Knight vs. Samurai
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: All Empires Community
Forum Name: Historical Amusement
Forum Discription: For role playing and alternative history discussions.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24942
Printed Date: 20-May-2024 at 20:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Knight vs. Samurai
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Subject: Knight vs. Samurai
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 20:22
|
I know this is like saying who do you think would win in a close up fire fight? a sawed off shotgun or an uzi? But who do you think would win in a fight a Knight or a samurai? taking into account physioligy, phycology, tactics, the era the combatants would be from weapons and armor their respective martial skills prowess and experience and their strengths and weaknesses terrain climate troop types etc. ------------- 
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting) 
|
Replies:
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 20:29
|
This nice thread actually belongs in Historical Amusement. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 20:45
|
This thread is about Knight vs. Samurai, not about where it belongs go post your own thread. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 21:35
|
Knight beats Samurai. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 21:37
|
I agree I've always been a fan of the Knight and the Cataphract -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 22:00
Thanks for the suggestion but I think it still looks better at Historical amusement.
BTW, I'll go with Samurai. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 22:34
|
Yeah right, a six feet and five inches tall knight vs. a five feet three inches tall samurai, and of course what period samurai are you talking about? and what period knight? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Kaysaar
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 23:05
|
I think that you may be mistaken about the average size of a European knight of the era. Six foot five (two meters) is tall for this day and age, in which good diets promote greater height. During the middle ages their diet was not as balanced and nutrient rich as our own, as such, the people tended on average to be shorter. Evidence of this can be seen when looking at high middle age suits of armor. Many of them only measure around five foot sixish inches feet tall. I rather liked this because as a relatively short person (5'7-8") I could have worn almost all of the suits of armor at the http://www.higgins.org/ - Higgin's Armory Museum comfortably. The concept of the gigantic Knight is a creation of Hollywood for the movies. Did they exist, absolutely, but they were by no means the norm. ------------- |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 23:07
You know, people in medieval Europe were quote short for modern times. So what we are looking for would be 5'5" (1,65 m) tall average knight. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 23:20
|
Thats a common mistake, a knight would usually have enough money to eat meat, kings deer and all that, and you see tapestrys of knights hunting all the time, also the armor in mueseums is usually decorational and made in three quarter scale to show off the "artwork" (for lack of a better phrase) and the craftsmanship, actual combat armor was made for men who were just under six feet or six five -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 23:24
| Well you obviously know nothing about medieval armory. Also the examination of medieval graves speak against your "tall" knights. |
Posted By: Kaysaar
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 23:32
|
I'm with Robert's wholeheartedly. I'd like to see your sources for said claims Belisarius. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 25-Jul-2008 at 23:49
|
YOU obviously know nothing about medieval armor and how do you know that those skeletons are knights? my sources are A.R.M.A those guys handle real armor and weapons, The medieval armorer and his craft: From the XIth century to the XVth century, Sothebys weapons catalogues, And last but certainly not least the Roman army they would only except soldiers who were six feet tall, in our inches that means five feet nine and a half inches tall which is hardly short De Re Militari by Vegetius, and the ursa legion would only except people who were six feet tall or over the complete roman army by adrian goldsworthy. and I'd like to see your sources, and the main point of this site is about Knight vs. Samurai not medieval armor if you don't like you can start your own thread about medieval armor for other misinformed fools like you -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 00:10
Ok, ok show us your ARMA sources where they claim that knights were 6 feet tall?
Have you ever thought that there might be different graveyards for nobility?
