ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
Knight vs Samurai - Accurate Historical Comparison
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ส.ค. 2024
- A comparative video based on accademic research. Here I shall examine the European Knight and compare his weapons armours and fighting style with that of the Japanese samurai.
Samurai (侍) were the military nobility and officer caste of medieval and early-modern Japan.
In Japanese, they are usually referred to as bushi (武士?, [bu.ɕi]) or buke (武家?).
By the end of the 12th century, samurai became almost entirely synonymous with bushi, and the word was closely associated with the middle and upper echelons of the warrior class. The samurai were usually associated with a clan and their lord, and were trained as officers in military tactics and grand strategy. While the samurai numbered less than 10% of then Japan's population, their teachings can still be found today in both everyday life and in modern Japanese martial arts.
As aristocrats for centuries, samurai developed their own cultures that influenced Japanese culture as a whole. The culture associated with the samurai such as the tea ceremony, monochrome ink painting, rock gardens and poetry were adopted by warrior patrons throughout the centuries 1200-1600. These practices were adapted from the Chinese arts.
In general, samurai, aristocrats, and priests had a very high literacy rate in kanji. Recent studies have shown that literacy in kanji among other groups in society was somewhat higher than previously understood.
Some samurai had buke bunko, or "warrior library", a personal library that held texts on strategy, the science of warfare, and other documents that would have proved useful during the warring era of feudal Japan. One such library held 20,000 volumes. The upper class had Kuge bunko, or "family libraries", that held classics, Buddhist sacred texts, family histories, as well as genealogical records.
A samurai was usually named by combining one kanji from his father or grandfather and one new kanji. Samurai normally used only a small part of their total name.
Thank you so much for watching.
My related video Chivalry vs Bushido • Chivalric Code vs Bushidō
My friend Knyght Errant's channel: / neosonic66
"Kusunoki masashige". Con licenza CC BY 2.0 tramite Wikimedia Commons - commons.wikime....
"KofunCuirass". Con licenza Pubblico dominio tramite Wikimedia Commons - commons.wikime....
"Hon kozane dou gusoku" di Ian Armstrong - www.flickr.com/.... Con licenza CC BY-SA 2.0 tramite Wikimedia Commons - commons.wikime....
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
www.facebook.c...
/ puremetatron
/ realmetatron
Royalty free music by Epidemic Sound:
intro ES_Knights Templar 1 - Johannes Bornlöf
intro 2 ES_Medieval Adventure 01 - Johannes Bornlöf
outro ES_Knights Templar 2 - Johannes Bornlöf
Check out the facebook page of the photographer who works with me, he has lots of fantastic pictures
www.facebook.c...
and his instagram
www.facebook.c...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
![[Official Music Video] ฝังใจ - BOW Maylada [Prod. By Tan LIPTA]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rSjk1jKWRN4/mqdefault.jpg)
Samurai Armor: "You cannot be 100% protected."
Plate Armor: "Bullshit."
guns: im gonna end this man whole career
keng henry the 8ths foot combat armour protects the groin, armpits and knee joints, possible as close as incasing a man entirely in steel, i'll take this as 100% protectio
Are you idiot?! Samurai armour is not for protect samurai 100 %. It is for give samurai flexibility to be fast and fatal.about weapons katana is 100000000000- sharper than any European sword if katana is in good hand any opponent is doomed. You better read who wad best Swordsman in world. He was Miyamoto Musashi, Ronin!!!!
@@merabsturua3854 Myamoto Musashi did bludgeon most of his opponents with a stick. This basically gives the general understanding of how much actual art of swordsmanship in those times was worth. If a guy with stick can break any stance and style of any so called "school" of that time this means, that something is not right with the thinking. Also, stop playing too many computer games and go to do some more serious research as I really do not buy all of this "100000000000-sharper" thing. Katanas look nice, but that's pretty much all about them.
@@merabsturua3854 man you need to understand that sharpness is not the only parameter, weight is also a necessary component in how much damage something can do, true a Katana cut faster and better, but not by much considering that a long sword while not as sharp has more weight and force is the result of mass times acceleration.
The greatest advantage of the European sword, is the secret, certain-death technique known as unscrewing and throwing the pommel.
