European knight vs Japanese Samurai

Sengra · Purple Belt

A friend asked me once if a medieval knight and a samurai would fight, who would win?

Provided with these conditions:

both warriors (european knight and samurai) are only wearing
undergarments, no armors and mails, no extra clothing.

temperature, weather and terrain would not be factor (ideal conditions)

the knight would be using a broadsword(his mastery) and the samurai
would be using a katana(his mastery).

both of them trained since childhood, of the same age, and have been to real wars, let's say, a knight from the hundred years war and a samurai during the monggol invasions (just an example but the point is, both of them have equal experience...

)

No handicaps, no sickness, both of them 100% fit

no horses, no other weapons, just the broadsword and the katana.

no outside help, both of them with high morale, both of them well rested and well fed.(following their native diet)

Both bof them have equal desire to kill each other, and oth are not afraid to die.

Who would win? I really need opinions...thanks

...no crappy answers please...thank you... hehehehe:lol:
_________________
The stronger swordsman does not always win.

viskous · Orange Belt

well i believe most samurias were trained in hand to hand combat, something most european knights did not train if im not mistaken, plus i think there was a bit more self disipline with the japenese samurai.........all in all i'd say samurai

granmasterchen · Black Belt

when dealing with european weaponry, the thought was that strength was the key ability needed to take down your opponent

the Japanese philosophy was more on elegance and skill, being graceful and precise.

my guess is that the knight would come in strong, attempting to take out the samurai in one massive sweep of his sword....relying on his strength to crush any defense the samurai might have.

I think the samurai, would wait for the approaching knight, sidestep at the last second out of the way, as the knights momentum takes him forward the samurai continues his spin from the sidestep, bringing his katana in a graceful, quick arc coming down at an angle from the back side of the knights neck ...thus ending the fight.

just my generic, stereotypical view of the history and situation...
_________________
That which does not destroy me will only make me stronger

y2_sub · Black Belt

granmasterchen , your description to the scene was awesome .
I personally think that the samurai would win in one strike , he will wait for an opening and use it perfectly to end the fight , samurai where trained to kill there opponents from the first shot ( I believe that art is now know as kendo ?? )
_________________
Moon might shine upon the innocent and the guilty alike

Anbu Alex · Green Belt

I was watching the history channel and they were talking about this and they seemed to favor the Samurai more cause their jobs during the earlier part of japan's history was to fight and trained everyday where as knights no to the extrem of the samurai also another factor was that Samurai armor was lighter make them more mobile and they had other weapons with them and was trained to use different type of weapons

JusticeZero · Green Belt

I'd favor the European knight. For a period, people of various training were wandering the world as mercenaries. Where knights earned some distinction in this, as well as the forces of other countries, samurai never seemed to earn any real note in such matters. Western swordsmanship tends to be more defensive than the Japanese sword arts - Samurai swordsmanship texts seem to be filled of imagery of something closest to the Western gunfighter, with both fighters suddenly lashing out in one committed attack - Western schools of swordsmanship tend to be more defensive and cognizant of the need to wear through defenses and thus will probably take the advantage as soon as the first attack passes (which they would be looking to block/parry/evade, rather than simply attacking in full into the other attack)
_________________
"Anything worth doing is worth doing badly." - Baleia

isshinryu5toforever · Black Belt

I don't know it depends on the knight and the samurai. Most knights with large broadswords would rarely be on the ground unless the terrain warranted such. The broadsword was a heavy weapon that could be used to come down upon people on the ground. A footman would have a shortsword, mace, axe, or other bludgeoning weapon. This is why I don't think a knight armed the way you are talking would be necessarily comfortable on the ground. Also, there are many types of samurai. A samurai is a warrior, not necessarily someone trained to use a katana. Yari and Naganita were used extensively as well. It also depends on where the samurai is from and what school he studied in. The Japanese schools were more agressive, with their weight forward waiting to end it in one strike. The Okinawan schools tended to be a little more even in their stance. They were willing to give up some ground if it meant taking an advantage. In your "perfect setting" scenario however, I would give the advantage to the samurai. It is true that many Eurpoean sword arts were based on defense, this is not true with a weapon such as the broadsword. While you would learn some defenses, it was simply too heavy a weapon to parry and attack for too long. Like I said, a sword of that type was used to fell opponents who were not on even ground with the knight weilding it. Only the riches nobles were able to have long broadswords. Once you put this person on the ground, they would be at a decided disadvantage when it came to speed. While it is true that it seems the samurai fights ended up being both parties commited to attack, they were extremely lengthy affairs. The two parties were very patient and calculating. That one cut they went for would immediately end the engagement. This is not true of European knights who would sometimes go through lengthy bouts. I don't think a European knight would let a samurai sit there for an hour or more without attacking. They'd think the guy was nuts. Whether you're talking about a single hand, double hand, or hand and a half broadsword the speed advantage goes to the samurai sword. A well-trained samurai might even be able to win with just the draw of the sword. Also most european swords were meant for thrusting, not cutting. This is seen with the straight blade. While this is generally quicker than completeing a swing, it would leave the person extended. This would be enough for the samurai to at least cut the arm off (attack the offending appendige) and possibly to disembowel the knight. For the knight, at best I would offer a draw. He stabs or slices the samurai, but the blade of the katana falls on his neck at the same time. My thought of what would normally happen, the knight would lose.
_________________
The highest aim of a warrior is to lay down his sword. (sorry no Chinese anymore)

He who knows others is wise. He who knows himself is enlightened.
- Tao Te Ching

Sengra · Purple Belt

Anbu Alex · Green Belt

you also have to remeber in both japan and europe there where different types of swords in japan samurais during war did you the Katana that was during times of peace where they would walk around the streets they used a tachi an bigger and more curved sword in europe there were the broad swords, sabers, and the smaller thiner swords

Menjo · Black Belt

Id give the upper hand to the samurai, but i dont think they were all about grace as alot of people think, i think they also liked to use strength but strentgh in the technique.

	KarateForums.com Forum Index -> Comparative Styles and Cross Training	All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 Next
Page 1 of 12