ph3onix:
definitely samurais. Its becouse knights made trouble becouse of which the entire country fell apart and samurais followed the rules of honor

What troubles are you referring to? Knights also had codes of honour, they were often founded on religion.

Armitage Shanks:

ph3onix:
definitely samurais. Its becouse knights made trouble becouse of which the entire country fell apart and samurais followed the rules of honor

What troubles are you referring to? Knights also had codes of honour, they were often founded on religion.

The richer Knight orders were smart and cultured, renaissance men before the renaissance. Anyway this is about who would win in a one on one fight, I've no idea what you are on about.

ph3onix:
definitely samurais. Its becouse knights made trouble becouse of which the entire country fell apart and samurais followed the rules of honor

Knights didn't make their country fall apart. Knights weren't just from one country, and you'll find quite a few that had knights are STILL around. Like France, England (The Welsh were partial to their longbow and the Scots used pikes moreso), Spain, etc etc. And knights also had codes, you might have heard of chivalry?

Anyway, while the katana properly used could open up a knight like a tin can, it would take more than one strike to do so, with the katana most likely getting lodged in the bent steel of the knights armour or shield, giving the knight an opening to hand the samurai his head. Samurai armour wasn't nearly as effective as full or even field plate. On horseback, things would be a bit different, as Samurai were originally cavalry archers as well as knowing their way around a spear. Knights probably could clean them up with a good cavalry charge if they could get to them, and a shortbow really isn't that effective against full plate. It would be a close fight once the charge petered out.

Final score:

Knights 2: Samurai 1

LewsTherin:
And knights also had codes, you might have heard of chivalry?

I figured that out of anything I should comment on this:
The samurai had a code of honor too, but they didn't develop the code of honor that not many of them followed until they were becoming useless, whereas the knights had a code of honor that not many of them followed pretty much the whole time.

ph3onix:
definitely samurais. Its becouse knights made trouble becouse of which the entire country fell apart and samurais followed the rules of honor

Umm, you know how the Yuan dynasty tried to invade Japan and failed, partly due to weather (the origin of the whole "kamikaze" thing)?

Well, after that, the country pretty much fell to shit. See, usually Japanese leaders would reward their loyal followers with land. But, since there was no newly-conquered land to hand out after the Mongols/Chinese were driven off, many of the samurai got really pissed off and a full-on civil war started. And the Kamakura shogunate fell and everything was messed up for a very long time.

Feudal warriors are feudal warriors, and they're gonna act like feudal warriors.

-- Alex

while we are doing the whole VS. thing how about Godzilla vs Chuck Norris?

DARKLARK:
while we are doing the whole VS. thing how about Godzilla vs Chuck Norris?

That sounds like a thread I would support. GZ tries to incinerate Norris, but Norris is indestructible. Norris punches Godzilla in his reptile parts and Gozilla goes home crying.

I think Well I believe a samurai would win. But you know who would beat them both (Or beat anyone/thing for that matter)?

I said this before and I'll say it again.
Knights lose, they can only move in 'L' shapes. Wanna know why? Because they are losers, your precious knights move in loser shapes.
Not so the valiant and honorable Samurai.

(Okay, i gotta stick up for old knighty here.)
He doesn't stand a fucking chance?
Why, because in every fucking argument here the Knight we are talking about has not attacked.
This thread was Samurai Vs. Knight. Not, if a Knight stood there and allowed a Samurai to hack away at him would his armour stand up to the blow? I mean come on, the Knight could at least slash right.

So

Samurai Vs. Knight = Knight

The Samurai we're talking about here against the Mannequin (I mean Knight) = Of course the fucking Samurai.

Jesus tap dancing christ.

Another hypothetical vs.

Sir Schoompy Vs. Yahtzee?

Samurai would most likely win... both on foot and on horseback.

I'd have to say that samurai's were likely to be better swordsmen, and their armor was probably lighter which allowed more speed and flexibility... while knights heavy armor is, well, heavy.

Plus samurais also used bows, and it is quite possible to shoot through armor or to shoot somewhere where it's weak (helmet, joints and such). It's quite likely that a samurai would just outlast a knight if not mounted, because knight armor is freaking heavy.

Horse back, i dunno. Samurai would probably still have an advantage with a bow if he just shot the knight's horse down.

MacBauer:
Another hypothetical vs.

Sir Schoompy Vs. Yahtzee?