Thats obviously a mistake
Resorting to insults only shows true side of you. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 00:20
|
You havn't produced any proof or refuted what I said all you've done is attack my argument are you saying that college professor is wrong, your word against a college professer and Vegetius, can't go make your own thread? please? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 03:17
Nope. People were actually shorter in the past due to bad diets. I have seen uniforms of people who have fought in wars in the last 300 years in the U.S., and they are these little uniforms that don't look real to us. Even soldiers in WWII were a lot smaller than people in the U.S. today. That said, I go with knights because in another version of this discussion, someone made the arguments that the weapons of the knights were better than those of the Samurai, and that they had a greater range of fighting technique, which made up for the speed of the Japanese warrior. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 04:11
|
I'll go with the Knights.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Greek Hoplite
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 07:34
| I would say Knight, and a Byzantine Cataphract is even better. Knights fought against many different opponents, especially cataphracts fought against almost all the enemies of their time, something like this gives them the upper hand. On the other hand samurai were always fought between them, they fought for centuries against enemies (other samurai) that had the same way of battle with them. I think that samurai are overrated. |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 13:41
|
The terms are too generic to get into specifics. 'Knights' were around for centuries and equipment varied considerably. Also, what is the mode of combat? On foot? Samurai also trained with the bow, whereas your 'typical' knight did not. In terms of melee combat, the Samurai would probably have a better quality sword, and be faster. The knight would have better armour. One on one, these situations often end up being a 'rock, paper, scissors' sort of situation, depending heavily on the specifics. ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 13:48
Although I can't remember the source offhand, I recall reading that this is a common misconception; western swords were not inferior to oriental swords. Plate armour was also pretty much invulnerable to swords, too, so a late middle-ages knight would be a nightmare for a samurai. ------------- Know thyself |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 14:08
| These kind of threads are meaningless, westerners will say knight, easterners samurai. I think that millitary expert opinions are important, does anybody have any sources of millitary historians view. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 14:47
|
C.C Benjamin, you've seen the uniforms of world war two two soldiers but you havn't said anything about medieval knights armor and the fact remains that real medieval battle armor is made for men who were just under six feet tall or who were six five, I vote kinghts however the samurai was still dangerous, and both sides wouldn't be facing any hting to unfamilar, both sides had pikes, polearms bows however the samurai didn't have anything in the way of siege warfare no samurai can stand up to a trebuchet, later knights also had guns asd did the samurai, and thats a myth that knights considered missle weapons dishonorable they charged into battle using small powerful all metal crossbows and when guns came along they added those to their armement, and keep the phycology of the troops both armies won't have just knights and samurai what about the peseants? and what about terrian? and tactics? and what about mercenaries? and keep in mind what period samurai are we talking about? wahat period knight? the tactics and troops avalible to the each period, and the katana could break just as easily as the medieval sword andf they both knew abou martial arts medieval training manuals for medieval knights show open handed blows, bone breaking, grappling, wrist releases and even pressure point manipulation, and the knight had somthing else that the samurai didn't, barding for his horse, but once again it depends on the era. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Władysław Warnencz
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 14:52
|
In a hand-to-hand combat on foot the samurai would beat,beacuse he is faster,more agile and wealds lighter but sharper sword.In a cavalry charge however the samurai would be defeated utterly by the heavily armoured knights,with big,strong armoured horses and long lances. ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 15:03
I would appreciate a source though - it depends on exactly what is being referred to. I was not referencing 'oriental' swords in general, but rather a sword that a samurai was likely to be armed with.
True, by late 'middle-ages' the knight might have full articulated plate armour. However, that comes back to what I mentioned about the terms being 'generic'. For centuries a knight would have been using chainmail with a separate helm that would have left the neck vulnerable - not a good characteristic against a samurai! ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 15:08
OMG, thats just......... can't really describe ....... . How old are you? Have you ever read a book about medieval warfare? And what the hell does "no samurai can stand up a trebuchet" mean? Otherwise from you it sounds like knights used trebuchets like sniping weapons to launch huge rocks at single samurais. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 15:29
|
Even modern Dutchmen don't average 6 ft 5 inches. And I don't think there were many Masai or Tutsi fighting as medieval knighs. That people were on average shorter then than now is indisputable, probably due to diet mainly (though improved infant and pre-natal care are factors too). But not in particular to eating meat: in fact the higher proportion of red meat being eaten by medieval knights would probably go against their long-term health.
Moreover trying to compare measurements quoted in inches across historical periods is like trying to compare prices of goods in local currency- pointless unless carefully studied. Before Sweden went metric it had at least two inches - one a 12th of a Swedish foot and one a tenth of it, a Swedish foot being slightly smaller than an English one. Most Western countries had their own foot, have got the word and idea probably from the Romans, but unfortunately they all had differently-sized feet.
It is of course true that in any physical endeavour like fighting it is generally true that selection takes place so that successful combatants are bigger and taller than the average, but in the case here that would apply to both samurai and knight. It's also really immaterial to the question, which is presumably meant to compare fighting techniques and tools, not specific individuals. I assume a fast, heavy, quick-witted well-trained X will usually beat a slow, small, slow-thinking badly trained Y, whatever X and Y stand for.
