Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ibeforetheu t1_j0in4l8 wrote

In feudal Japan and European times, how, many Samurais do you think would be able to defeat one knight, both sides in full local armor and weapons?

1

desolateheaven t1_j0ipvbm wrote

Any archer with a hauberk (cross-bow) was more than capable of bringing down a knight in full armour, and they did. Once on the ground, halberdiers could cut his throat with a simple knife, much less a pike or broadsword. The age of armoured cavalry was a short one in Europe. I expect Samurai, should they have found themselves on a medieval European battlefield, might have found that a bit tricky too. Maybe try a different video game?

1

ibeforetheu t1_j0iq2c5 wrote

So you're saying one samurai with a bow kills a knight?

1

desolateheaven t1_j0iqj8g wrote

With a cross-bow? Where did you get that from? Which video-game?

1

ibeforetheu t1_j0isgrn wrote

I'm just asking if a samurai or how many Samurais could defeat a knight

1

desolateheaven t1_j0iu6bs wrote

OK, your question is completely implausible. Samurai and Medieval knights never encountered each other. Except in fantasy video games. European Medieval knights went into battle, fully armoured, which did them no good, because their chainmail was easily penetrated by the arrows of cross-now archers. These were not Robin Hood willow branch bows, but projectile trigger action cross-bows (think of them as an early rifle). I don’t think the Samurai had anything like this, so they would have been destroyed if they had faced a European Medieval army. Heavier iron armour did those knights no good, because it was so heavy that once knocked off their horse, they couldn’t get up again. From the C17 onwards, no one relied on the cavalry (Knights) in Europe except as “shock and awe” to terrify civilians. Wars were won with fire-power - artillery. There is a basic reason why Europeans went like fire and flood through so many nations, to their great disgrace, because they really had better technology for making war.

2

ibeforetheu t1_j0ivjex wrote

So I understand they never met each other, I just wanted to get a hypothetical. But didn't japanese have crossbows too? Also what about Ghengis Khan's cavalry archers? They didn't use crossbows and they defeated the knights in Ukraine

1

desolateheaven t1_j0ixi4n wrote

As stated, your idea of Samurai facing Medieval European knights is pure video-game. Neither went one on one with each other, or even their own cohorts, so I will leave it the great fantasy in the sky. This is the history forum, after all.

1

en43rs t1_j0kkokl wrote

Yes, arrows work on knights. At Agincourt the English did not decimate the French with crossbows but longbows. Japan had those too.

Without trying to be dismissive this question isn't really answerable because it's based on a false premise. That you can compare Knights and Samurai. Knights and Samurais are not npcs with stats in a rpg. They were not a monolith. They were professional warriors who knew how to adapt to how war was fought. Yes the French knights were decimated by longbows... that's why the next time they showed up with a lot of crossbowmen (they still lost but they tried to adapt). When the gun was introduced to Japan the warriors immediately adopted it, just like the knight did in Europe. You can't compare them because faced with a new situation, they will change and adapt. They don't follow a script.

There is no one knight you can compare to one samurai. There was a wide range of different techniques to use in different situations. Due to Hollywood we tend to forget that this, for example did you know that European knights often used axes? In close quarter is easier to use than a sword. We rarely see that.

In the end those are two warriors who can adapt, they are two professional men who fight broadly with the same technology... so depending on the situation it's basically 1 vs 1. Because it's one man without firearm and with a full armor against one man without firearm and with a full armor.

1