Schmoopy. Definitely.

He'd totally resist Yahtzee's sharp remarks and pwn him =P

Gormourn:
Samurai would most likely win... both on foot and on horseback.

I'd have to say that samurai's were likely to be better swordsmen, and their armor was probably lighter which allowed more speed and flexibility... while knights heavy armor is, well, heavy.

Plus samurais also used bows, and it is quite possible to shoot through armor or to shoot somewhere where it's weak (helmet, joints and such). It's quite likely that a samurai would just outlast a knight if not mounted, because knight armor is freaking heavy.

Horse back, i dunno. Samurai would probably still have an advantage with a bow if he just shot the knight's horse down.

Your also forgetting a knights armor was not that heavy as it's weight was evenly distributed over the body.Also a bow lacks enough power to push through plate and most importantly the mail underneath for reasons stated many times before and much better then me.

P.S I really do not know why so many think a Knights armor was really heavy when it was designed for combat, As well as why having mobility would do anything other then for running away.I could see how some other theories might work but not those.

Gormourn:
Samurai would most likely win... both on foot and on horseback.

I'd have to say that samurai's were likely to be better swordsmen, and their armor was probably lighter which allowed more speed and flexibility... while knights heavy armor is, well, heavy.

Plus samurais also used bows, and it is quite possible to shoot through armor or to shoot somewhere where it's weak (helmet, joints and such). It's quite likely that a samurai would just outlast a knight if not mounted, because knight armor is freaking heavy.

Horse back, i dunno. Samurai would probably still have an advantage with a bow if he just shot the knight's horse down.

GAAAAAH! The samurai is using a short horse-bow, right? Not even and English Longbow, the most powerful bow around could, as has been stated many times in this thread successfully pierce full plate every time.

Yes, the knights armour is heavy, but its not 100kg plus. Its not heavy enough to restrict his movement to the point where he becomes ineffective. Think about it, if the Knights armour was so heavy and taxing, why were they so good at killing un-armoured men at arms?
The main disadvantage (in terms of weight) that the armour created, was that if a Knight's army was routed, he was suddenly outnumbered, tired because of the battle and moving slower than the enemies who now outnumber him.

Finally, yes, the samurai would move faster because his armour is lighter, but what is his armour made from again? Lacquered wood. How effective is wood going to be at stopping this?

Admittedly, I'm not an expert, and you are entitled to your own opinion, just letting you know that 'slight speed advantage' does not equal 'instant win', and that it is HIGHLY unlikely that the samurais horse-bow would do more than irritate or maybe bruise the knight.

It would also depend where they fought. I think samurais armour was less hot so if the battle was fought in a hotter country the knight would have a much harder time (have you ever worn full plate armour, it's boiling! I can only imagine what fighting in it would be like.). Also samurais may have better training than knights (like martial arts and stuff). Overall, I think it would be a close call but I would go for... a ninja!

"Japanese heavy armor contemporary with the period of the High Middle Ages knight was not considerably lighter than European plate."

"

A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even, it can be surmised, those of the exceptionally sharp katana (some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica). Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché presented by Hollywood. Unless you've worn accurate well-made plate of this kind, it is impossible to really know how it influenced the way a knight would move."

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

zhoomout:
It would also depend where they fought. I think samurais armour was less hot so if the battle was fought in a hotter country the knight would have a much harder time (have you ever worn full plate armour, it's boiling! I can only imagine what fighting in it would be like.). Also samurais may have better training than knights (like martial arts and stuff). Overall, I think it would be a close call but I would go for... a ninja!

I would think maybe the heat would be a factor,But when you think about that European knights conquered Jerusalem in the middle of a desert then I am sure they found a way around the heat.Or didn't effect them as much due to years of training and not to mention the amount of years of walking they did just to get there.

This is more of which one you prefer more of who would actually win in a fair fight!

It really depends on who is more skilled, who is faster and who is stronger?

With your descriptions of the 2 classes the knight would be alot stronger, and with plate armour that is well fitted and a heavy one handed sword and shield, I choose the knight.

Don't post here untill you read whats has allready been said, we don't wish to repeat.

Ok, so I have read the first 2-3 pages of this post, and I feel I shall also make a post here. (sorry if this has been said before).

