Knight vs. Samurai -a few thoughts

[Randall Pleasant]

Jeanry wrote:
One advantage that the Samurai would have over the knight in some kind of unregulated field encounter, is that unlike most knights, the Samurai was a trained archer.

I may be wrong but I don't think *every* samurai was a highly trained swordsmen and/or archer. Likewise for knights.

[Daniel_Vince]

I may be wrong but I don't think *every* samurai was a highly trained swordsmen and/or archer. Likewise for knights.

IIRC the samurai were originally valued more for their skill with the bow and the spear. It wasn't until later that the katana became fetishized. Of course, that brings us back to the issue of period. A 9th century samurai is very different from an 18th century samurai just as a 12th century knight is different from a 15th century knight.

[JeanryChandler]

YEs thats true, I was assuming the premise in Johns original article, which I think was a 16th century Samurai against a 14th century knight, or therabouts. I had been under the impression that Samurai remained primarily horse archers on the military battlefield at any rate, even into the 19th century, though I am admittedly not that well versed in Japanese history. Was there some point where the bow was largely abandoned? i know they still practice horse archery as a martial sport which is taken very seriously and done in a very ceremonial manner...

DB

[JeanryChandler]

A lot of well informed people disagree with me on this, but I personally feel that a knight would not have to resort to half-swording to defeat the armor of a 'typical' samurai. For one thing, from the meagre resources at my disposal (mostly Osprey military books, and a copy of Musashi's 5 rings)it looks like Samurai in this period seldom wore complete cap a pied (head to toe) armor, although the most prominent nobles often did. In the kit of the common samurai there seemed to have been significant gaps in the protection which could be targeted.

Second, and this is where I find myself nearly alone in my belief, I think the Japanese armor is more succeptible to battle damage due the way it is made. It is established, I believe, that the Eastern type of mail they used was weaker, due the pattern used. I also think the basic construction of the armor, laced together with exposed silk laces, makes the armor itself inherently vulnerable to damage from cuts, particularly the draw-cuts that the Japanese weapons themselves specialized in.

I don't think it would hold up to multiple hits the way European armor would. I actualy think the Japanese Do is mostly designed to witsthand arrows.

But I could be wrong! <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />

JR

[Steve Thurston]

I think the Japanese bows were a lot less powerful than the English Longbow, the Japanese archers at the Royal Armouries a few years back had problems pulling 70/80lb yew bows so I think the 150lb+ longbows of the period must have had a lot more power.

Knights practiced archery quite often, there are even lots of pics of noble women using shortbows at the butts. Of course the longbow wasn't used on the continent and although I don't know the sort of poundage you'd be talking about for short bows some of the crossbows had 1200/1300lb draw weights which I would imagine would cause quite a bit of damage to any form of historical armour as well as modern!

I do have to say that in a fight between a C16th Samurai and a C14th European knights the Samurai will be left standing as the knight will have died some several hundred years earlier, you should really compare the same periods as well as social status. In that case the C16th knight would probably win due to the of firearms.

Steve

[Andrey Lileyev]

I have not seen these documents about duelling but used to fence against Kiev kendo students. Most of our clubmen win. So I thought much about such questions.

Of course it is not politicaly correct to speak about superiority of one tecnic above other: any thing depends on fighters personaly. But we mast take to account the history of fencing in Japan and Europe. The thing we use to call Europian fencing developed on big area from Greenland to Middle East and Russia. It took the best from hundereds of styles and schools. In that time samurais were mostfully locked on Japanese Islands fighting mostfully each other. This why Europian fencing is reacher than Japanese. And Japanese fensing as for me is too conservative. So I don't wonder hearing about that dueling results. Japan has other trump card if fencing. It's perfection. Samurais did their utmost to achieve perfection in their technics. Any Eastern martial art training based on multiple repetitions of the same movements to perfect one's skill. But far not every warrior is a perfect warrior.

So I'd say that Japan gave the world just a fiew greatest fighters and hordes of bad soldiers. IMHO the high skilled Japanese master of sword could withstand European master very well. But averege samurai is far not so good swordsman as averege European fencer.

