ground. Maybe it's a myth, maybe not. I believe this thread will clear my vision.

Pardon my ignorance on the subject but my money would be on the charging Europeans knights of ol' time against Samurai of the same era.

Just by looking at their gears, plate armors, armored horses, lances against what I would call light armor and spears.

Of course this is assuming in my mind that both groups with equal numbers are sent stupidly charging each others for the sake of it.

If we are talking mano a mano, on feet, i'd tend to believe the Samurai would won with the plate armored fella on his knees exhausted . The knight's plate armor is heavier, thus the European Knight wouldn't be able to keep up with the Japanese warrior, who has lighter armor, more mobile and (probably?) in better shape.

I could go even further by adding different weapons setup for both of them. Could be interesting (duh, well virtually!) to see them go at it with respectively a Kusarigama (sp?) and the basic sword 'n shield.




And what with the Spartans showing up here? I'll have to go see that movie to know whats up. :D

What exactly? That the longbow has a longer range and more penetrating power than normal crossbows? That is pretty much an established fact.No really, that is not an established fact to me. A cursory search over the internet. crossbow vs longbow turned up this (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html) At the time of the battle of Crecy (1346 C.E.), the English longbow almost certainly had a greater range than the crossbow used in field combat. Throughout the Medieval Period though, crossbows became more powerful. Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey loosed a bolt from an actual Medieval crossbow spanned with a cranequin and achieve a cast of 490 yards. The ordinary 15th. century crossbow would likely cast a bolt 370-380 yards. These crossbows would surely outperform almost any longbow in terms of distance, but the accuracy of the crossbow at those ranges would likely be poor at best. Since Crecy, crossbow technology had increased by leaps and bound. An interesting point was that by the 15th century, Samurais were already using gunpowder technology, it might be more relevant to fix a date for the conflict.

My mentioning of carrhae was to remove any possibility of the usage of the hoplite formation or any anti-archery formation would come up in this discussion against the Japanese bow. I apologise if it seems my bringing up the fact might be misconstrued as you mentioning it.

No really, that is not an established fact to me. A cursory search over the internet. crossbow vs longbow turned up this (http://www.thebeckoning.com/medieval/crossbow/cross_l_v_c.html)

Good info. I suppose much of what I know regarding longbows and crossbows are in the context of the Hundred Years' War or earlier. Still, I did say that late medieval crossbows were powerful.

Since Crecy, crossbow technology had increased by leaps and bound. An interesting point was that by the 15th century, Samurais were already using gunpowder technology, it might be more relevant to fix a date for the conflict.

Actually, I don't think the samurais of that time were the same as their knightly counterparts of earlier days. They were more like professional soldiers who might even be fighting under generals who were not noble (Hideyoshi is a good example).

My mentioning of carrhae was to remove any possibility of the usage of the hoplite formation or any anti-archery formation would come up in this discussion against the Japanese bow. I apologise if it seems my bringing up the fact might be misconstrued as you mentioning it.

Somebody said that the Persians did not place as much emphasis on missile attacks and therefore suffered a tactical defeat at Thermopylae. I was pointing out that the Persians were in fact very focused on archery, and that the protection from arrows afforded by the hoplite formation was what helped the Greeks.

The armor of the japanese military consisted of leather and would be considered light armor. The reason being that japan can be humid and hot and fighting in heavy armor was impractical.

The notion that the samurai essentialy remained the same throughout the centuries is rather laughable, Idleness. The name remained the same, much like its closest European counterpart, but the warrior, their equipment, their strategies fundamentally evolved, from ritualized duels earlier, to far more effective training later.



Very true.

It was not solely leather, as far as I know.

U know, around now I jsut have to chuckle at the extent of logical fallacy people will stoop to (At least I hope its 'stooping') in a pigheaded attempt to make me somehow wrong. The tautology of Samurais indeed evolving over centuries is immediately obvious and irrelevant to the relative statement which i made, comparing the broad range of what you could consider a 'footman' in 'europe'. Now step back for a second, and see if you can tell me honestly that the term 'european footman' is not more vague that the term 'samurai'. And if you cant honestly say that, then is my statement not simply true, and your contention, simply trivial, irrelevant, and immature?