End him rightly
lmao
This meme again...
Alexander Aliara look m8s, tell me more historical memes and i'll stop.
If not, rightly end thy moaning . -.
I could quote the pompeiian graffiti memes, but saying "April 19th, i made bread" just dosen't have the same punchline as "end him rightly"
lol, modern day soldiers carry more weight into battle than a knight did. where did that whole "big slow knights" myth come from?
Probably because RPG video games give heavily armored classes the disadvantage of being heavy and slow, to offset them from all the ultra-light assassin-style classes
It's because many of the surviving armors are jousting armors and not battlefield armors. Jousting armors are heavy and unwieldy.
@@404Dannyboy Yep 'cause in that specific situation, durability is far more important than flexibility
Its the armour
It came from a stupid random internet kid commenting throughout the website. Internet is the biggest misleading crap in the whole wide world.
Knights win because they have a natural advantage of military progression where as Japan didn’t need the same armor
What about in strategy? Its not about armors and weapons. Also beware from the assasins.
@Huynherful Europeans used firearms and cannons before the Japanese tho
@Huynherful man u're silly, and knight has flintlock
@Huynherful European knights will always have an advantage, the only one who doesn't think so is usually people who already have a bias for the Japanese... both are very super skilled, but again, better advantage = better chance to always win (even so if its 1v1 battle), and that belongs to the European knights.
The reason samurai is so OP is because everyone else in Japan is using spear wielding conscripted farmer which is why samurai love using katana and tachi, good at butchering farmers not so good against well armoured opponent like knights.
Okay, you've convinced me: knights trained just as hard, could do a lot of the same things, had more types of weapons available, _and_ had better armor. Dang.
I think when you are that much armored, techniques are completely irrelevant.
samurai would have hard time to even figure how to kill a paralyzed knight.
while knight only has to swing his sword until he finally hits opponent in vulnerable point
deltaxcd No, a trained and experience samurai would know to look for and exploit any weakness their opponent has, or create one if necessary. Trust me, you don't want to mess with either a knight or a samurai.
Depending on how you set your boundaries. Samurai arose in the 6th century while Knight's in the 8th. 8th century knights didn't wear full plated armor and carried short swords and leather or wooden shields. At the end of the knights history they were clad in full suited armor with long swords, on the other hand the end of the samurai had them using flintlock guns. So if we go by end of era standards the samurai shoots the knight in the face.
Christopher Jones
How do you think samurai can create weakness in knight?
They did not trained to fight opponents wearing inprenetable full body armor. they did not even trained to do stabbings and their swords are not deigned for stabbing so katakana is just as useful as wooden stick against any decent armor.
deltaxcd A katana actually can thrust fairly well, but it's simply better at draw-cuts.
***** Samurai were also in constant battle with each other for many centuries, fighting for their respective clans. Do you think they would just stand still? Knowing how to create an opening is essential for any trained warrior. To them, it's just common sense. If you can't find a weakness, stay defensive and keep looking for an opportunity to create one, possibly by tripping up your opponent, or attacking from different angles, or just bashing with your hilt or limbs if you need to. Keep in mind Samurai also knew how to grapple with their opponent and use hand-to-hand techniques, and they weren't stupid.
Another excellent video, very enjoyable.
This topic can be a tricky one to approach as there's many opinions out there. I've even found a school of thought that feels comparisons like this should never be made and could never reach a definitive answer, which I disagree with. I love cross culture comparisons and the knight vs samurai is especially fun because they're so similar. Of course at the end of the day the combatant with the greater skill will generally win, but all things being equal I too give the advantage to the knight due to their superior armor and more developed/specialized weaponry. It also has to be said that 15th century European smelting and forging technology was also superior. Their armor was not only steel, it was hardened steel where, as I understand it, most Japanese armor was made of iron.
