European knight vs Japanese Samurai

[granmasterchen]

of course.....but our job on this post is to stereotype....lol

[Kreisi]

Knights used big swords that take a lot of power and are not that quick. And Katana again is VERY sharp, light and fast. Katana is a better weapon, and Japanese Samurais were trained a lot better.

[IRKguy]

On the one hand, I don't want to support a bias against European martial arts. On the other, I think it might be worth pointing out that the samurai coming back from fighting the Mongols won. Polish cavalry couldn't stop the Mongols, and it was up to the Mongols to pull themselves back when the Khan died. At the time, the Polish Cavalry was considered to be pretty impressive, among the best in Europe. Then again, it might be beside the point. Warfighting and dueling are two very different things.

So a samurai with one sword facing a knight with a sword and shield (Of course, with no shield, the knight is beyond doomed.) would be looking at something pretty alien. Neither fighter knows what to expect. In that situation, anything could happen. We should expect the samurai to be faster, but I would imagine that there were as many slovenly samurai as there were fat and lazy knights. The broadsword's nowhere near as sharp, but these things don't really matter. The thing was made to shear mail, go through leather, and hack apart shields. It will do for flesh.

Everything the Samarai had in mental preparedness and code of honor had its equivalent in Europe. Everything the Samurai had in hand to hand combat had its equivalent in Europe. The fight is set pretty evenly if this is a fight to the death. The only way to really know who would win is is to play Soulcalibur.

BTW, I didn't know you were a history major, so I will, out of deference, change the question. I know that a lion can't live in water and a shark can't live out of it, but if a shark and a crocodile went at it in a fair fight in brackish water with an equitable and previously agreed-upon mix of subaquatic terrain, who do you think would win? Also, which one would the samurai bet on and which one would the knight bet on?

[lapulid2]

BTW, I didn't know you were a history major, so I will, out of deference, change the question. I know that a lion can't live in water and a shark can't live out of it, but if a shark and a crocodile went at it in a fair fight in brackish water with an equitable and previously agreed-upon mix of subaquatic terrain, who do you think would win? Also, which one would the samurai bet on and which one would the knight bet on?

excellent question and a perfect analogy. the shark in this case would represent the faster and sharper samurai while the crock with its tough skin and powerful jaw would represent the knight. that said, the shark would tear the crock apart in a matter of seconds ( a great white that is) but one false move from the shark and all the crock would need to do is chomp down on the sharks nose and finish him off! i would pay good money to see that fight.

[Menjo]

nice, but the japanese(samuarai) ultimatly only defeated the mongols because of the storm which destroyed the mogolian ships in one invasion and the fact that the mongols didnt know how to take an island.

[Sengra]

Point accepted IRKguy...

[Sengra]

So far, the samurai leads...^_^

[kivikala]

hee, hee ok for the heck of it, I'll play...

Applying attacking philosophy/training of sen-no-sen, the samurai should attack the moment the knight "thinks about" beginning his attack. The samurai should strike before the knight would even beable to raise his heavy (and slower) weapon. Thus, game over. If the samurai fails this, he risks being crushed by the broadsword. (not much will stop a broadsword once it gets moving.)

[y2_sub]

Samurai

[giang_hu]

Unlike their Western counterparts, Samurai are prepared to die. One of the most profound ideas of bushido is that one's life will end.