Current Events > could a samurai with a katana beat a european knight?

(+) Yeah! (+)

ModLogic posted...

https://imgur.com/b7IS7Ti

I dropped this show after two episodes just because of that bullshit
---

Darkrobotisback posted...

Europeans had guns during Japan's feudal era though.

So did the Samurai. The ones with the guns didn't start winning until Oda Nobunaga revolutionized rifle tactics.
---

SpinKirby posted...

ModLogic posted...

https://imgur.com/b7IS7Ti

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVCaJdYZmCU" data-time="

Samurai parried by deflecting the blade away from them, not by clanging swords together dead-on like that. Still, that technique probably wouldn't be so effective against a heavier European longsword, and heavy metal armour and a shield would give them major problems.
---

There were many centuries of knights.

A knight in leather and mail? I'll take the samurai. A knight in full plate? I'm taking the knight.

But it also depends on the skill of the warrior.
---

I see the samurai wining but only because they have that weighted club with meta balls in them.
---

Kind of an obvious joke topic, considering that sword vs plate is a horrible match-up -- especially when it's a slashing sword.
---

A broad sword with a half hand technique was their best defense against armored opponents of they only had a sword. It made for very accurate and powerful thrusts.

That being said most knights had more than just a sword. A knight with a full halberd or similar polearm would be a force to reckon with
---

wasnt folding used to get impurities out of the metal, and if you fold to much, you start loosing carbon

European longsword was pretty nimble, most of its weight was in the hilt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn36Pb8z3yI" data-time="

No. Not because of skill, but because a katana is useless against chain mail and plate, whereas most knights where equipped with armor piercing weapons such as hammers, hooks, and axes, specifically because they were always fighting other knights.

As mentioned, it would be a better comparison if you specify the weapon of the knight. Even with a broadsword, however, that is problematic as well. Most swords were paired with a shield. You'd have to give the knight something like a claymore, which would not be deterred by the samurai's armor, given it's weight.

Basically, samurai didn't really have a lot of ways to deal with heavy armor, because they mostly fought other samurai who wore the same light armor they did. Realistically, though, samurai where around a lot longer than knights, and would have access to guns if you give them enough time, and platemail is useless against even the most primitive firearms.

considering a typical samurai would be a head shorter than your typical knight while working with inferior iron and a poorer breed of horse i'd say no
---

It would probably just come down to whoever is better trained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo" data-time="
---

FreshSushi posted...

considering a typical samurai would be a head shorter than your typical knight while working with inferior iron and a poorer breed of horse i'd say no

This has me wondering how it would play out on horseback...
---

FreshSushi posted...

considering a typical samurai would be a head shorter than your typical knight while working with inferior iron and a poorer breed of horse i'd say no

Samurai actually had steel.

Well, that's weird to say. Both 'units' had access to steel during some point in their existence. The samurai and the knights both existed for long periods of time. For knights it is roughly between the 9th and 16th century. The samurai, however, existed from around the 7th century until the 19th century. Knights generally refer specifically to the military class with nobles being a separate distinction, whereas samurai referred both to the military caste and the nobility, so that means that while knights evolved into different types of soldiers (such as dragoons), samurai remained samurai even when tactics and equipment changed. This means that samurai, as a whole, would have access to firearms in the later periods.

However, in this scenario, he doesn't give a time period, so it's harder to say. He also specifies that the samurai had a katana, which is factually useless against chain mail, giving the knight a significant advantage.

A samurai is completely outmatched in terms of weapons material, culture, intelligence, strength, and mettle when facing a European knight. Samurai is better off swimming back to japan.

Also you have to consider what time period you're talking about

There were still samurai when Japan had guns, and samurai did use guns
---

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

A samurai is completely outmatched in terms of weapons material, culture, intelligence, strength, and mettle when facing a European knight. Samurai is better off swimming back to japan.

Again, time period is not specified, so that may not be the case. Culture, intelligence, strength and mettle are bullshit measurements for this comparison since it basically boils down to racism.

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

A samurai is completely outmatched in terms of weapons material, culture, intelligence, strength, and mettle when facing a European knight. Samurai is better off swimming back to japan.

hahaha oh dear, found the MAGA guy here lol

WalkingLobsters posted...

I think so because katanas are engineered and design with more creativity and effort. The katana will slice through the european armor like carving a cake.

