European knight vs Japanese Samurai

[ps1]

A friend asked me once if a medieval knight and a samurai would fight, who would win?

Provided with these conditions:

both warriors (european knight and samurai) are only wearing

undergarments, no armors and mails, no extra clothing.

temperature, weather and terrain would not be factor (ideal conditions)

the knight would be using a broadsword(his mastery) and the samurai

would be using a katana(his mastery).

both of them trained since childhood, of the same age, and have been to real wars, let's say, a knight from the hundred years war and a samurai during the monggol invasions (just an example but the point is, both of them have equal experience... )

No handicaps, no sickness, both of them 100% fit

no horses, no other weapons, just the broadsword and the katana.

no outside help, both of them with high morale, both of them well rested and well fed.(following their native diet)

Both bof them have equal desire to kill each other, and oth are not afraid to die.

In this case, I will have to vote for the knight. Reason being the katana was not perfected until after the Mongol invasions. In fact, the Mongol invasions were one of the reasons they switched to the curved blade. The blades they utilized prior were more straight and broke on the armor of the Mongols during the first invasion (the second invasion didn't really get that far). I think this sword would break against a broad sword.

Now if we move it forward a hundred years, after the katana was perfected. I think we would have a better fight. Maybe I'm biased, I probably am, but I give this fight to the samauri. The sword was far better and I think the samauri pulls out the win.

All other things are going to be relatively equal. They were both professional warriors. They devoted their lives to the art of ending the life of the enemy. They were both deeply spiritual in their own ways. They were both prepared to die and totally unafraid of it. Overall education would have been similar.

In fact, I have changed my mind. The fight ends very quickly. Both make their attack, they both counter and both suffer life ending wounds. I think they slay each other virtually simultaneously.

[bushido_man96]

You bring up some good points, ps1. However, and it could just be me, but I am not sure that the weapon would be that big of a difference. When defending sword on sword (at least for the European), the contact would be made from one blade to the other at around a 45 degree angle, and then push into a counter thrust or strike. I am not sure that there would be enough force-on-force sword contact for either of the blades to be broken.

Unless the blades were really of that poor quality.

Something else that is interesting to consider is the fact that each of the warriors would have been skilled in the use of other weapons as well. For most of their existence, the Samurai weapon of choice was the spear, as opposed to the sword. The spear was also a popular weapon in many other cultures, including the European knights. They could have met in the lists and gone weapon for weapon.

[lordtariel]

In fact, I have changed my mind. The fight ends very quickly. Both make their attack, they both counter and both suffer life ending wounds. I think they slay each other virtually simultaneously.

I'd say 25% of the time the samurai would win, 25% the knight would win, and the other 50% would go the way you said.

[bushido_man96]

In fact, I have changed my mind. The fight ends very quickly. Both make their attack, they both counter and both suffer life ending wounds. I think they slay each other virtually simultaneously.

I'd say 25% of the time the samurai would win, 25% the knight would win, and the other 50% would go the way you said.

I think that you guys might be on the right track, here. I think that the two warriors are kindred spirits, and both would have been highly skilled, and formidable to deal with.

What would be very interesting is to see what the difference would be between the Samurai and the Knight, but the Knight weilding the sword and shield combination.

[Menjo]

In this case, I will have to vote for the knight. Reason being the katana was not perfected until after the Mongol invasions. In fact, the Mongol invasions were one of the reasons they switched to the curved blade. The blades they utilized prior were more straight and broke on the armor of the Mongols during the first invasion (the second invasion didn't really get that far). I think this sword would break against a broad sword.

Now if we move it forward a hundred years, after the katana was perfected. I think we would have a better fight. Maybe I'm biased, I probably am, but I give this fight to the samauri. The sword was far better and I think the samauri pulls out the win.

All other things are going to be relatively equal. They were both professional warriors. They devoted their lives to the art of ending the life of the enemy. They were both deeply spiritual in their own ways. They were both prepared to die and totally unafraid of it. Overall education would have been similar.

In fact, I have changed my mind. The fight ends very quickly. Both make their attack, they both counter and both suffer life ending wounds. I think they slay each other virtually simultaneously.

At the risk of sounding rude, that is completely inaccurate and wrong.

Most points are good here, however they all base off false information.

The well known Mongolian tactic used agaisnt the Japanese and every other civilizationat the time was with the Composite bow, not a sword.

The Samurai were either picked apart, or won decisively in close combat, which I never heard of any real Samurai victories except the storm.

These are the founding facts that researchers have agreed on,

a book I recommend to anyone is called

"Genghis Khan and the making of the modern world".