First of all, "knights in plate" were not the end all be all of medieval fighting. The French used tons and tons of knights in full plate, but when the British invaded France (I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact date, I'm sure many of you do). The British decimated the French forces because the French had knights in full-plate (slow) and the British had lots of archers using Longbows (long range, and powerful). So the British took much land from the French, until Joan of Arc lead a campaign and forced the British out of France, (which obviously lead to the sad, yet famous punishment of her).

A knight would indeed be a formidable foe for a samurai. But it really comes down to which of the two has better training.

The samurai is trained in one on one combat much more efficiently, taught how to deal with duels, has a rather sharp sword (no it can't cut through plate armor, that's just silly) but he knows how to use it, and could hit the weak spots of plate armor. The knight is trained how to deal with mounted combat, and how to deal with random fighters in the battlefield, so on horseback he is quite devestating.

Now the question comes down to a few things. Has the knight been dismounted? Is the samurai fighting the knight one on one on foot? Has the whole "ride at eachother then see who comes out best 'jousting'" occured? Based on these questions the answer to "who is best" can be answered, but the problem is, this simulation has not occured, and will probably never occur, and because of this, the question will always be just that, a speculation.

In my honest opinion it would really come down to who had the best training. And who gets lucky. (since that what a lot of battles are about).

Kontar,

We've covered some of this ground already (though maybe not in elaborate detail).

Kontar:
First of all, "knights in plate" were not the end all be all of medieval fighting. The French used tons and tons of knights in full plate, but when the British invaded France (I'm sorry, I don't remember the exact date, I'm sure many of you do). The British decimated the French forces because the French had knights in full-plate (slow) and the British had lots of archers using Longbows (long range, and powerful). So the British took much land from the French, until Joan of Arc lead a campaign and forced the British out of France, (which obviously lead to the sad, yet famous punishment of her).

If you're talking about Agincourt (the iconic longbows-vs.-knights battle), tactics had much more to do with it than technology. The French basically fucked up their charge really, really badly. The British had a much smaller but significant numbers of armored fighters on their side, too, arrayed between the archers and taking the brunt of the French attack. One of the things that happened is that the archers entered melee combat, flanking the French men-at-arms. The undermanned British would've never won if most of their troops were just firing arrows all day.

Kontar:
The samurai is trained in one on one combat much more efficiently, taught how to deal with duels, has a rather sharp sword (no it can't cut through plate armor, that's just silly) but he knows how to use it, and could hit the weak spots of plate armor. The knight is trained how to deal with mounted combat, and how to deal with random fighters in the battlefield, so on horseback he is quite devestating.

As covered previously in this thread, men-at-arms fought both on foot and from horseback, just like historical bushi. At Agincourt, IIRC, most of the French men-at-arms were dismounted. You can't really say that one is obvious better on foot or on horseback than the other (though you can say that European got luckier with their horses). Likewise, the warriors of Japan and Western Europe both viewed battles largely as a set of opportunities for single combat (the reward systems under which they operated -- taking heads for bounties or prisoners for ransom -- encouraged this, too) and trained for that pretty heavily, so it's not like either would be out of his element in a one-on-one fight.

-- Alex

Considering how much has been put into this thread, if it were cleaned up a bit it'd make a nice little study on the differences between Japanese and European Feudal Combat.

The Samurai Could easily win by getting off his horse, taking out his bow and then annihilating the knights horse, because the knight fought on horse back h wouldn't be in his element on the ground and the samurai could go to town on him

Ares Tyr:
Considering how much has been put into this thread, if it were cleaned up a bit it'd make a nice little study on the differences between Japanese and European Feudal Combat.

I'll say. Its been a surprisingly well researched and reasoned discussion, especially for an "X vs Y" thread.

EDIT:
Ok so I posted a bit too soon lol. But still, no flame war so its all good.

Killcushley:
The Samurai Could easily win by getting off his horse, taking out his bow and then annihilating the knights horse, because the knight fought on horse back h wouldn't be in his element on the ground and the samurai could go to town on him

Way to not read the posts above yours. Men-at-arms in plate armor fought on foot all the time.

-- Alex

Armitage Shanks:

Ares Tyr:
Considering how much has been put into this thread, if it were cleaned up a bit it'd make a nice little study on the differences between Japanese and European Feudal Combat.

I'll say. Its been a surprisingly well researched and reasoned discussion, especially for an "X vs Y" thread.