------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 15:59
|
No thats not what I'm saying, and I appreciate if you wouldn't twist my words around like that again, and I mean as in siege warfare which appearantly the samurai didn't know about also the katana is a cutting a knight in plate in plate armor is virtually invulnerable to cutting attacks and the medieval sword provides better hand protection than the katana and a lot great swords were lighter than the katana a katanas average weight was around four pounds while there are many greatswords that some of which are over six feet long only two point five pounds, and keep in mind what era your talking about, and medieval armor was considerably lighter that it's made out to be and ther samurai was just as heavily armored again depending on what your talking about, and please post post embarassingly juevenile replys like everyone knows medieval armor was clumsy and super heavy, I beg you -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 16:02
I know I'm asking you to take it on faith, but again, I can't remember the source. It seemed quite credible though. It was a specific article written by a history buff, who had gotten tired of the "katanas are god's own swords" argument. It detailed the specifics on why Western swords, especially in Late Medieval period, were particularly good, at least the equal of Samurai swords. The research looked good, and my own knowledge corroborated the familiar content of the article, so I find myself believing the unfamiliar content. As for generic terms - I believe I was specific enough. In the High/Late/whatever you want to call the period, full plate armour, specifically not chain or plate and mail, was virtually impossible to pierce with a sword, so a knight with this getup would be a difficult proposition for a lone Samurai warrior, IMO. I'm not saying the Samurai would have been by any means useless, just don't let Hollywood Samurai films colour your opinion on their level of expertise. Both were a warrior caste, so I would suggest they were both excellently-trained warriors, it is just the knights had access to more advanced equipment. ------------- Know thyself |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 16:03
Why do you think they invented punctuation? ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 16:07
|
What has this got to do with knight vs. samurai?. People who pay more attention to spelling and grammer instead of content, are the most concerned with social order and pressure. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 16:39
|
Knights would defeat samurais simply because they had heavier weapons and armors. The horse of the full armored knight was taller, the weapons were longer and the shielding was tougher.
Making knights and samurais to fights is like to make combat light weight against heavy weight boxers.
Now, if you put both in equal conditions, without armor, I bet the samurai would win. Knights managed force but Samurais perfected skills. ------------- |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 18:00
|
Knights are good at slaying dragons. The Samurai are good at being anime villains. So who wins? ------------- |
Posted By: deadkenny
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 18:17
Regarding the sword quality issue, I agree that not all Japanese swords were top quality and not all European swords were poor quality. However, if we assume that both had the 'good stuff' from their respective sources, I believe that the Japanese sword would have the advantage.
The 'generic' terminology I referred to was not yours, it was that contained in the original question - i.e. 'knight' vs. 'samurai', when those terms were applied to various warriors over many centuries. So you have specified a late 'middle-ages' knight in articulated full plate armour. IF you make that assumption, then I agree that the high quality armour certainly assists the knight. But that just goes back to my original point, unless one sets the 'parameters' a bit more precisely, what can one really say? ------------- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 20:16
Nonsense. People who are capable of coherent thought are capable of coherent presentation of it. ------------- |
Posted By: C.C.Benjamin
Date Posted: 26-Jul-2008 at 20:31
What advantages do you believe the katana has, may I ask? I don't think the heavier armour of the knight is all that would swing it though, as knights were a warrior caste, like the Samurai, so basically both sides spent all day every day since they were children learning to fight. I'm sure they were both hard as nails. ------------- Know thyself |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 00:57
Are the meaningless? Sure. But these threads to have a function. They tend to be the entry point to history for people. Also, they are a great topic to learn here and then take to our friends when you are in a bar drinking beers to vary from talking about sports and who is the hotest cheerleader. ------------- |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 01:05
I shall go with the knights that slay the dragons belonging to the evil Samurai anime villains. Why? Because the good guys have a greater percentage of wins in cartoons. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 01:50
|
I don't know about that the medieval knight and the samurai were pretty evenly matched in terms of martial arts, and the knights were bigger, and while samurai were highly trained, only five percent were proficent with their swords, and only five percent were "master" swordsman and keep in what mind kind of knight you are talking about, and the warriors phycology, -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 17:07
