Sorry dont know how that left my computer!

Take two:

2)Training and skill,European martial arts are not to be sniffed at and I'm sure those knights trained long and hard to hone their combat skills.
3)Weapons,Yes the katana is a fine weapon but I train in the use of weapons whilst mounted(medeival and Japanese) and I'd rather have plate armour,mail,a lance and my trusty morning-star any day.

Add to this the knights most lethal weapon, the heavy horse and you'll see in a straight up fight(not counting all the other factors that are involved in a battle and could affect either side) that the samurai is hopelessly outgunned.

Originally Posted by sven hassell

As far as zeal goes it can't all be attributed to the Samurai.
I'm sure European medieval knights were just as fanatical.If not more so than their Eastern counterparts.
Convinced that God and Jesus were on their side and knowing if they fought well (European martial arts were highly effective) that they would surely enter heaven would make them equal in attitude and ability.
The Europeans better armour,better weaponry and MUCH heavier horses would easily tip the balance in their favour.

I don't buy that European Knights were just as fanatical, even more so than Japanese Samurai. Christian Knights did not celebrate death in battle as the Samurai did, did not make it a core principle of their faith, as the Samurai did. The values placed upon life by Christian cultures are entirely different than those placed by Bushido. If you want a modern analogy look at the Pacific Theatre in WW2. The Allied forces took very, very few Japanese soldiers as POWs. Why? Because being captured alive by your enemy is one of the worst disgraces of Bushido. Consequently, most Japanese soldiers fought with a zeal in battle that went beyond mere survival. Certainly some Christian soldiers matched this, the premier formations of the Waffen-SS spring to mind for example. But no general Allied forces fought with the intensity of their Japanese counterparts. This was also the case in Feudalistic era warfare.

I posted earlier that the Japanese Samurai would have a problem with European mounted knights for some of the reasons you said. The rank and file infantry soldier though would, IMO, be easily dispatched by a Samurai warrior, one on one.

yep Doppleganger Good posts..

I choose the samurai mostly the 15-16 century ones.. and also depends what type of European soldiers.
Samurai kind of had a different spirit and morale. Different effective weapons and cavalry skills too .

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

I don't buy that European Knights were just as fanatical, even more so than Japanese Samurai. Christian Knights did not celebrate death in battle as the Samurai did, did not make it a core principle of their faith, as the Samurai did. The values placed upon life by Christian cultures are entirely different than those placed by Bushido. If you want a modern analogy look at the Pacific Theatre in WW2. The Allied forces took very, very few Japanese soldiers as POWs. Why? Because being captured alive by your enemy is one of the worst disgraces of Bushido. Consequently, most Japanese soldiers fought with a zeal in battle that went beyond mere survival. Certainly some Christian soldiers matched this, the premier formations of the Waffen-SS spring to mind for example. But no general Allied forces fought with the intensity of their Japanese counterparts. This was also the case in Feudalistic era warfare.

I posted earlier that the Japanese Samurai would have a problem with European mounted knights for some of the reasons you said. The rank and file infantry soldier though would, IMO, be easily dispatched by a Samurai warrior, one on one.

Greetings,

In trying to come to grips with this interesting issue, it might be useful to think about other European-Asian conflicts like the Mongol invasions or the Crusades or even the European liberation of Spain or Vienna. The Battle of Liegnitz might be of particular interest.

My knowledge of the period is quite limited, but I do know that some of the battles fought by the Teutonic Knights against the Poles resulted in extremely high losses among the nobility (ie. the grandmasters and that sort of thing). Also, my look at more modern issues has touched on the "Totenkopf" or death's head as some kind of medieval death philosophy. I seem unable to find anything substantial on this issue.

In any case, Europeans entertained an utterly different view of life 500 or 1000 years ago. European concepts seemed more similar to the Roman gladiatorial death cult that celebrated death. In Germanic folklore, death in battle was the road to Stovakor...sorry Valhalla. These traditions probably merged with Christianity to a certain extent. Since the European warrior elite devoted their lives to swordsmanship, riding and generally war, I think that comparisons with Bushido are probably in order.

yes indeed..

The samurai too feared death not.. A saying was said by a samurai , "Go to the battle thinking you will never return home, and you will return. Go to the battle wanting to return home, and u will die". Honor too, was everything to a samurai, he prefered death over dishonour and shame, and killed himself.

And the Sword was everything to a samurai.. maybe even more than the night.. The sowrd and the bow..
They say the blade of the samurais sword displayed its spirit. And the bow was the primary weapon of the early samurai too. And ofcourse, horse back riding was everythign too..

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Greetings,

In trying to come to grips with this interesting issue, it might be useful to think about other European-Asian conflicts like the Mongol invasions or the Crusades or even the European liberation of Spain or Vienna. The Battle of Liegnitz might be of particular interest.

My knowledge of the period is quite limited, but I do know that some of the battles fought by the Teutonic Knights against the Poles resulted in extremely high losses among the nobility (ie. the grandmasters and that sort of thing). Also, my look at more modern issues has touched on the "Totenkopf" or death's head as some kind of medieval death philosophy. I seem unable to find anything substantial on this issue.

In any case, Europeans entertained an utterly different view of life 500 or 1000 years ago. European concepts seemed more similar to the Roman gladiatorial death cult that celebrated death. In Germanic folklore, death in battle was the road to Stovakor...sorry Valhalla. These traditions probably merged with Christianity to a certain extent. Since the European warrior elite devoted their lives to swordsmanship, riding and generally war, I think that comparisons with Bushido are probably in order.

Indeed.One cannot compare the religious leaningsl of U.S. infantrymen in WW2 to the fanatacism of medieval times.(These were people who burnt women at the stake regularly just out of superstitious belief).
I truly think medieval knights would fight with equal zeal as the samurai and just because the samurai celebrated death they wouldn't necessarily be any better in combat than their European counterparts.
Yes they had better steel quality in their swords but that doesnt do you much good when impaled on a 10ft lance.
As for MM saying "horse skills were everything" to the Samurai,this doesn't do you much good when your horse is merely a means of transport and a platform to fight from and not the weapon in itself that a plate armoured heavy horse is.

There are so many films and TV shows around about the inviability of the Japanese warrior I think it may cloud the fact the the European Warrior was just as brave and probably very skillful with his weapons. Also the European would not expect much except death or victory on the Battlefield. Now just look at how well many of the different European Countries did in many of those early battles, the Phalanx of Pikemen would have caused any attacking Army a headache, Hanabibal and his Elephants would have caused a problem, The English longbow men would have taken their toll. like many other questions asked on these forums it just full of if's and but's

Yes true (the fellas above me).

The samurai used the horse in many differnt ways ofcourse like everyone. One weaknes of lets say for example, the knights horse, was that its heavely armoured, and so not maneuverable. Now take a look at the crusades for example.. The saracens had more versatile quick mooving maneuverable horses that rained arrows attacking or retreating. The mongols too. Now the samurai had something similar.
About the weapons. I would say the lance of the knight could be faced with the Japanese "Yari". This thing could go as far as 5 meters.
Lets not forget the morale also. As mentioned earlier, samurai dedicated their lives to Bushido, the way of the warrior. They even prefered suicide over defeat and dishonour.

But finally, you will have to be more specific in the first question, which was given by Ted.

the most committed on the day would win, personaly i think where the fight takes place would have a huge advantage. as does motivation people fighting on there homeground /country have been shown to fight better then expected. kakoda track campaign being one example. the warrior code didnt help them win there. i would proably learn towards the europeans due to their variety of arms. but all depends on many ifs and buts

But dont forget that also the Japanese had a variety of interesting weapons and tactics as well