Who would win the battle?

Who would win the pitched battle?

  • The Samurai

    Votes: 8 20.5%

  • The contemporary European soldier

    Votes: 16 41.0%

  • Depends on the terrain, weather and other circumstances

    Votes: 15 38.5%
  • Total voters
    39
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.
 
sven hassell said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 .
 
Doppleganger said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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..
 
Ollie Garchy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
I say the latter knights of the crusade or the knights templar could beat the samurai

1: superior armor
2: weapons you REALLY dont want to get hit by
3: physically stonger, and bigger
4: knights had horsies....wearing even more armor than the knights
 
I think many people are influenced about this by the films that they see where the warriors complete acts of total fantasy while fighting.
 
SNowblind said:
I say the latter knights of the crusade or the knights templar could beat the samurai

1: superior armor
2: weapons you REALLY dont want to get hit by
3: physically stonger, and bigger
4: knights had horsies....wearing even more armor than the knights
Click to expand...

ahh good points, but then see.

The samurai had armour to provide balance of light weight and protection. The knight had heavy and bulky armour.
Weapons, both sides had a variety of a fascinating arsenal.
Each sizes has its goods and bads. The smaller samurai will eventually have superior manauverabilty and speed.
The horses that samurai used where not as armoured as the knights one ofcourse. One had protection, while the other had agility. Both are good if u ask me :)
 
SNowblind said:
I say the latter knights of the crusade or the knights templar could beat the samurai

1: superior armor
2: weapons you REALLY dont want to get hit by
3: physically stonger, and bigger
4: knights had horsies....wearing even more armor than the knights
Click to expand...


weapons you REALLY dont want to get hit by..........i would definately not want to get hit by a katana.


physically stronger and bigger, in the martial arts, size and strength, although sometimes important, does not make a difference in most one on one fights. Individual skill and training, which the Japanese would have an upper hand on, would prevail.



I think the fight we're fantasizing about would be a good one, and it would be one hell of a fight to watch( i know i wouldn't wanna fight in it ), but i think overall the samurai would win. Superior training, weapons that were made with perfection in mind, and the mindset of the samurai would help them to overcome the Europeans
 
Fox said:
I think that would be european soldiers. European soldiers have catapult, knights with chain of metals and metals. also their horses wear chain of metals, etc.
Click to expand...
Nope. Contemporary European sodiers have assault rifles, hand grenades, grenade launchers, AT rockets, sniper rifles, submachine guns, machine guns etc...

So it would be a slaughter, not a battle.
 
Don't forget the mace: a crushing weapon that would bat aside any sword placed before it. The mace wielder would have probably battered a samurai to the floor through sheer force of attack. And the mattock. If i remember rightly, a mattock was basically a huge hammer with either a wooden or iron head. Think of someone wielding one of those coming screaming at you: you're certainly going to panic.
 
I just cannot image how the Samurai would be able to stop a European heavy cavalry charge. The Samurai had imported Ponies from Korea, not European War Horses. And Unlike Hollywood, Most of the combat in Feudal Japan was fought on foot. A Frontal Charge by Veteran European Heavy cavalry formations would have been unfamiliar, terrifying, and unstoppable.

The Europeans only had 2 effective anti-heavy cavalry weapons: Pikes and Archery. Both of which relied on the other to be effective.

Pikes -The Samurai didn't have them. They did have spears, but not en-mass. Also I think the shaft on them would have been too short to prevent the cavalry from breaking through the lines.

Archery, The English/Welsh were the ones who pioneered arrowheads capable of penetrating plate (botkin arrowtip). I am not sure the Japanese arrowheads would penetrate the plate, let alone the chainmail shirt the Knights wore under their cuirass.

If it were Samurai vs Men at Arms I could see more of a match-up...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top