You're wrong entirely. Katana, and Japanese swords in general, were NEVER meant to face plate mail like European Knights used. Conversely, the knight's weapons were meant to beat plate armor, however I'm still giving the edge to the knight because a longsword will go through the little plates of metal that compose samurai armor, an ax would also likewise tear up the armor. As for a mace, morning star, or war hammer? Well, it's a giant weight smashing on you. That's gonna hurt you no matter which armor you're wearing.

That's assuming it's a melee fight. If two armies met on the battlefield, of just samurai and knights, I'm giving the edge to the Samurai because they actually preferred the bow until crossbows and later firearms made it obsolete and they had to find a new way to stay relevant.
---

Goats posted...

That isn't me btw guys alakazam

yeah, you are not a MAGA guy, I never confused him for you :D

Dash_Harber posted...

FreshSushi posted...

considering a typical samurai would be a head shorter than your typical knight while working with inferior iron and a poorer breed of horse i'd say no

Samurai actually had steel.

your quality of steel would be determined by your source of iron
---

Katana was more of a side arm and status symbol. On the battlefield they would be most likely to use spears (yari), bows (yumi), or guns (teppou). If they did use a sword it would be a special field sword called an oodachi or nodachi. So the comparison is pretty silly. Sword use didn't get big until after sengoku jidai when duels and bushido were developed. Similar to chivalry and duels in Europe. The idea that samurai fought in honorable duels during sengoku jidai is a romanticism.
---

Knights would destroy the shit out of samurais.
---

I think if you gave a samurai its full arsenal and it knew the weak points of armor, the more skilled (or lucky) would win. With just a katana there isnt much a samurai could do until the knight was fatigued
---

The japanese didn't invent guns, it wouldn't be their's to use in a duel against someone from the West. If you account for time period, in the situation of a samurai vs 16th century European infantry tc is betting a shitty katana that breaks easily and so has to be held loosely is going to...

slice through the european armor like carving a cake.

Riiiiiiiight. Also, it would be the knight that has guns. Sayonara, samurai.

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

The japanese didn't invent guns, it wouldn't be their's to use in a duel against someone from the West. If you account for time period, in the situation of a samurai vs 16th century European infantry tc is betting a shitty katana that breaks easily and so has to be held loosely is going to...

slice through the european armor like carving a cake.

Riiiiiiiight. Also, it would be the knight that has guns. Sayonara, samurai.

Did knights ever use guns though? Who cares about invention. This isnt some greater culture war dick measuring contest
---

josifrees posted...

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

The japanese didn't invent guns, it wouldn't be their's to use in a duel against someone from the West. If you account for time period, in the situation of a samurai vs 16th century European infantry tc is betting a shitty katana that breaks easily and so has to be held loosely is going to...

slice through the european armor like carving a cake.

Riiiiiiiight. Also, it would be the knight that has guns. Sayonara, samurai.

Did knights ever use guns though? Who cares about invention. This isnt some greater culture war dick measuring contest

Knights and Samurai were basically just rich guys with enough money to afford armor and weapons that worked for even richer nobility so yeah they both used guns once they came into existence.

Atralis posted...

josifrees posted...

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

The japanese didn't invent guns, it wouldn't be their's to use in a duel against someone from the West. If you account for time period, in the situation of a samurai vs 16th century European infantry tc is betting a shitty katana that breaks easily and so has to be held loosely is going to...

slice through the european armor like carving a cake.

Riiiiiiiight. Also, it would be the knight that has guns. Sayonara, samurai.

Did knights ever use guns though? Who cares about invention. This isnt some greater culture war dick measuring contest

Knights and Samurai were basically just rich guys with enough money to afford armor and weapons that worked for even richer nobility so yeah they both used guns once they came into existence.

that's not true, knights served primarily as heavy cavalry and they went into military decline once europe began adopting the pike and gunpowder weapons and started ironing out the pike and shot. socially the increasing organizational capabilities of central european governments made the maintenance of professional armies possible again which in turn made a feudal military caste like knights obsolete

samurai on the other hand fought primarily on foot and did use guns. the only reason the samurai were able to out live the medieval knights by a few centuries is because of japanese geography, the fact that they were an island with no real enemies meant the shogunate could afford to entrench the samurai caste by making it a hereditary position and the only ones allowed to bare arms. europe didn't have this luxury, and their constant warring required them to actually move along with the times.
---

FreshSushi posted...

your quality of steel would be determined by your source of iron

Yes, but the post implied that the Japanese did not have steel.

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

The japanese didn't invent guns, it wouldn't be their's to use in a duel against someone from the West. If you account for time period, in the situation of a samurai vs 16th century European infantry tc is betting a shitty katana that breaks easily and so has to be held loosely is going to...