+I am Shad Culture comparison was and has been my field of research together with languages so I do feel that it is important to do it, but it must be done with respect and with a mind free from mindsets, not an easy thing to do to switch off all those filters^^ yep, steel vs iron, the victor is steel
+I am Shad Sorry mate I just want to point out, that nobody before modern times used iron. It was all steel, when you process iron ore or iron sand (which all contain iron oxids) then you reduce the oxid and ad carbon, wich is steel. You can heat treat steel differently to archieve different levels of hardness or flexibility but it doesn't change the combination of iron + carbon. Pure iron would by the way even softer than bronze. The japanese had a bad raw material for steel (iron sand) wich increased the working effort and time, therefore the price (localy) for steel products but the quality of the weapons and armour where similiar to the european products, I would say overall european steel products would be a bit more durable than japanese. Europe could produce more steel in the same time, specific locations had even relativly pure ore so you would have lesser slag and it was cheaper for militaries to buy weapons and armour and of course to experiment more.
A combination of leather and iron inner. Their sword are steel. They don’t use full metal armor. Guest it is faster. Then again metal Armor are just as fast if you was design correctly
Two things were omitted that are very important:
1) Genetics matter: Europeans by this point had bred larger and faster horses than the Japanese. In fact some of the Japanese horses were borderline ponies, and that limits their endurance and speed compared to war horses that were described as being 18 hands which is the size of a modern draft horse. Likewise, European men are physically larger on average than Japanese men, and we know that size matters which is why every fighting tournament in the world separates weight classes, as its not fair to have a heavy weight fighter fight a phantom weight as 99% of the time the lighter opponent would be destroyed.
2) Diet matters: Historical records indicate that Samurai ate a low-protein high carb diet, heavily reliant on white rice for calories, which is quite frankly a very poor diet for building muscle mass. Looking at armor sizes, in fact we can see that many Samurai were almost child-like in size by modern standards. European knights at this time, being the nobility, were eating a very high protein high fat diet, which can allow you to grow stronger with denser bones and put on more bulk. A Japanese Samurai would likely only average 5'2" because of this with a rather lightweight frame. European nobility would also not have been quite as tall as today, but would average around 5'9" due to nobles getting the best food (the peasantry obviously were smaller).
The idea that medieval horses were 18 hands is utterly ridiculous and a myth that has been totally debunked. They were 14 to 16 hands high. Japanese horses were about 14 hands high. Also the Japanese diet was better then and still is now.
The poor Samurai wouldn't stand a chance due to the thunderous rain of Pommels ending them all rightly.
MrBlur *What have you done* all I can think of is the sky darkening with pommels flying towards Japan
For honor reference?
@@user-uf4lf2bp8t For Honor is not the origin of that joke
@@javierescuella9709 what is it then. Im genuinely interested
@@user-uf4lf2bp8t It's from an old script (im not sure if the script is real or made up) but the youtuber Skallagrim made a video about it and he also doesnt know if it was a real technique used by knights. But since that video came out everyone started making memes about it. So you could say it started because of Skallagrim.
Samurai: NOOOOOO you can't just stab me through the opening in my helmet.
Kmight: longsword goes stabby stabby.
What openings, I mean if you were to take a look at any samurai type armour it will come with the face guard that made stabbing in the face just as unlikely than stabbing a knight through the slits in his helmet
Apollo TheSunGod I hate to ruin your day man but you are aware that those facemask were generally made of thin wood and or are extremely thin metal That is also not sloped so virtually any sword would go straight through. Also just a sheer force of a blade hitting on a un sloped piece of armor on your face would mean nights out for you that’s why most knight armor helmets were made to be as sloped as possible because any sword hitting them would slide off and not slam onto their face. So many people have the misconception that because armor could stop a Blade It means it still wouldn’t do anything
Victoria Random you sound like a kid
Just an Italian Soldier who likes to retreat but in reality no one will go for face risking a hit on the head
@@voltgaming2213 dude it's just a joke
I also think the knight, but you forgot a few rather important things.
1. Half swording. This was designed in Europe in order to deal with heavily armored foes, by allowing the knight to use one hand to grab part of the blade to thrust with better control at the gaps. Also to note, the long sword could be flipped around to use the guard and pommel as a makeshift war hammer.
2. Tamahagane, which is what the Japanese used to make their katanas, is essentially pig iron. Sounds a lot less romantic. This was used because the iron in Japan was a lot lower in both quantity and quality.
3. Nearly all of the knight's weapons, especially by the 15th century, were designed to deal with armored foes. As you pointed out yourself, it's impossible to cut plate armor (chain too, for that matter), meaning nearly all of the samurai's weapons would be about useless against the knight's armor.
