Knight vs Samurai

[Rastus01]

Who do you think would win in a fight Samurai or Knight?

[Colhir]

KNIGHT!!!!!! cause they rule!

[the Bard]

A samurai duh, a knight can barely move and barely lift his sword. The only thing knights are good for is partying in the castle. Samurai are actual warriors.

[Morden]

Need to be more specific.

If the knight has a two-handed long sword, and the samurai has a katana, I think the knight would win. People associate the samurai with unmatched skill and explosive power, but they underestimate the devestating effect of a longsword's crossguard and weighted pommel. In the hands of a knight they were just as deadly as the blade.

[Gnomey]

I'm for Samurai. Knight armour wasn't clunks, a French knight showed this by jumping off his horse and doing a lot of other stunts. But when the knight gets knocked over, he can't get back up. Also, establishing that knights could menouver, samurais were actually agile, and two-handed swords could not slash rapidly, and katanas are sharp. But the Europians deserve some respect. After all, it isn't for no reason that Samurai adopted the Longbow after a war with England.

[Colhir]

After all, it isn't for no reason that Samurai adopted the Longbow after a war with England.

There was a war between England and Samurai? I didn't believe that the English had travelled so far east at the time of the longbow... we were too busy kicking the frogs about... (although we apparently lost the war...)

were getting a bit off topic now but i still think the knight would win...

[Gnomey]

I don't want to butt into this subject myself, and I don't know much about the war. The English probably came by the Silk Road, they were missionaries and the Japanese didn't take to them, so war broke out.

Back to the topic, really I think it does depend on the situation, but put a knight with a two-handed sword and a Samurai with a katana in an empty arena and I think the Samurai would win.

[Colhir]

It cant have been a full scale war.. maybe minor skirmishes with hired troops.... im pretty sure the english never saw any action over in the east at that time..

But! how about a knight with a shield and longsword? it all depends on the scenario(?) but knights all the way.. samurai=n00bz0rz!!

[Harke the Apostle]

Knights, because they conquered the Holy Land. The Samurai didn't even conquer their own backside. Also Samurai don't say 'Ni!'

[Gnomey]

Knights conquered the Holy Land on and off, mostly off. Samurai were fighting Samurai on the Island of Japan, so it is to be expected that they were about as sucessful as the English vs. the French, the Germans vs. themselves, (different provinces), the Italians again themselves, again provinces...

Also, the Japanese were, at times, connected by Lords or Shoguns, so much cannot be said for the Europeans. Neither the empire of the Franks, the Eastern (or Western) Roman Empire nor even the Holy Roman Empire ruled all of Europe, and the Pope was never so absolute, many kings like to ignore the fact that the pope was supposed to rule them, not the other way around.

Anyway, neither side was very sucessful, I'll go with the Mongols. They carved out the greatest empire, or at least the biggest.

[Harke the Apostle]

Also, the Japanese were, at times, connected by Lords or Shoguns, so much cannot be said for the Europeans. Neither the empire of the Franks, the Eastern (or Western) Roman Empire nor even the Holy Roman Empire ruled all of Europe, and the Pope was never so absolute, many kings like to ignore the fact that the pope was supposed to rule them, not the other way around.

I don't think Japan was as big as the European nations you mentioned.

[Silverwood]

Well, i would ahve to say a lumberjack. Because of course the lumberjack in the end kills all.

[Tyrion]

Knight, and you know why? They are heavier. A samurai with a katana would have to strike at the joints where the armor is weaker. Knights carry shields, and they're longswords could break a katana in half. Katanas are all about slashing attacks and they can't stand up against the raw bludgeoning power of a well made longsword. For a samurai to win he would have to try and tire the knight out. Then try and circle around, strike at the back of the knees, the armpit, or the area under the elbow. Unless the knight is semi-retarded he isn't going to chase after the samurai for half an hour however. If he was smart he would wait, stand his ground, wait for the samurai to become frustrated and step within the reach of his longsword.

[Gez]

Knights and samurai are very broad concepts. Going by their stereotypical archetypes, I'll say knight. Better armor. Better riders. Reed armor and a katana ain't no match against a charging mounted knight.

[Gnomey]

Better riders? Really? I never knew that... But in the hypothetical situation of lone knight agains lone samurai, the horse doesn't figure. Only a big sword, and shield if you like. However:

If he was smart he would wait, stand his ground, wait for the samurai to become frustrated and step within the reach of his longsword.

Or, if the samurai is smart, he leaves off attacking. Neither side wins, a draw. I could just as well say that the samurai will never go into the reach of the sword and the knight, becoming frusterated, rushes at the samurai, exposing countless weakpoints to someone better trained in martial arts and the like.

But really, it's rather pointless to try and figure out who will be the winner with hypothetical discussions, we'd really only figure out by getting two men, well trained in the art, to dress up as a knight and samurai and pick up their respective weapon. Not going to happen, I hope.

[Rastus01]

Gez the Samurai did not have reed armour they had tough leather or steel armour.

[Colhir]

Gez the Samurai did not have reed armour they had tough leather or steel armour.

still no match for a charging knight!

[Haplo]

Until the charging knight gets hit in the throat with a poison arrow, or runs into a tree.

[the Bard]

Gez the Samurai did not have reed armour they had tough leather or steel armour.

Actually it was mostly splint mail and had a metal plate on the chest (mostly).

But anyway this isn't about exact equipment it's about skill and a samurai actually has skill a knight especially truly a knight not another western warrior usually didn't even really fight they let footfolk do that not nobility. A knight isn't trained to kill, a samurai is.

[Colhir]

A knight isn't trained to kill, a samurai is.

Knights trained from boyhood to fight and kill.... also read this... they both had alot in common...

http://www.jordan.pausd.org/students/connections/japan/feudaljapan1/knisam2.html
http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

still Knights would Pwn samurai with lance thru face.

[Gez]

But anyway this isn't about exact equipment it's about skill and a samurai actually has skill a knight especially truly a knight not another western warrior usually didn't even really fight they let footfolk do that not nobility. A knight isn't trained to kill, a samurai is.

Knights, since their little-boyhood, learned only three things in life: to kill people during wars, to kill people during tournaments (weren't supposed to, but hey), and to kill animals during hunts.

Saying a knight isn't trained to kill is like saying a racing horse isn't trained to gallop.

[Macar]

A samurai duh, a knight can barely move and barely lift his sword. The only thing knights are good for is partying in the castle. Samurai are actual warriors.

Huge misconception. One of those myths spread by Victorian novels

[Dexter]

Lamest. Thread. Ever.

[Sload]

I agree.

[Harke the Apostle]

Knights go out into the wilderness in colourful tents and take their most exquisite accesories with them. In fact this practice is believed by scholars to be the origin of the word 'camp'.
Samurai on the other hand have armour decorated with the prettiest lavender-coloured copper alloy: shakudo. Their armour also includes a mask they can wear over their pretty delicate hairless Asain faces with a big moustache so they can look more 'butch'.