Right ... at which point they were no longer knights, so this comparison doesn't work. When gunpowder became prevalent in Europeans basically stopped existing. The OT didn't say "a 16th century Japanese vs a 16th century European".

Full armored knight vs. full armored samurai = knight wins
clothed knight vs. clothed samurai = samurai wins
---

katanas having trouble cutting trough samurai armors, what makes you think it would be better against knight armor?
---

the katana is a meme, samurai when they were militarily relevant used the spear, bow and later the arquebus

japanese swords basically served as medieval pistols
---

Gheb posted...

Could a samurai win? Probably. But given standard armor and weapons, it isn't in their favor. Plate armor makes cutting weapons pretty ineffective.

Not with something as consistently sharp as a genuine katana.
---

Deadpool_18 posted...

Gheb posted...

Could a samurai win? Probably. But given standard armor and weapons, it isn't in their favor. Plate armor makes cutting weapons pretty ineffective.

Not with something as consistently sharp as a genuine katana.

A 'genuine' (whatever the hell that means) katana is going to bounce off of chainmail, which was literally only the first layer of armor for a knight. It would literally have to cut through a solid plate of steel, links or iron rings in a mesh pattern, and then leather padding. It's going to fucking break long before that.

Deadpool_18 posted...

Gheb posted...

Could a samurai win? Probably. But given standard armor and weapons, it isn't in their favor. Plate armor makes cutting weapons pretty Iineffective.

Not with something as consistently sharp as a genuine katana.

It doesn't matter how sharp it is, because it doesn't have any weight behind it. Katana are really hard to use in general, against plate armor it would just break if they tried to hit them with it.
Like everyone is saying, you need a piercing or crushing weapon to get through the armor. A katana literally just can't. It can't get through ringmail, and it sure as he'll can't get through plate.
---

Highwind07 posted...

I thought that they don't really draw their katanas out unless they know that they can make a definite quick kill.

Generally true, because katanas are notorious for breaking due to the shit-tier iron their steel is made from.
---

I think if you were a Samurai with a katana, your best bet would be to knock the knight down. Your sword wouldn't be very useful against plate mail or chain mail. You would need a piercing or crushing weapon, and a really strong one if it were plate. However, it's said the full plate mail was so heavy that some knights actually died just from getting knocked on their faces and suffocating in the mud.
---

Isn't this the reason why some samurai carried a kanabo?
---

Highwind07 posted...

I thought that they don't really draw their katanas out unless they know that they can make a definite quick kill.

It depends really. The katana was the day to day walking around town and carrying around your house weapon. On the battlefield Katana functioned as your back up weapon.
---

FreshSushi posted...

Atralis posted...

josifrees posted...

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

The japanese didn't invent guns, it wouldn't be their's to use in a duel against someone from the West. If you account for time period, in the situation of a samurai vs 16th century European infantry tc is betting a shitty katana that breaks easily and so has to be held loosely is going to...

slice through the european armor like carving a cake.

Riiiiiiiight. Also, it would be the knight that has guns. Sayonara, samurai.

Did knights ever use guns though? Who cares about invention. This isnt some greater culture war dick measuring contest

Knights and Samurai were basically just rich guys with enough money to afford armor and weapons that worked for even richer nobility so yeah they both used guns once they came into existence.

that's not true, knights served primarily as heavy cavalry and they went into military decline once europe began adopting the pike and gunpowder weapons and started ironing out the pike and shot. socially the increasing organizational capabilities of central european governments made the maintenance of professional armies possible again which in turn made a feudal military caste like knights obsolete

samurai on the other hand fought primarily on foot and did use guns. the only reason the samurai were able to out live the medieval knights by a few centuries is because of japanese geography, the fact that they were an island with no real enemies meant the shogunate could afford to entrench the samurai caste by making it a hereditary position and the only ones allowed to bare arms. europe didn't have this luxury, and their constant warring required them to actually move along with the times.

My point was that "knight", while we associate the term with a guy in heavy armor that is often riding a horse was a social class and they didn't just vanish overnight even when their traditional mode of fighting changed. Guns and knights coexisted for a long period of time even if firearms were steadily improving and making traditional knights, particularly the heavy cavalry with lots of armor, obsolete.

Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Siege_of_Malta

Would you argue that these guys were no longer knights or that they weren't using guns?

HorrorJudasGoat posted...