As for practical fights I'd say again: Anything still depends on fighters not on technics. Simply European fencing can train good fighter faster and "for lower price".

[Stacy Clifford]

Regarding archery skills, don't forget also that hunting was a very popular pastime among European knights and nobility. I just finished reading a passage in Don Quixote where a duke expounds on the value of hunting to improve the body and the mind with respect to the skills of war. Of course, this also includes falconry and boar hunting with spears, but I don't doubt that knights also pressed the bow against their fair share of the king's deer.

Then of course, there was also that period in England where archery practice was a requirement for every able-bodied man by decree of the king. I don't doubt that there were plenty of knights in Europe that could manage to hit a chest-sized target with a bow strong enough to punch through armor. I've never heard of them practicing from horseback like the samurai, at least not in western Europe, so the samurai might have an advantage there, but on foot I'd say they're probably even.

[Casper Bradak]

Japanese longbows were weaker than european longbows in the direct poundage sense. If you observe japanese technique, you can see they'd never be able to draw a european longbow in the same fashion.

I think western sport fencing vs. japanese sport fencing is besides the topic.

Although the knight generally disfavored the bow as a weapon of war, they were encouraged to be well versed in using it for hunting, often when mounted.
In certain times and places, many knights were skilled at using the crossbow in combat, particularly in spain. Being knights in combat, they often shot from horseback as well, though not usually running around like their near eastern counterparts.

[Ryan Ricks]

i think i read something somewhere supporting your thoughts on the half-swording question. although, it may have just been something you posted on the boards before.

i wonder if the VAB guys know anything about this?

ryan

[JeanryChandler]

Regarding archery skills, don't forget also that hunting was a very popular pastime among European knights and nobility. I just finished reading a passage in Don Quixote where a duke expounds on the value of hunting to improve the body and the mind with respect to the skills of war. Of course, this also includes falconry and boar hunting with spears, but I don't doubt that knights also pressed the bow against their fair share of the king's deer.

I believe most hunting of this sort was conducted with lances, spears, swords. Crossbows became popular hunting weapons later in the Renaissance but I don't think the self bow was widely used by the nobility in Western EUrope from horseback, either for war or the hunt. (I'd wonder seriously if the Longbow oculd be used from horseback at all). I know some Russian knights were trained as horse archers, but I have never heard of any further west.

If there is some evidence of this I'd be very interested in to see it, it would change my understanding of western military history.

DB

[JeanryChandler]

I do have to say that in a fight between a C16th Samurai and a C14th European knights the Samurai will be left standing as the knight will have died some several hundred years earlier, you should really compare the same periods as well as social status. In that case the C16th knight would probably win due to the of firearms.

I believe that was the premise set in the article in question, though it has been a while since I read it. Have you read it?

I also believe that the Japanese acquired firearms of their own rather quickly from sailors.

Also, perhaps you didn't notice earlier in the thread where someone suggested there actually is evidence of a dozen or so documented duels between samurai Portugese sailors or soliders.

DB

[David Craig]

I believe most hunting of this sort was conducted with lances, spears, swords. Crossbows became popular hunting weapons later in the Renaissance but I don't think the self bow was widely used by the nobility in Western EUrope from horseback, either for war or the hunt. (I'd wonder seriously if the Longbow oculd be used from horseback at all). I know some Russian knights were trained as horse archers, but I have never heard of any further west.

If there is some evidence of this I'd be very interested in to see it, it would change my understanding of western military history.

Horse archers were used in Spain during the Reconquista, primarily by Moslem forces, but apparently also by some Christian armies, particularly in Andalusia. Saracen forces based in Italy also used some horse archers. The Magyars of Hungary were famous for their use of horse archery, and the Poles used them also. You are no doubt aware that they were widely used by the Turks, who were "further west" than Russia.
But from everything I have seen, you are correct that horse archers' primary area of use was in Eastern Europe, not Western. Mounted archers were widely used in the West but they dismounted to fight.

David Craig