I don't know, but so far all college professors I've met or had the chance to interract with used punctuation and didn't seem to have any difficulties with the English syntax, morphology or spelling. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 17:17
|
What has this got to do with Knight vs. Samurai? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 17:25
Indirectly a lot. It has something to do with language difficulties and misunderstanding. Still, I'm not quite sure whether I got you right. Was your post to say that you're a college prof or that your source comes from a college prof? Moreover, I think you forgot to give us some referrence to your source. (sorry if I just overlooked). |
Posted By: babyblue
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 17:26
Yes, it would be if both are in for a slashing match. But bear in mind that even in a samurai to samurai fight, it's anything but a slashing match. Ever heard of jujitsu? It was an art developed by the samurai to grapple, throw and pin an opponent, to the point where they can just insert a dagger between the armour plates. That would too be the case in a knight vs samurai fight. To think they'll just stand there and strike at eachother with their sword's just silly. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 20:25
|
Yes I know about jiujitsu, do you know about medieval martial arts? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 20:27
Which ones do you mean? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 20:32
|
Just about all of them, Again it depends on which era your talking about. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 20:59
OK so let's go to England, around 1200. Which ones? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2008 at 23:00
|
Well just to name a few there's wrestling and grappling (I think those will always be around) and boxing, however in most fight books the combatants are grappling so a sword fight would look like a wrestling match with swords in france there was an art called Le jeu de de la hauche, (a lot of thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century martial art's probably would have been practiced in the twelth also see the arma forum they have thread that anserw's that question) play of the axe however it was probably practiced in england too, and I would sugget that you go to the A.R.M.A website for more information and there are hundreds of fight books that show open handed blows, various attacks and ways to defeat them to numerous to mention here, bone breaking, eye gouging, ear tearing, submission holds, chokes, and locks, death strikes, and even pressure point manipulation, also go to wikipedia and look up medieval martial arts, and keep in mind I'm no expert, and this is purely a speculative thread. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Ikki
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 00:20
|
Knight withou doubt. When time advance is more and more clear that the original advantageous position of samurai in this type of threads was because an overstimation of the japanese quality in all military fields and at the same time an understimation, or directly ignorance, of the medieval and renaissance european way of war. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 00:26
|
I agree. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 08:31
Didn't you mention you were college professor?? |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 08:33
Le jeu de la hache. |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 08:34
| I could perhaps ask my friends who do eastern martial arts and the one who does western fencing to compare. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 09:15
|
In English 'knight' is a social rank, not a type of warrior: a noble who is not a member of the peerage, and whose title is not hereditary. So too in Japanese a 'samurai' was a member of the imperial bureaucracy of the 6th rank and below.
Both knights and samurai could be civilians or soldiers (or indeed sailors). What they had in common was that they were dependant on an overlord - a baron or a daimyo. ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 15:04
|
Very true, also asian and medieval martial arts both have their own strengths and weaknesses, thats like saying that there was an ultimate sword. oh and I never said I was a college professor, my source is. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 15:17
OK you just didn't put it clear. So the source is...? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 15:36
|
The complete roman army, by Adrian Goldsworthy -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Carpathian Wolf
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 17:14
|
I've noticed this in general about the Japanese. Since they only fought against themselves, their techniques and equipment often stagnated and crumbled. For example they were so stuck in their ways when the Mongols arrived they were suprised they didn't fight 1 v 1 duels the whole way through and were easily crushed.
But let's compare a samurai with a "knight". One would be wearing the japanese armor which is fairly soft but clunky, vs the knight's armor say, not full italian plate, but perhaps even a chainmail skirt, some grieves and a good helmet.
My question is what is a katana going to do to that? The sharp end of a katana is very easily damaged. I think the only reason this comparisant is even being made and taken half seriously by anybody is because of the popularity of eastern martial arts and "samurai", "Katana" etc.