4. Finally, and one of the worst myths out there about the knight (not directed at you), is that their swords were not sharp and only used to bash. Basically a steel baseball bat. And certain shows like Game of Thrones have only helped keep this myth going (which is odd considering the weapons otherwise look fine). The long sword may not have always been sharp, but it could cut quite well. And it was never used to bash a person (except the guard and/or pommel), but to either cut them down (lightly armored) or pierce a weak spot in the armor (a heavily armored foe).
These are the reasons why I think the 15th century knight would overall win against the samurai.
Well, you could always unscrew the pommel and throw it at your enemy if you are having problems with their armor
Well, you could always unscrew the pommel and throw it at your enemy if you are having problems with their armor
+fromolwyoming I'm not sure, if halfswording is really an issue here... I see no obvious reason, why you couldn't halfsword with a Katana...
SC2Owl
The Katana is not really meant for half swording. That's the issue.
+fromolwyoming an arming sword wasnt meant for half swording either. In a straight up comparison of half swording, the katanas lack of edge is a huge edge.
I just stumbled upon your videos. Very thorough and interesting information. Unbiased, and based on facts, not opinions. Thank you.
+Karl Roberts Thank you for watching and it's good having you here ^^
+Metatron same here, loved the video, just one point of criticism though... the katana would be able to cut a little better that a long-sword, which is due to physics. the nature of a curved sword vs a straight sword is that the point of contact the edge has with the target will be longer, due to the curvature of the blade, which in theory allow the weapon to cut deeper. (german knights sometimes wielded a kriegsmesser for this purpose). would be completely irrelevant to fighting an opponent in full plate armor though... but just my thoughts on the katana vs long-sword. the difference in culture and beliefs could also be very important. there are a ton of ways in which the samurai were indoctrinated to die in battle, and honor in death over survival in shame. while in Europe I think that would be to a much lesser extent... but I am curious to see what difference that would make, if any.
+Karl Roberts Me too just now.. The only weird thing is his name. Metatron..?
***** I cringe a bit every time he says it.. Sounds so transformers fanboy. No offence towards metatron
***** That is true
I think the knight has another some additional points speaking for him. For example the katana is mainly a cutting weapon with a thick and curved blade. The problem is that you can’t do much with this against a plate armor because it only has tiny gaps to stab in. On the other hand the knight has a longer sword made to stab into the gabs of armor and there are a lot of gaps in the armor of a samurai ( in comparison to the full plate armor). Additionally the knight is trained to bypass better armor than the samurai even has so its not much of a hindrance to him, while the samurai needs to figure out how to even scratch the knight.
The katana was a secondary weapon the samurai usually always start with a spear or bow first
@@user-yr1td9so6x yeah so was the sword of a knight, their primary weapon usually was a polarem too, something like a lance usually. I mainly thought of a sword duel though but a confrontation on horseback or with a polaren would be interesting too.
@@user-yr1td9so6x thats isn't the point, its not about whats the main weapons. Were talking about the swords specifically
Yes. But the Japanese bow and arrow were incredibly weak compared to the European bow and arrows. With no more than 20m of flight. The English long bow had 400m of flight and packed a way bigger punch. Even that couldn't penetrate knights Armour in the 14th century. The Japanese bow and arrow would have been completely useless in combat against a European knight. Sorry my slant eyed bro, you need to go back to school and try harder.
The knight would absolutely fuck up a samurai one on one no doubt
“Unleash hell boys”
Yeets pommel rain on the Japanese lines.
I need to understand this meme
@@Iruka1991 there is manuscripts from 1430s in german fencing manual combat where it showed them untwisting there pummels and throwing it at them and wording that reads - end him rightly - If it was done is unknown or if it was made as a joke back then
@@therimzin4888 Some guy in the 1430s was like "Wanna know what would be funny?" and drew this. Fucking madlad
One thing very few people consider in "Longsword vs. Katana" debates are the crossguards. They were not just there to look nice, the crossguards in both swords provided protection to your hands. Without a crossguard, your enemy could press their sword down the shaft of your blade and slice into your fingers. While this wouldn't kill you, it would be both very painful and make it far more difficult for you to keep a firm grasp on your sword.
