European knight vs Japanese Samurai

[lapulid2]

given the criteria, the samurai. he has the lightest most efficient and perhaps the sharpest weapon. if you give both a katana or both a broadsword then to each their respective mastery. now, hand to hand no weapons... i would have to give it to the samurai who is most likely a skilled Aikidoist.

[Jay]

european knite their swords are a lot stronger than katanas athough heavier if they are skilled the katana would break in one hit if hit hard enough

[Menjo]

possibly but would a samurai randomly hit swords with the knight, the samurai actually didnt clash swords over and over again...

[isshinryu5toforever]

A samurai would never allow his sword to take a direct hit from another sword. That is how many swords break katana or broadsword. Also many broadswords were forged, not forged and folded like katana. The folding process made the blade stronger. The curve of the blade in a katana also allowed for greater strength than a straight sword.

[jnpnshr411]

I would think the samurai would win also for reasons already said.

[Menjo]

A samurai would never allow his sword to take a direct hit from another sword. That is how many swords break katana or broadsword. Also many broadswords were forged, not forged and folded like katana. The folding process made the blade stronger. The curve of the blade in a katana also allowed for greater strength than a straight sword.

Thanks for putting that in a better out together post, well said.

[IRKguy]

The word Chivalry comes from the old French, meaning horsemanship. The very meaning of being a knight was to be cavalry. The idea of a fair fight between a smarai and a European knight on foot is, by definition, not fair. Furthermore, armor was part of the European martial system. The existence of armor and the expectation that he would be on horseback played into everything from how he trained to the design of his weapon. It didn't take samarai skills for the English footsoldier to defeat French cavalry, once they were unmounted.

Back to the weapon: the broadsword was not the primary weapon of the knight. In most cases, the lance was. After the introduction of plate armor, the broad sword lost favor to thrusting swords, hammers, and maces. Even when the broadsword was being used, it was not considered a weapon. It was considered half a weapon and was almost always paired with a shield of some sort. Throughout Medeival times and into the Renaissance, European sword arts assumed that there would be something in the left hand, usually a shield, at least a buckler. It is later dueling arts such as Italian fencing that involved using only one weapon, and these were not war arts. These were dueling arts. Even in dueling, these Italian masters were routinely beaten and humiliated when they tried to teach in England and were challenged by Londoners skilled in sword and buckler.

As you've set the situation up, the Japanese would certainly win, but the comparison is meaningless.

So who would win in a fair fight, a shark or a lion?

[granmasterchen]

nicely put.....shark or lion.....well it all depends if it is on land or in the water...lol

maybe we should alter the situation some.

give them both horses....and their armor...shield or what not....

if you start them at a distance the advantage would go to the samurai for their knowledge and art of the bow.....but.....if it was samurai on horse with a yari or naginata versus a knight on horse with a lance....hmmmmm

or a battle on foot with armor. The knight in plate or chain with sword and shield or any other weapon of choice against the samurai in their armor with katana, or kama or sai or what ever other weapon....

hmmmmmm

[Sengra]

.

So who would win in a fair fight, a shark or a lion?

Hmmm...comparison is irrelevant,as a shark could never live on land but a knight can certainly fight on land, because he has legs and arms, unlike the shark.. . Yes, knights evolved from the cavalry,chevalier, a fact I very well know, as I am a history major. Meaningless?C'mon, why would it be meaningless...You pointed out the french knights being defeated by the English infantry..which battle, Crecy? Poiters?Henry never foresaw the outcomes. He recruited yeomen because they were cheaper. That is why I made it a point to have a knight from the Hundred Years war...just to point out that the knight had experienced the realities of war...Terrain was not level, weather was not good, crowd dynamics was bad(discovery channel)... many factors were involved. I really had this in mind when I posted the question. That's why, no armors, and no horses. Many knights were killed by just falling off their horses duting the arrow showers,and being trampled because of their heavy armors. That is why I eliminated the armor...I hope you understand...I anticipated this... ..but it's alright though...let us just stick to the question...Thank you...

[kzshin]

I think it still comes down to individual.