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 17:18
So he says the average knight would have the height of ca. 190cm?? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 19:04
|
No thats how tall the romans required their soldiers to be, and he got that from actual roman military documents -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 19:07
As I said thats horrible mistake. Probably he messed up Roman measurements. Or maybe you translated them into modern imperial system where one foot is probably not the same as one Roman era foot. |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 19:50
|
I have this book, I just skimmed through it and couldn't find it. Do you mind pointing me to the page it says this? Reason I ask it because I always heard the opposite and have seen comparisons on skeletal remains of Roman Legionaries and Germanic Warriors, where the former was said 5'6" and the latter 5'8" on average. Thanks in advanced. ------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey 
|
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:09
|
Your word against a college professor who research's these things and reads actual roman military documents. also this thread is about knight vs. samurai not about the roman army, please, please go make your own thread. also the romans may have excepted shorter soldiers, provided they had enough brawn to make up for it, and medieval armor is made for men who just under six feet or who were six five. also those bones may not be legionnaires, they could be camp followers, or mabye people exhumed the soldiers remains and buried someone else there, and the soldiers actual remains got thrown into the tiber not to mention the fact that romans cremated the corpses -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:20
|
Same old story, Belisarius. I actually remember reading about excavations from one 15th century battle site in England (From the Wars of the roses). The soldiers compared with modern man were indeed shorter - around 1,70m to 1,75m, but they were lot sturdy. So there is your average knight, count Belisarius, The knights in southern Europe were even more shorter than that. Seriously no one buys into your rantings about medieval armor being made for 6' to 6' 5'' tall studs. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:51
|
Yet the fact remains that real battle armor was built for guys who were six five. and you have given me no sources whatsoever, and this thread is about Knight vs. samurai, not about how tall medieval people were, people like you take one phrase and run with it ruining perfectly good threads. please go start your own thread. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 28-Jul-2008 at 22:56
Count Belisarius, I think you are perceiving conflict where there may not be any. Please try to be a bit more cordial to others who post in the topic. You will find that people will be less willing to discuss if you appear too quarrelsome. Thanks.
------------- http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas |
Posted By: SearchAndDestroy
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 03:25
------------- "A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 03:58
|
Okay, only people 6 foot plus were knights? That is completely false. It is pretty much common knowledge that people in the past were shorter than people today for whatever reasons- diet, climate, etc. Today the average height for men isn't 6 feet tall. Its more like 5'8''-5'10''. In the US the average height for men is about 5'10''. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_height_for_men_in_the_US If the average height of today isn't even 6 foot, there is absolutely know way that only men 6 feet tall or greater were accepted as knights hundreds of years ago. ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 04:57
|
Yet the fact remains that medieval armor is made for men who were just under six feet, or six five. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 06:34
|
I'm sure there were some knights who were 6'5. But the majority? No.
------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 10:54
Goldsworthy is not a professor. Also he is a specialist in Roman history, so why anyone should take any particular notice of his views on either Japanes history or medieval Europe I don't know.
Incidentally, since when could you tell the height of a Roman from his armour? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 11:14
But you're the one who started all the stuff about how tall knights were, with your proposition that they averaged 6ft 5 inches. Also you've given no sources to support your proposition (which runs counter to standard beliefs) - all you've done is quote a researcher on the Roman army as if that had anything to do with anything.
And you can't even give a page reference in that book either.
For a detailed study of height developments over the last two millenia (a pretty complex affair) see http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/wwl/koepke_baten_twomillennia.pdf - http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/wwl/koepke_baten_twomillennia.pdf . Go to page 17 for a quick reference. But don't get confused by the fact that at first sight it seems women were taller than males at one time: the male and female lines use different scales.
------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 12:07
|
Before the "knight" will make a choice of weapons and armor the samurai will be too old to fight.
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm - http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm
How about a samurai vs knight, each using the oponent complement(s) of weapons and armor?
|
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 14:43
|
what period weapons and armor? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 29-Jul-2008 at 14:53
Good article.
------------- |
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 12:12
What page? (the one Search and Destroy asked you for) |
Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 14:05
|
I believe that the source of the armor was made for 6'5'' people may be the link that Cezar shared with us. I found that discussed there, immediately following the statement that most Europeans at the time were much shorter than that.