The longer crossguards on the longsword gave greater protection, allowing you to catch attacks aimed at the fingers specifically. It also could be used as a hammer, a hard point to bash your enemy even when you can't attack with the blade. There was even a historical technique where knights would grab the edge of their swords in their hand and bash at their enemy's helmet with the crossguard, turning their swords into a mace.
+notbobby125 While the Japanese didn't use their swords like a mace, they have a few techniques that involve using the tsuba to bind and parry the opponents weapon. So the concept is obviously not foreign to them. They made the tsuba as large as they needed it to be, and as small as they needed it to be.
+TheGuileRaven The cross guard protected the hands and could be used as a weapon, some were sharpened. Plus the pommel was a weapon too. Look up halfswording video clips.
The katana simply has far fewer points to use as a weapon.
+Hereticalable You can draw a katana directly into a slash, and you have much more control in close range with a katana.
TheGuileRaven you draw and slash with almost any sword. A longsword can be used at close range too...the pommel and cross guard are weapons too.
None of this means shit if you have no training of course.
+Hereticalable Most swords aren't shaped for drawing directly into a slash. For one, the long-sword is quite long and that makes it harder to draw. The lack of curve makes it even harder as you have to pull it straight out of the sheathe. Katana on the other hand are rather short, and the curve is at the end of the blade allowing you to flick it out directly into a slash.
Again kenjutsu also utilize binding with the cross-guard, and they also use pummel strikes in close range. The katana is shorter than the longsword and slightly more blade heavy which means you can get really deep cuts without needing a full swing.
You are like some kind of wise master, almost like a jedi.
+
like an elf u mean except a bit fat and not blonde hair
George The Dragon Slayer No. I think Jedi is a closer description.
He looks like a master who lives in an ancient stone temple of a cloudy, misty, asian mountain that would take ages to find and get to.
How about a fallen angel?
A knight and a samurai face off. The sounds of battle:
"Banzai!"
["Tink, tink, tink!"]
"Forsooth, methinks he is trying to give battle with that sad bow. I shall offer him the lance as an answer."
["Galloping"]
["Crash!"]
"Aaaah! Watashi wa shinde iru... (Ouch I'm dying!). Kore wa dō yatte dekimasu ka? (How can this be?). Watashi wa mubōbi ni naru hazudesu. (I am supposed to be undefeatable.). Watashi no kowarenai yoroi wa dōdesu ka? (What about my unbreakable armor?) Aaagh... gurgle gurgle... (Aaagh... gurgle gurgle...)"
"Squire! See if this poor chap can be bandaged. If not, please grab the fantastic letter openers he has sheathed at his side and round up that pony he was riding."
"Banzai!"
["Tink, tink, tink!"]
"Forsooth, methinks he is trying to give battle with that sad bow. I shall offer him the lance as an answer."
["Galloping"]
["Crash!"]
"Awarena, Darekaga watashi no yari no naga-sa ga 6 fīto nagaku natta to kare ni tsutaemashita ka?"...(Sigh, did anyone tell him my yari is 6 feet longer?)
"Squire....gblleeegghhh"
You are right, the armor is a loss of money and materials, you just need a stick long enough to cut them into pieces...
And let us not forget that 15th century knights were nothing but idiots who were incapable of protecting their very few weak points...
Lol
Please tell me you're Japanese or you learned Japanese in college or something and aren't just an absolute weeaboo...
liked for the "tink, tink, tink!"
I find it interesting how much of the debate on this subject tends to focus on katana vs. longsword rather than analyzing the extensive range of other weapons that both samurai and knight used and how they compare. (Perhaps they are simply the two most directly comparable weapons from their respective arsenals.)
Alright then Poleaxe vs Naginata
I personally believe the Poleaxe to be superior to the Naginata for one it is more versatile and better at dealing with Armour.
Yes it is funny as swords are like the equivalent of pistols today where as lance and spear are more like assault rifles in terms of effectiveness.
