Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the samurai has a bow and arrow the samurai. Even in an open field he could just shoot the horse as it charged, if it goes down the knight is toast.
a knight. samuari were tiny and had no armor to speak of, vikings no armor and possibly not as well trained. knights trained all of the time.
You're getting Samurai confused with Ninja. Samurai did indeed have armor.
Vikings most likely come in 3rd place here, they are the most undisciplined and untrained warriors in this competition. Samurai most likely come in 2nd, though they wore armor and rode horses, they were physically smaller than their medieval knight counterparts, and in battle, that is a detriment.
The knight looses out every time. The armor weighs too much and is a burden to work with.
The viking would crush the Knight and if the knight was on a horse, all that is needed is to knock him off the horse. Have you imagined being out in an armor suit in the day time?
The Viking relies on the team to get things done. Also the attack takes place on water. It is brute strength. On a one on one fight the Viking can over come the safety of the armor. Possibly not the skill of the samurai.
The Samurai uses not only the speed and the blade, but the mind and stealth.
The knight or the Samurai, depending on the cirumstances.
The knights had bigger, heavier horses and armor (Japanese armor being as much to deter arrows as swords). The early Samurai had mounted archery skill. So it depends on the era and terrain. Early Samurai could get the jump on early knights with the bamboo bows, but, imo, there is no possible way a late era Samurai with only shock weapons could stand against a knight in plate armor.
Vikings are not really in the question, as the weapons were just not sophisticated enough. However, in a war between armies they are arguably the best of all, as their river snekka gave them absurd strategic mobility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
The knight looses out every time. The armor weighs too much and is a burden to work with. .
Completely a myth based on a few very late era examples meant to deter gun fire. Even in the fifteenth century knights could literally pole vault in their armor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE
The Samurai uses not only the speed and the blade, but the mind and stealth.
Not sure where you get this from. Even in being mounted archers, they were well known to disdain tactics and come foward shooting without any of the subtleties of their Turko-Mongolian ancestors.
Samurai definately thought in terms of an honorable, straight-ahead style of fighting not dissimilar to the knights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShooterScott
a knight. samuari were tiny and had no armor to speak of, vikings no armor and possibly not as well trained. knights trained all of the time.
Samurai had quality armor, but it was more meant to deter arrows than swords. Very high quality, however.
Last edited by cachibatches; 01-17-2017 at 01:48 PM..
The knight or the Samurai, depending on the cirumstances.
The knights had bigger, heavier horses and armor (Japanese armor being as much to deter arrows as swords). The early Samurai had mounted archery skill. So it depends on the era and terrain. Early Samurai could get the jump on early knights with the bamboo bows, but, imo, there is no possible way a late era Samurai with only shock weapons could stand against a knight in plate armor.
Vikings are not really in the question, as the weapons were just not sophisticated enough. However, in a war between armies they are arguably the best of all, as their river snekka gave them absurd strategic mobility.
Completely a myth based on a few very late era examples meant to deter gun fire. Even in the fifteenth century knights could literally pole vault in their armor.
Not sure where you get this from. Even in being mounted archers, they were well known to disdain tactics and come foward shooting without any of the subtleties of their Turko-Mongolian ancestors.
Samurai definately thought in terms of an honorable, straight-ahead style of fighting not dissimilar to the knights.
Samurai had quality armor, but it was more meant to deter arrows than swords. Very high quality, however.
So the French armor at agincourt was to deter gunfire?
So the French armor at agincourt was to deter gunfire?
Because it sure did them in, didn't it?
I am not going to waste a lot of posts on this, but just elaborate a bit for those interested. Plate armor only weight 80 pound or so, which is virtually nothing distributed over the body. They can, and did, polevault over walls in it.
The problem at Agincourt was the extreme muddiness of the fields, which would have hampered any great host attacking with shock weapons, especially those on horseback. Not every fight is going to be on a muddy field. As we have already said that the battlefield determines the conditions, yes, the Samurai would absolutely win a fight in mud.
By the way, the English were also wearing armor.
The rains were also why the crossbow underperformed, as the longbow was a much more durable weapon.
Vikings had normally an axe, a shield and a dagger. They succeeded mostly because they were individually trained skilled warriors with a healthier diet than their opponents, mentally and physically stronger.
Also because they did not follow Marquess of Queensberry (or similar) Rules.
But I believe the Samurai would have the advantage. It would be repetitively easy to take down a Knight - horsed or not.
I don't think the Viking would be able to stand against the speed and sharpness of the Samurai's blade.
I think what is missing from this question though is the "gun slinger," he would easily take them all out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