The japanese didn't invent guns

Neither did Europeans, the Chinese did. And Japanese swords were based on Chinese swords too, so why does it matter?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun

Japanese refined other countries inventions just like every other country in history has done. The idea that you are restricted based on invention is silly.
---

Deadpool_18 posted...

Gheb posted...

Could a samurai win? Probably. But given standard armor and weapons, it isn't in their favor. Plate armor makes cutting weapons pretty ineffective.

Not with something as consistently sharp as a genuine katana.

Romanticism. If a katana didn't snap on the first strike, the blade would be irreparably damaged. A slashing weapon simply cannot cut plate armor. A force of a slashing strike is spread over a larger area, even a perfect slash cuts in a line. Plate armor is vulnerable to piercing weapons, because all of the force is directed into one point.

Please also define "genuine katana". Using something that doesn't come from a movie or fiction book, and cite a source. I not being a jerk, I'm genuinely curious.
---

i think he's being facetious.
---

What the fuck is a knight gonna do to a Samurai? Theyre too slow hit such agile fighters
---

Blue_Inigo posted...

What the fuck is a knight gonna do to a Samurai? Theyre too slow hit such agile fighters

Proper swordfighting techniques in full plate teach to make small, effective strikes. With the weight of the plate and a sword behind a strike you arent going to need much more to fuck someone up who is lightly armored.

Honestly a pike or Halbert fight would be more fair in this situation. I think the Samurai would probably win there since it is much closer to fencing or dueling. Most ranged weapons would favor the samurai.

There is of course a way for the Samurai to pull a win out of the hat in a swordfight, which would be if he knows where the joints of the knight's plate are and manages to out maneuver him and sever limbs and the like. He would have to dodge the knight while doing this and I don't think the weight of Samurai gear is so light that it would really give a big advantage to the Samurai to allow him the stamina for that sort of work.
---

To be fair, the samurai was likely some out-of-shape asshole who just happened to have a weapon, and the knight is likely a useless sack of crap with an inherited title and as much combat experience as an unused golfball.
---

P4wn4g3 posted...

Honestly a pike or Halbert fight would be more fair in this situation. I think the Samurai would probably win there since it is much closer to fencing or dueling. Most ranged weapons would favor the samurai.

Actually, probably not. The equivalent weapon for the samurai would be the Naginata, which is still a slashing weapon, whereas the knight would have access to poleaxes, two handed hammers, picks, etc.

I'll just sum up what I've said so far;

In the scenario the TC presented, the knight would win simply because he specified that the samurai would use a katana, which would be useless against plate and chain-mail, the two main parts of armor used by knights.

If we are comparing their entire existence, however, the samurai has a slight advantage in that the knight as a military class waned during the advent of gunpowder (largely due to the fact that even primitive muskets shred armor), whereas the samurai openly adopted and innovated gunpowder weapons and tactics (for example, Oda Nobunaga developed a system with three men to a musket which allowed them to rapid fire despite the long load time and temperamental nature of early arquebuses). However, it's important to note that early firearms relied on firing en masse, they had basically no accuracy until the advent of rifling (which was invented during the 17th century in Europe and didn't see common use until the 19th century, after the age of the samurai).

If we are talking about pure pre-gunpowder weapons, the knight still has an advantage because they have weapons that pierce armor (since they mostly fought other knights) whereas even the most skilled samurai would have trouble finding a chink in their armor. At long range, the samurai would have a serious advantage, due to their training with the Yumi bow (which could likely pierce most armor if the draw weight was comparable to any other 100+ lbs war bows). However, due to the fact that the samurai often fought in light armor or against unarmored enemies, their weapons favor slashing weapons that cause heavy bleeding or can detach limbs, which are largely useless against armor, especially since unlike samurai armor, the jointing of the armor itself was armored and pliable chain-mail was worn underneath. On horseback, the knight would likely have the edge as well since he has access to so many different polearms (halberds, poleaxes, war-hammers, lances, bardisches, etc).

This talk of agility or speed is largely null because that has more to do with conditioning than standard equipment. Training, as well, doesn't really matter because both where born into it and were trained from youth to fight.

So basically, the knights armor gives him an advantage in pretty much all situations at close to medium range, whereas the samurai gains a slight advantage at long range, which is significantly greater if they are allowed access to arquebuses (with the caveat that they would still need a lucky shot). Of course, this whole argument relies on the interpretation of a knight as a purely military unit, as knighthood later transitioned to more of a societal title than a military one around when guns started to be used en masse.