The spear or pike is arguably so effective that even the lesser trained could be quite effective with as long as they where disciplined
@@moritzschonemann2915 True. Naginata were designed to be used almost exclusively in groups or on horseback, so it makes sense that a lot of the martial arts around it would also tend to focus on techniques that would compliment it. Pretty sure they were used a lot by women too when it came to defending their house! Not exactly a weapon designed for dueling though, or dealing with heavily armoured opponents. Not to say that it *couldn't* be used in such situations, but I don't think it was made with that in mind.
@@moritzschonemann2915 Europeans also had a direct alternative to the Naginata - Glaive, Fauchard, and some other polearms are all in the same realm. 15th century plate armor and even earlier brigandines would severely reduce the effectiveness of Naginatas, while Pollaxes can devastate someone wearing 15th century plate armor.
@@robslowinski3085 * laughs in Zweihander *
Happy to see a very level and academic approach to this topic, which is often prone to a whole lot of misconception and myth! I hope you choose to do a comparison of bushido and chivalry in a future video, that would be very interesting! Thank you very much for the shout out as well, it's very appreciated.
+Knyght Errant Hey there, my pleasure and thank you again for watching :D I am also waiting for your next video mate ^^
Meant to formulate my own comment here, but seeing that Knyght Errant just put down the exact same sentiment that I would have chosen, I simply concur with him. I rarely ever subscribe to a channel after watching just one video (and rarely subscribe in general), but this one has done it for me. Please keep it going like this!
Prince Foxish Hey thank you so much for subscribing, I hope never to let you and your expectations down :D Working hard ;) thanks for watching ^^
Chivalry isn't real. It was invented by the victorians. There was no such thing as the chivalric code for knights.
@@binarekoharijanto4586 Ok... What is your point in relation to what we're talking about? I don't know why anyone would think the world is flat. That would involve never having been outside and seeing things come over the horizon as you approach them.
Extremely unbiased look into the hypothetical. Great video
Knight were the best warriors of an entire continent, Samurai were the best warriors of a group of islands; knights also fought in different kinds of campaigns and terrain between many countries so they had face different kinds of enemies while Samurai fought mostly among themselves.
"The Pollaxe"
>Shows a warhammer
Yea, i was wondering the same. I know this particular style of hammer as a "Crowbeak" (literal translation from german). As far as I know, the poleaxe wasn't used much during the 16th century, as the halbert was more commonly used, since it was better at dealing with cavalry (thanks to the speartip) and armor (thanks to the hammerhead or crowbeak). I doubt that pure poleaxes were used when people had the choice, since simple spears were more effective at the same task (I might be wrong on that tho).
@@Otek_Nr.3 I know it's an old comment but I think you may confuse the Pollaxe with another weapon, also treaties were mostly found dating to the 15th and 16th century. It's not really a weapon made to stop cavalry charges, Matt Eastern did a very nice video on it if you have not watched it by now, here is a link th-cam.com/video/l5mqf-GNIXI/w-d-xo.html
@@Otek_Nr.3 Don't you mean 15th century, as was the time frame being compared in the video?
Halberds and Poleaxes are very similar, both having a combination of axe/beak/hammer and a spike.
But in general the poleaxe was shorter and was meant for fully armoured fighting by the knightly class, like enlarged war hammers. Where as halberds were a bit longer, more towards a spear, and more commonly associated with the less well armoured common soldiers.
The halberd could be more closely compared to the spear, given it's use but does bring significantly more to the table when fighting armoured opponents.
The poleaxe I'm not sure can be compared to the spear, it deliberately gives up some of the reach of a spear to be a lot more effective in close-quarters fighting.
@@sergarlantyrell7847 Yea, you are probably right on this one. I did some more research into this topic since then, and i have to admit, that I got these mixed up =/
Thanks for the nice explanation :)
And just by the way, I find it extremely refreshing how people don't belittle others when they get something wrong, or even use insults. This community is great!
@@Otek_Nr.3 That's quite alright. It's good to know you took the initiative and did some more research.
I know, I hate bellittling groups, but I fear that's the direction the world is headed atm. You'll never convince/educate someone of something if you fundamentally don't respect them & their opinions.
I think the main thing is being a group that accepts they don't know everything already, and are keen to learn more.
I also think that the arms and armour purist community cares about the actual history, not about "being right" or trying to colour history, in which case the only enemy is misinformation, not the other person.