------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 14:39
|
Most, as in the peasants who wern't wealthy enough to afford meat -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Roberts
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 16:03
Peasants were wealthy enough to keep chickens, pigs and cows for meat. |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 17:38
|
Yeah and guess who got the lions share? also they had to pay taxes. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 21:42
Excuuuse me?! |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2008 at 23:34
|
You've never heard of taxes? BTW I can back that claim up with a letter written by Ulrich Von Hutten -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Slayertplsko
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 19:04
And you think the peasants could drink air and eat trees?  We all have read kids' books on medieval history.Anyway, where is it that Goldsworthy mentions the height of Roman soldiers?? What page? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2008 at 19:18
|
No I never said peasants drank air and ate trees and I do not read childrens books about the middle ages please do not insult my intelligence. I do not remember the page number, so sorry. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2008 at 16:48
|
Vegetius says in De Re Militari that roman leggionaires were required to be at least six feet tall and marius time the leggionaires were required to be at least five ten, now in our inches that approx. five six, and in vegetius time the legionnaires were five feet nine and half inches tall which isn't tall but thats not exactly short either and goldsworthy says that the ursa legion required their men to be at least six feet (not sure if thats six feet in our inches or roman inches) and his theory was that they may have excepted shorter troops if they had brawn to make up for it and a country boy won't heft farm tools all his life without building some sort of muscle and vegetius backs that claim up saying that if a legionnaire and a good build and he was strong and brave do not be overly concerned about his height. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Bernard Woolley
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 08:13
That was a fun essay. One passage confused me, though:
"despite their later acquired reputation for swordsmanship, the samurai's primary weapon was, in fact, not the sword. The sword really did not even become a premier weapon of samurai culture and reach its cult status until the mid to late 17th century when the civil warring period ended . . . the majority of single combats between samurai described in feudal Japanese literature took place with daggers not swords. But for sake of discussion, let us assume such for both fighters in this imaginary case."
Why acknowledge that a premise is faulty, only to continue with that premise anyway?
|
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2008 at 00:02
|
He's saying that let's assume the samurai is using a katana for the sake of the argument. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 00:21
|
BY the way has anyone checked out the A.R.M.A website? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 18:04
|
Hello is anyone out there? come on let's discusss this. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 23:08
|
It is the one who kills the other one first. Not much to discuss.
------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 23:35
|
That's to simpilistic what will enable one to kill the other first pray tell? what about terrain tactic's, training, phycology, and physiology? what sort of weapon's will they be using? are they on foot or mounted? how many peolple will there be? where are they fighting? whaqta sort of weather? the list goes on. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 27-Aug-2008 at 23:57
Not really sure what you are getting at. Yes, all of those things are included. Even a small tweak can decide the outcome. It is like asking if no armour is better than having thick armour, each has its advantages, and each would win over a series of trials. Therefore this is a pointless topic. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 00:03
|
How is this a pointless topic? the thread is about knight vs. samurai and it is meant to be a serious and amusing intellectual exersize and no one forced you to contribute, so which warrior do you think would win? another fight worth considering is a medieval japenese peasent levy versus a european peasent levy or what about a siege? -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 00:10
It could happen like this. The knight swings his sword at the samurai and and he drops to the ground. The samurai pulls the knight down and when they were wrestling on the ground the samurai found a gigantic mole on the knight's face. The samurai thinks, "Man that is the biggest mole I have ever saw!". Then the knight cuts his head off with a dagger while he was thinking about how big his mole was. ------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 00:25
 Good one I laughed out loud. -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 01:00
|
they both die to english long bowmen but on topic i will go with the knights there swords are designed to break/shatter bones and armour samai swords are for cutting things and full plate aroumor is shiny so gets my vote (i do like shiny things) |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 01:11
|
I am just stating that there are too many variables. And yes, even the size of an opponent's mole can decide the battle.
------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 02:18
That's an extremely cartoonish picture of medieval life.
While it is true that most peasants did not often get to enjoy a diet rich in meat, particularly after the establishment of intensified agriculture from the 10th century onwards, they certainly would usually have a diet better than "gruel" - excepting famines of course.
Your typical medieval peasant in the age after intensified agriculture has a diet that was largely grain based. What type of grain would vary from region to region. Rye was common in Russia and eastern France, barley and wheat more common in England. Whatever the staple crop, bread was the typical outcome and the staple meal of the medieval peasant. Access to beer and wine was also not uncommon, again depending on what the region was best at producing. Staple foods would be supplemented by vegetables and perhaps fruits, which again depended on regional suitability. ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 12:15
|
If I'm correct then the samurai often used long polearms upon horseback. Plus, I doubt that the horse can get against an arrow... ------------- |
Posted By: rider
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 12:18
|
If it's a katana then the timeperiod is rather off and the late 16th/17th century European 'knights' would be easy meat... ------------- |
Posted By: Count Belisarius
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2008 at 15:47
|
Why do you think that? the katana is a sword not a light saber it can't cut through high quality steel plate. http://http//www.thearma.org/%20 - http//www.thearma.org/ -------------
Defenders of Ulthuan, Cult of Asuryan (57 Kills and counting)
|