EDIT:
Ok so I posted a bit too soon lol. But still, no flame war so its all good.

That's an example of a bit that would need to be cleaned up. Heh.

First of all, I'm not sure who would win in this fight.
like previously stated there are many factors, and all
is hypothetical.

Samurai:
First of all. While the katan was the weapon most synonymous to the samurai,
the samurai, like knights, used a wide varitey of weapons. Spears, which could almost as
easly knock a knight off a horse as a lance could the samurai.

Also depending on which era of samurai you are using in this, your warrior
might not have been using a sword, which was not common in battle
untill roughly the Kamakura period.

Samurai would have the edge in terms of speed, horse or no, as
well as the possiblitly of any martial arts he may know, if any.

Also, Samurai were not limited to wooden armour.
They too, had metal armour, the early samurai did
have armor made of wood.
(My family has a few sets of samurai amor, atleast one of each kind)

In terms of ethics or moral code Samurai belived in Bushido "the way of the warrior"

Also some sword styles the samurai used could bypass the problem of trying to cut through
plate armor.

Knights:

like the samurai, Knights had many forms of weapons (era dependant) and forms of armor(same).
Most swords used by knights were heavier than that used by their Asian counterparts.
allowing them to hit with a bit more force, but making the harder to stop midswing if needed.

longswords and zweihanders were popular for their rech and thrusting abilities,
with estocs being another popular choice because of how easly it could get trough gaps in armor.

Plate armor isn't as clunky or hard to move in as most would think, Pretty manuverable in fact. It was very combat efficent.

Both:
Terrian, the combatants individals skill and knowledge including that of their surroundings,tactics, and his enemy.
.
Weather conditions. Each warriors

A factor most see to be overlooking is
"Force" Even if a samurai csomehow couldn't cut through the armor
a knight is wearing, the force of the blow is still there, and can still, if enough is applied, can knock your enemy down.

It is hard, in most kinds of armor, to get up quickly. In those
precious few seconds alot of things can happen, the person your fighting disarms you, you manage to get back up, you lose your weapon, but manage to avoid getting another blow before getting back up, and are force to rely on a secondary less efftice weapon such as a dagger,
Or even being pinned down after the blow by the enemy, and forced to accept your defeat.

The above goes for both sides.

Katana Vs Longsword
Longswords and zweihanders had the reach, and thrust capabilities to keep most enemies
at a good distance, while the katan was developed for close combat.

If the samurai could get in close enough, he might be able to throw the knight off balance, or knock him over, but it would be a difficult task to do so.

Actually just stumbled upon this artical which is is litterially
what we are talking about.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm
It's well thought out. Also
has much more info that what i belive any of us can provide.

example: has info on katana vs plate armor

"As a sword, the Japanese katana is unmatched in its sharpness and cutting power. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting against metal (-but no, it only cuts through other swords in movies and video games!). However, Medieval plate armor is well known for its resistance to cutting, and cutting at a moving target hidden by a shield or a greatsword is not easy. While the edge of a katana is very strong with a sharp cutting bevel, it is a thick wedge shape and still has to move aside material as it cuts. Though this is devastating on a draw slice against flesh and bone, it is much less effective against armors. Realizing this, several styles of Japanese swordsmanship devised specific techniques not to cut at armor, but to stab and thrust at the gaps and joints of it just as the Europeans did against their own plate armor. The primary technique for fighting nearly any kind of armor with most any kind of sword is not to cut but to thrust at the gaps and joints."

Quote from the site I linked to.

Ah yes, Alex_P, sorry, like I had said I had not read most of this thread (and currently I am quite drunk, getting back from a friends wedding). I appreciate your response, and would agree with most of which your said. ;)

Oh, and off topic, my grandfather got an actual katana from a Japanese general that he killed in WW2. I have since inherited it and it has become the greatest family heirloom, it is quite beautiful, albeit a reminder of a sad time in history.

@Kontar My family has Japanese hertiage, and my uncle is a smith
so I have had the luck of being introduced to swords in general at a young age.

I have a small collection of various styles of swords,
and have to say I love both european and Japanese styles.

I love the look of the Katana, but can't help
but cant help admiring the overall strength of a zweihander.

Souplex:
The thing is that westerners developed guns long before the japanese and there was some overlap with the sword/armor and the just shoot it era.

The Japanese developed guns in the 900's, they just generally didn't USE guns until the 1800's.