Btw out of interrest, which one did you get it mixed up with?
In my personal opinion, the knight would have a few advantages:
1. As mentioned in the video, he was better protected by his armor.
2. Contrary to what people might believe (mainly because of overly romantic ideas of the japanese culture), I think that the knight would have a skill advantage. I assume, that both are equally dedicated and also equally talented and have an equal time practicing. The knight however did not have to learn the archery that the samurai practiced. Archery at that level takes a very great deal of time and effort to learn. This simply leaves more time for the knight to train hand to hand combat.
These two combined leaves the knight in a position where he would have less weak spots to protect and be potentially more skilled at doing this. In real life it would depend on the actual skill level and talent of the two, but that being equal, in my opinion, the knight would have the advantage.
but that would also mean that the samurai could attack from a distance
wate nallace That's true. I'm not sure if the archery would pose a significant threat to a knight considering his good armor, but I might be mistaken on this. He might be able to injure the knight's horse, which would be a significant disadvantage to the knight. However, I'm not sure how good the horse's armor is, so this is speculation. I would say that the samurai is more versatile, but in hand to hand combat I would put my money on the knight.
ClimbingCalisthenics I didn't think about the armor, and you're kidding about hand to hand right? samurais used jiu-jitsu, do you mean close combat with swords?
wate nallace That's what I meant, yes. Not a native speaker here. ;-)
ClimbingCalisthenics oh lol I was like a samurai would wreck a knight if it was hand to hand
At around minute 17ish you make several mistakes.
1, You state plate armor to be heavier than Japanese armor of the period. This was not the case. It is somewhat counter-intuitive, but steel, especially steel plate armor is a lot lighter than one would think. The average weight of a full suit of plate, was essentially very similar to the weight of the armor of a Roman Legionnaire or a modern infantryman.
2, You ignore weight distribution, and make the assumption that the Samurai armor would be more mobile, which is again not the case because most of the Samurai armor's weight is carried on the shoulders of the Samurai, while Plate Armor is designed in a way which distributes weight. Which means that no single area of the Knights body is too heavily burdened, this allow an extremely great range of movement and mobility.
Otherwise good video.
The whole Roman equipment was equal to 15th century plate armor.
TotalBarbarian The Lorica, helmet, manica, greave and scutum, the full armor of a Roman soldier weighed in at around 25kg to 45kg, depending on the version of armor being used. Which is basically the same as the average weight of plate armor ranging from a lighter 15k to up to 50kg (tho the extremely upper weight ranges WERE NOT combat armors, but rather jousting armors designed for maximum protection and ignoring battlefield requirements like mobility.)
I think a common mistake when thinking of Roman armor is that people ignore the role of the shield. Which while is also a weapon onto itself, it is also part of the actual armor system. So it's weight should absolutely be counted into the armor weight.
The whole kit is the same weight, the segmentata, hamata, or squamata weighs about 20 or so pounds. then there are the weapons, tools, and food, and the helmet.
TotalBarbarian So what you are doing is comparing the weight of what is essentially a breastplate with full plate. Again, you need to take into account all armor pieces and the shield. Which alone was in the mid 20 pound range.
Plate wearers didn't typically use shields unless it was a jousting shield or a pavise (large stationary shield used during sieges, but not carried around).
I don't understand your point really. Yes full body plate weighed more than a Roman breastplate/mail, but Romans didn't only wear a breastplate for protection.
I think we are arguing the same thing... Roman equipment weight=medieval plate armor weight.
Thanks for the video. I want to be bold and say that the knight just flat out wins, 7 or 8 times out of 10. Their metal was superior because they had more advanced hardening techniques. Their sword was meant to be effective against armor and penetrate very well rather than be focused on cutting, whereas the katana was meant more for cutting than penetrating and dealing with armor. That means that the knight has the better weapon against the samurai because his weapon is meant more for dealing with armor. Not only that, but the knight's armor is just better, it covers more, it fits better, it allowed just as much speed and movement as the samurai armor, it had no disadvantage when compared to the samurai and only advantages. I understand the respect you have for the samurai, their armor and their weapons, but I don't think there needs to be so much hesitation when declaring a victor. I think it's very obvious that a knight wins when pitted against a samurai.
yeah, I believe knights would own. can't underestimate their armor man
@Michael Terrell II the knights armour was a bit better then japanese
@Mongolian Khan i dont remember hearing that
@Mongolian Khan also the mongols only won some battles. the knights won battles too. a mongol wont fair well against a steel plate late middle age knight
@Mongolian Khan and another thing is the samurai were very lucky as the mongols were picked off by 2 typhoons
@Michael Terrell II spanish swordsman vs samurai?