There are also many other books, one titled, "Kublai Khan" who was a famous successor of Genghis Khans.

Firstly, there is hard evidence of the Japanese blade being very well crafted and even in ancient pictures. Also, at this time, the Japanese had earned the term of being a formidable opponent in terms of swordsmanship, even archery. The Mongolians knew this, and had around this time i think it was 100 000?? The largest force under Genghis Khan I've read was around this, even with conscirpts, foriegn forces would not serve much help in the mongolian tactics under Kublai Khans rule.

The invasions were well known to be rushed operations, pointing out the possiblitiy of a Chinese sabatoge on the military fleet only surpassed by D-Day, aiding the storm in sinking the Mongolians.

With a rushed operation, it is also well known that the Mongolians never ever HAD heavy armour because their suppliers were the Chinese who they had conquerd. The Chinese tactic was masses, masses of peasants with poorly made weapons, cloth for armour, and thier buddies as human shields.

Now, no half decent sword is going to break off mongolian armour considering this:

They didnt have heavy armour, if at all.

Their horses were smaller, they had to travel long distances, and wearing heavy armour was something the Russians(people in that area), had used to fight the mongolians with little success. Had they used armour, oh boy I'm guessing they wouldn've been crushed by Eastren Europe, to say the least.

The Mongolian blades were actually curved themselves, also much less quality, this shows that people of that time knew the benifits of a curved blade. If the Mongolians knew this, the Japanese were probably the ones to indirectly pass it on.

The Mongolian blades were not meant for blade to blade confrontations, they were made for hacking and slashing at fleeing opponents who broke rank.

Back to the point of the smaller horses, the larger horses were mainly a European trait as they managed to create larger horses with breeding and whatever, the large beautiful horses in reality were better suited for ceremonial services, even so, the combat fit horses they had were simply stronger and could take the weight, the mongolian horse could not.

The Katana had enough practice of cutting down large forces of Chinese and Koreans to have developed a solid structure, in my guess, enough to counter the Europeans sword.

Thats my view on Mongolian warefare history, sorry for getting off topic but these topics do go back to the Japanese having storng enough swords, if they didnt, it wasn't because of the Mongols.

[ps1]

Menjo,

No offense taken. You're clearly more well read on the subject. I got my information about the Samurai blades breaking on the leather armor from a history channel special on the subject. It would not be the first time one of their documentaries was flawed. They specifically spoke of two instances that the Mongols attempted an invasion. In the second, the storm (which you mentioned) decimated their fleet and they were forced back. In the first, the Samauri barely won, but victory is victory none the less. The video is entitled Warrior Tradition and is "AAE-40260" if you would like to check it out:)

Thanks for the corrections. For the record though, I didn't assert that the mongolians used a sword as a primary mode of combat during the invasions. I really didn't write anything about them or their tactics, other than the Samauri swords were breaking on the armor. Which would apparently be incorrect. Thanks again for the correction on the subject.

[Menjo]

Ps1,

Thanks, my thoughts are that you're the expert on the subject! I took the opportunity to rant on not really at your post but at what arguments I thought would be interesting for debate, since its so rare that Mongolia ever comes up in any discussion.

"Warrior Tradition" sounds like a informative show or series, thanks for sharing that.

Thanks for the corrections. For the record though, I didn't assert that the mongolians used a sword as a primary mode of combat during the invasions. I really didn't write anything about them or their tactics, other than the Samauri swords were breaking on the armor. Which would apparently be incorrect. Thanks again for the correction on the subject.

How embarrasing now that I look back...

Other than "fight science" I think national geographic has exellent credibility, so possibly they did break from leather. I hope they make more episodes.

[bushido_man96]

Here is an article that discusses the actual weights of Medieval European swords. It also discusses where some of the fallacies that exist stem from: http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm

As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally stated: "Medieval Swords are neither unwieldably heavy nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs. Even the big hand-and-a-half 'war' swords rarely weigh more than 4.5 lbs.

[bushido_man96]

Bushido,

It was my understanding that the long sword was more of a perry and thrust type of sword. That is, it wasn't great at slicing, rather thrusts were the attack of choice. Since you seem to have a firm grasp on the subject, is that a valid statement?

Here is an article relating to the cut and thrust, that may help to answer your question better: http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

[USCMAAI]

I think we are comparing apples and oranges. The European Knights best element was on horseback, and although they knew how to fight hand to hand, a big part of that was the use of his armor. In the conditions you set out the samurai would have an advantage, but in a fluid combat situation the knight would win. I say this because the warrior culture of Europe was a rapidly evolving culture (use of gunpowder, seige engines, etc) where as Japanese warrior culture was very resistant to change.