Medieval Knights vs Feudal Samurai
I recently watched a documentary about medieval European knights and it was amazing the extent and detail of evidence of skilled hand to hand and sword/hand combat, the show demonstrated great disarming techniques that were often used in medieval times along with hand to hand combat when swords cross and the distance closes which I have never really thought of before in relation to medieval European knights for some reason. The show also showed how the whole sword is used and how the handle is used for several impact attacks and the handle guard used for hooking or sweeping opponents legs etc it was great. This made me think of the Japanese samurai and I soon began thinking who the most superior warriors were, Medieval Knights or Feudal Samurai warriors, who would win in a battle with the same amount of warriors? Obviously these two warriors are hard to compare as each were best suited for their purpose and particular environment and situation, and arguably were each superior in their situation, location and era, however they had many similarities too, swords as the primary weapon, honour and bravery, armour, skilled horsemen and archers and great organisation and strategy skills to name a few. So, in a fatal battle on an open flat field, with the same amount of warriors at similar stages in weapons/armour technology who do you think would be victorious and why :?: Obviously there will always be too many variables to be able to properly answer this but its fun to imagine it :P Who do you think would be victorious?

Samurai, because of his extraordinary techniques & the knight will lose because of his heavy armor :P

Interesting, do you not think the heavy armour is a bonus for protection? Take it you mean as the samurai would be more agile/faster without it?

The Samurai will always be the dominator over the knight cause he is very technical & agile.

I would say the knights, because of the army that came with them. Ceresy, Poitiers, Agincourt etc. The 'Ashigaru' , the irregular troops that accompanied the Samurai, bear no comparison. Like wise when mounted, the European Knights were on winner.

That's interesting, I think it is important to remember that the Samurai were often nothing like that portrayed in most Western movies, the samurai armies were not all amazingly skilled in swordsmanship and martial arts and not all were 100% loyal, fearless and followed the bushido code (after all they were human), although the top ranking samurai were very skilled in the martial disciplines. Who do you think had the advantage with firearms? It's a big misconception that the samurai hated or didn't use guns, in fact they were actually ahead of most countries with their firearms thanks to the Portuguese who introduced them in 1543, these were simple matchlock muskets called arquebuse’s. Within two or three years, according to a Portuguese observer, the Japanese had succeeded in producing several hundred of these firearms and by the 1550s the arquebus was commonly deployed on the field of battle. Japanese gunsmiths founded schools to pass on this recently acquired knowledge and they even developed some improvements of their own over the European model. Unlike the European arquebus the Japanese version had bores standardised to only a few sizes so that it was easy to mass-produce the bullets. This enabled for bullets to be conveyed to the battlefield in huge quantities so that the arquebusier could be well supplied. Samurai commanders organised and arranged their arquebusiers in ranks i.e. three deep behind a palisade, within a short period of time the arquebus revolutionized Japanese warfare. However these muskets were slow to fire and often jammed and the fuse was no good wet if it was raining, I know when they were first introduced both to the samurai and with the knights the long bow was still preferred as the long range projectile weapon for some time. Who though do you think had the advantage with the various firearms?

Lets forget about guns. But I'll qualify what I said earlier, in a one-on- one, sudden personnel flare-up, away from the battlefield and armour etc. The samurai would almost always win. Like for like and at parallel times, European knights of the hundred years war. Ceresy, Poitiers and Agincourt etc. The Samurai of the early Muramachi period, the fall of Ashikage shoguns and the start of 'age of the country at war'.The massed cavalry charge of knights, with there superior horses, would smash the samurai force. As it had the comparable Arab force. Archery , I would say this would be even. But when the mass of the armies came together ? I don't think that the sword of the Samurai were of such greater quality, to make such a difference. Remember ours were 'poorer' as cutting weapons because in truth they had to be used as 'Tin opener's!' So the crushing injuries these cause would be the same. Were as the cutting injuries of the Tachi, would be stopped by the heavy armour. And again as the armies clash, the difference in the ordinary foot soldier would make he biggest difference. Just as at above battles, the technically superior warrior would be dealt with by there inferiors. -Andy, P.S. Don't forget what two fingers are for ! :lol:

Why forget about guns? :) I agree samurai swords were mainly designed for slicing/cutting so may of had problems against knights armour, mind you it worked against samurai armour well but in the main knights armour was no doubt much more resistant. I think one vs one samurai would win but army against army i would go with the knights, i think slightly superior weapons and armour, although the samurai were known to have very good tactics in warfare and this may of given them a bit more advantage?