They are both mounted in an open feild.
2007-05-07 14:36:29 · 10 answers · asked by Chase 5 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
Oops! I mean "field"! Sorry!
2007-05-07 14:36:59 · update #1
perelandra- hate to break it to you, but the Katana may have been sharp, but it could not cut through other steel weapons. Also guys, don't forget about the knight's sheild!
2007-05-07 15:09:58 · update #2
mercierarmory- Thank you for you input on here, though I was merely asking people who they think would win and so far your answer has many valid points. Though you did forget that not all knights used swords, many used lances, spears, and maces as well.
2007-05-08 06:51:38 · update #3
God, not this question, why do people have to ask such things? I will still try to answer though. THE ONE WITH THE BETTER TRAINING WOULD WIN. There is no way to tell unless we went back in time and arranged a fight. This is the exact same thing as comparing a tae kwon do student to say, a boxer. Or perhaps a muay tai fighter to kung fu. It always comes down to training in the end. Who ever is the better fighter wins.
To John B: Read the facts, don't comment on common myths. "the knight would have very little mobility, and might not even be able to arise off the ground" BS there! There is no truth to this whatsoever! The armor was made to fit and you can easily move in it. You can even do rolls and flips in it (not that there is any purpose for that though) I do it myself during demos to show that your statement is totally false.
I think Johnny4laws is the only intellegent person answering this question.
To Perlanda: the knight knows how to move a horse too. People need to stop thinking the katana was some magical mysterious weapon. It was made of steel. Plain and simple. It does not have super properties to make it cut through stuff. And then your comment of "The way those medieval knights were armored was a joke--they were so heavy they had to be lifted into their saddles" is full of crap. Its not true! You didn't have to be lifted. End of story. You climbed up like everyone else.
In response to Broadsword: I have to waive the BS flag for you too. Japanese weapons did not always weigh less. The average 2 handed European sword usually never weighed more than 3 1/2 pounds.
To Ken S: What the heck are you talking about? Ransom? Give me a break! They were just as well trained as any Japanese soldier. Also, the European sword was not a "smashing sword" That is just stupid. It was just as quick as a Japanses blade and required just as much skill to use properly. How in the world is a katana, about the same length as a European blade, going to "get inside" when at close distance??? That makes no sense!
To Inaya: You are a moron. "gothic knights werent really too bright, europeans werent really all that bright to begin with" That has to be one of the dumbest things I have heard all day. You have no basis for this and are pulling stuff out of your backside.
2007-05-08 04:43:11 · answer #1 · answered by mercierarmory 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would bet on the samurai for several reasons.
First being the overall training differences between the two. The knight came from the upper class of society and was more concerned about gaining glory and ransom from this fellow knights. In battle the knights did fight but a lot of the time they were more concerned about capturing other knights and holding them for ransom. The samurai on the other hand was trained to kill or be killed. It was honorable to be the victor but it was also concerned honorable to die in a fight.
The second reason I'd pick the samurai has already been mentioned. The mobility of the samurai is much greater then the knight. The samurai would be able to dodge attacks and have a lighting counter-attack.
The third is their weapons. The question didn't mention if the knight had a lance or not. If the knight had a lance he could dehorse the samurai from a distance. If it came to only swords I'd go back to the samurai. The katana is a quicker sword meant for stabbing and slashing while the broad sword was a slower smashing and stabbing sword. Once at close range the katana could get inside the broad sword and do some damage. Yes I know the armor would help the knight but I believe the katana could find gaps to do damage.
2007-05-07 18:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by Ken S 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Gothic Knight Armor
2016-10-31 23:06:10 · answer #3 · answered by shade 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume that the samurai would be victorious due to the lifelong training. Gothic Knights normally had to deal with some sort of vocation other than that of a soldier, such as a blacksmith, farmer, ect. Gothic Knights usually had families that clouded or enhanced their abilities, which the samurai generally lacked.
Samurai are also quicker and more accurate. They weild smaller and lighter swords. Also they are trained more extensively with other weapons such as the bow, and their own hands. Mythbusters had busted the myth that a sword could break another sword, it would require more force than a human can produce. Plus if the Kung Fu movies hold true, the samurai had awesome vocal grunts that would devistate an entire opposing army!
2007-05-07 14:53:03 · answer #4 · answered by Broadsword 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is likely that a Gothic era knight would win because of his armor protection. Although most full metal suits of armor were decorative and not worn in battle, a Gothic medieval knight would have worn chain mail, helmet, gauntlets, and other protection. Also, it is likely that his armor would be more protective than any traditional Japanese Samurai armor.
2007-05-07 14:45:01 · answer #5 · answered by Johnny4laws 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No question, the samurai. The armed knight is almost 100% helpless once he loses his horse, so the samurai would just have to kill or immobilize the horse and the knight would have very little mobility, and might not even be able to arise off the ground. Go for mobility over armor every time.
2007-05-07 14:40:41 · answer #6 · answered by John B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The samurai would win. His armor is much lighter, he would know how to move with his horse, and his katana would probably shear right through a medieval lance or sword. The way those medieval knights were armored was a joke--they were so heavy they had to be lifted into their saddles!
2007-05-07 14:45:15 · answer #7 · answered by perelandra 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
im betting on the knight. even though the samurai sounds cool, he has very light armor. he dosent stand a chance!
also a knight trains from the time he is very young! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight
2007-05-07 14:46:25 · answer #8 · answered by skateboardboi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
samurai hands down..... the samuarai may not have had the sharpest sword but definitely had the skill.. gothic knights werent really too bright, europeans werent really all that bright to begin with,
2007-05-07 20:39:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Amen to that answer! Someone on here knows what they are talking about!
2007-05-08 04:46:25 · answer #10 · answered by Mike S 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