perhaps this is getting a little off topic?
First of all: A guy with a katana and japanese armour vs a european knight, the knight would outright demolish them, people assume people who wore plate armour couldnât move well, im sorry but they trained in that gear so there not going to be that slow, also they were most likely far stronger than we are now a days.
Secondly, drawing weapons from the back isnât possible without a half scabbard even then it would be pointless youâd most likely die before you can draw.
Thirdly, drawing from the side allows you to attempt to block,parry, deflect a surprise attack if you can draw in time personally id like to draw right handed from the right side.
Dual wielding it is possible but you would use a weapon that is shorter in the off hand, its used as defence mostly but of course has offensive ability.
We already covered half of that. And youâre sort of wrong about your first point, a samurai vs knight, just saying that doesnât predict the victor, it would come down to the knight and samurai, their training, skill and experience.
well ok yes of course skill but i doubt the katana could cut through plate, now if they could get the armoured guy down then im not disagreeing hes dead
You know samurai wore armor as well right? A good enough katana, ,or any sword really could at least pierce plate, but realistically it wouldnât 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.
Samuraiâs armour wasnât 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 wouldnât be able to move:/ A fight doesnât come down to whoâs wearing the thickest armor.
blunt weapons would be the best technically using swords and bladed weapons against armoured targets really isnât logical
Donât 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 werenât 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, Iâm not sure why you think European knights would be betterâŠ
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 itâs 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 isnât 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 wouldnât give samurai much chance. Katana isnât that good at thrusts. Its mainly slashing weapon which isnât ideal versus armoured oponent.
Longsword isnât ideal versus plate armour either but would pierce enything weaker becpuse unlile katana, its pointy, straight and long.
Hmm, you guys mustâve fought a lot with swords, all dressed up in armor⊠
What is a couria? You didnât mean courier, that doesnât have anything to do with this⊠Does it?
I didnât say they were slow, just that they did not focus on it, at least not as much.
My only point is that a knight wonât win 100% of the time, and neither will the samurai. thatâs all.
Knight vs. samurai
Every god damn timeâŠ
1 Like
Agreed.
(20 characters)
Not really, but Iâve watched and read enough about kendo and european medieval military to know that curved swords arenât as good at thrusting as a pointy steel stick. You look at a samurai armor and itâs obvious that it is NOT designed with âfigthing enemies with pointy steel sticksâ in mind, because it leaves huge gaps unarmored on the front, while protecting the sides much better.
Thatâs not even obscure knowledge, itâs common sense and logic. Samurais didnât have to fight knights, so they didnât 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 couldnât move (mainly through the helmet visor). Samurais didnât 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 didnât mean courier, that doesnât have anything to do with this⊠Does it?
He means cuirass.
3 Likes
i didnât mean to make it knight vs samurai, i did just state european knight vs katana user