You know samurai wore armor as well right? A good enough katana, ,or any sword really could at least pierce plate, but realistically it wouldn’t do much, the samurai would probably aim for the gaps, such as shoulders, neck, knees, and such.
yes but plate is hard, plate from the ones i seen had gaps mostly in the back which means getting behind.
Samurai’s armour wasn’t plate, also the fact someone in plate normally also wears chainmail and so on under it.
The Knight would have to be downed to be dispatched basicly
Most well made swords can cut through chain mail. Their were still gaps in their armor at the front, otherwise they wouldn’t be able to move:/ A fight doesn’t come down to who’s wearing the thickest armor.
blunt weapons would be the best technically using swords and bladed weapons against armoured targets really isn’t logical
Don’t forget speed, it would be pretty easy to avoid a hammer or a big enough axe. I reiterate, GAPS. Their is a reason why knights were able to kill each other with swords. They weren’t immune from all but massive blunt weapons.
im not saying that but armour more likely to cause a blade to roll of than land a decent hit, blunted or larger surface area weapons where stronger if you landed.
It would be a stamina fight basicly as well as a strength fit, id also wager the european would be stronger than the japanese in the fight btw
Somewhat unlikely. A traditional samurai would have been ridiculously well trained, their stamina was amazing, I’m not sure why you think European knights would be better…
Samurai focused on speed and agility (hence the lighter armour), while most knights would have focused on strength, and force. Which would win, again, comes down to the individuals, and not much more.
1 Like
Well… The samurai armor has ridicolously weak frontal shoulder protection. I guess it’s due to katanas not being as good as european swords for stabbing, and more for slashing, which would hit the stronger side protections. Same goes for the upper part in between the legs and from behind, product of the horse-riding conception. Also the helmet isn’t nearly as good, they always had big gaps for eyes and mouth.
Assuming that all of that makes the samurai more vulnerable, then yes, the knight would win, all other conditions equal. But far from impossible for the samurai to knock down the knight.
1 Like
No, knights werent slow moving behemots. Their fighting stile depends on speed as much as samurais.
Knights have better armour thanks to respurces, not prefered fighting styles. Europian courias became popular in Japan eventualy I believe.
Honestly I wouldn’t give samurai much chance. Katana isn’t that good at thrusts. Its mainly slashing weapon which isn’t ideal versus armoured oponent.
Longsword isn’t ideal versus plate armour either but would pierce enything weaker becpuse unlile katana, its pointy, straight and long.
Hmm, you guys must’ve fought a lot with swords, all dressed up in armor… 
What is a couria? You didn’t mean courier, that doesn’t have anything to do with this… Does it?
I didn’t say they were slow, just that they did not focus on it, at least not as much.
My only point is that a knight won’t win 100% of the time, and neither will the samurai. that’s all.
Knight vs. samurai
Every god damn time…
1 Like
Agreed.
(20 characters)
Not really, but I’ve watched and read enough about kendo and european medieval military to know that curved swords aren’t as good at thrusting as a pointy steel stick. You look at a samurai armor and it’s obvious that it is NOT designed with “figthing enemies with pointy steel sticks” in mind, because it leaves huge gaps unarmored on the front, while protecting the sides much better.
That’s not even obscure knowledge, it’s common sense and logic. Samurais didn’t have to fight knights, so they didn’t design their armors with figthing knights in mind. They designed them to fight other samurais.
As for the knight armor, the plate armors were mostly homogeneously sword-proof. The only actual way to kill one was either maul him with blunt weapons, or to knock him down and stab him on a weak point while he couldn’t move (mainly through the helmet visor). Samurais didn’t have either blunt weapons or stabbing weapons. Sure they had the tanto, which is a short weapon (about the size of a dagger), but yet again it was a one-edged weapon with a wide blade, unconvenient to put it through the tiny holes of a european helmet.
What is a couria? You didn’t mean courier, that doesn’t have anything to do with this… Does it?
He means cuirass.
3 Likes
i didn’t mean to make it knight vs samurai, i did just state european knight vs katana user
for the record it doesn’t say samurai
Oh, nice, this discussion is finally going somewhere. 
The topic is “Sword scabbards,” btw. The animation of a sword drawn from its scabbard could be rather difficult to make, I guess.
It’s heavily implied and leads to others reading it as samurai vs. knight
maybe so 
maybe so