Samurai vs a Knight? Article on who would win...

[Whoseyourdaddy]

Knight vs. Samurai (interesting article)

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

Well,i couldnt figure out where to put this so i put it the Japanesse Forum, (apprently, there is no western fighting style forum)

Well, its an interesting article, what do u guys think?

Well, contrary to popular belief, the knights used a pretty advanced fighting method, and the movements of a knight were very similar to that of a Kendoist.
If you are interested in how knights fought, here are a bunch of videos. A group that specializes in fighting methods of the knights of late medieval/early renasiance by looking at historical fighting manuals that still exist today.

http://www.thearma.org/Videos/TPVideos.htm

Well, who would win in a fight, the Kinght or the Samurai? Not sure, i read the article. You heard of John Clements (also the guy that wrote the article), about a decade ago he entered an open weapons martial arts tornoment using the Longsword techniques the Knights used, most of the people there were Kendoists. Many of the competitors were overconfindent that their Eastern Martial arts were better then anything this guy knew. When the tornement started, John Clements took the floor and won 1st place. Everyone was shocked. I know its not much, but this is probably as close as we'll get to Knights vs samurai argument.

Of course, this was without armor, so im not sure if the knights armor in battle will be a will be an advantage or a disadvantage, and im pretty sure the katana is an all around better weapon. So who would win.............?

[guy incognito]

The europeans never came close to matching the metallurgy of the japanese.A kitana would run straight through euro armor(thrusting not slashing)Your right though euro weapons techniques are a lot more advanced than most people think.The fighting arts of europe should also be preserved and you dont hear enough about them.A lot of people are also not aware tyhat europe had its own version of the shaolin called the Knights templar.All very interesting and i would love to know more.

[chris davis 200]

Good Article

I think that both were highly skilled at what they did! The knights of europe were warriors through and through - maybe to a slightly less extent to the Samurai but still highly skilled.

Also the diminutive size of an average Japanese Samurai 4.5ft to 5.5ft compared to the size of the European knights would work against the samurai.

A few things that i think would work in the Samurai's favor would have been the Archery. Although very profficient i dont think the Europeans were a match for the samurai regarding archory, before the sword came to prominence the bow was the symbol of the samurai.

Also the armor was far more practical than that of the European knight. Large expances of plate steel would inhibit movement.

The european swords were chopping weapons the japanese were cutting weapons - although highly strong, generally japanese swords were not designed for clashing against other swords, this is why many styles of Japanese kobudo avoid and cut rather than clash and chop.

The problem is that the samurai class and battlefield efficiencey declined with the advent of the tokugawa shogunate. so i think we would have to be talking about pre-tokugawa Japan to draw a suitable comparison.

Ref - european arts : I think that there is a major problem in the european martial arts - especially unarmed - that there is alot of scope for 'cross pollination' between the very well known eastern arts and classical european arts.

I have always liked the look of old western boxing 1800's n before. It was very similar to Hsing I which i study. But with the advent of the sport format the style changed dramatically.

Cheers
Chris Davis