One small correction to 16:35, several Japanese armors such as O-Yoroi were actually heavier than full plate (30kg vs 15-25kg) despite usually being made for significantly smaller individuals. Additionally, since they weren't articulated, Samurai would have been much more restricted when fighting on the ground.
+Bathrobe Warrior Yeah... o-yoroi were basically hinged boxes.
+Sam “MrPercie” Percy Maybe, but unless the ground version weighs only a third as much it's not necessarily going to weigh less than plate. Also, I doubt O-Yoroi was useless on the ground given that a modern soldier can carry up to twice as much weight into battle.
+Bathrobe Warrior It has been some time since I studied Japanese history so my memory may be hazy but I recall Tokugawa expressing concern over his friend Naomasa Yi riding into battle wearing a suit of armor weighing more than 40 or 45 kg. Apparently he liked the look of the armor and it was completely impervious to musket fire(or so the book said). That is an absurd weight for an armor but I can't imagine he is the only one to wear such a heavy armor.
+ProgHead89 That is quite absurd xD.
+Bathrobe Warrior Hey Raph good to see you again ^^ thank you for that, I'll look more deeply into it :D
I have plenty experience in sparring with different weapons.
Longswords trump Katanas any day.
Longswords have superior reach, are double edged and have good hand protection, whereas the Katana has essentially no hand protection and not much reach for a two handed sword.
+Julius Cheeser just go for the best of both worlds the knecht
+Xel Tanni Real Japanese martial arts techniques weren't necessarily about the 'one hit kill'......as we know in reality even against an unarmoured AND unarmed opponent that's ridiculously unlikely......even if they stood there and let you the likelyhood of you killing them in a single blow isn't good (even with the legendary Katana that can cut through entire planets and Galaxies.)
Anyone designing a martial art based around 'one hit kills' is setting themselves up to fail.
7dayspking Nope, you're right. But... hmm... how to put this... that was the aim of the samurai. Now I'm sure they weren't so egotistical as to assume it would always be the case, but (and this is conjecture on my part purely based on what I know of katanas and the culture so take this with a grain of salt) I imagine with every swing they sought a killing blow. Katanas are just supremely poor weapons to go into a blade-to-blade duel with because the exact qualities that make them sharp enough to carve an M1 Abrams tank up like a Thanksgiving turkey make them horribly brittle. Great for slicing a person who is mostly meat, but Jesus God... just imagining what happens to the edge of a katana in a movie (Hollywood movie, specifically, because Japanese movies know better generally) where they're clanging against each other... it's like torture.
***** I notice and I understand your point...but the katana was a side arm.....and not just any side arm but a last resort.....no effective Japanese soldier would spend much of their time practicing these 'killing blows' as one would hope to never have to attempt to make them....the minute you pull out that katana against an opponent without one (even a wooden weapon would probably damage a Katana.)..you're essentially doing the equivalent of throwing a hail marry........absolute last ditch effort so does make sense that for the Katana in particular that they would indeed practice 'killing' blows with the weapon.
These aren't particularly effective in themselves though as even a 'fatal' strike can take minutes to actually incapacitate an opponent and with a Katana...you simply don't have minutes. Unless you outright cut their head off, smash their skull in or get extremely lucky and your opponent collapses/falls unconcious either as a result of the blow or because of the effect of the blow....there's just little point of the weapon as a whole I guess.
7dayspking I feel like we're saying the same thing, so I hope you get that vibe as well. ^_^
And yeah, again, I agree with basically everything you said. I'm just gonna say more because why not, right? XD
My only disagreement with you is that you're, like, saying a grievous injury isn't good enough on the battlefield. I am no scholar, but what research I have done into the topic suggests that isn't the case. In fact even a light injury was generally enough to stop someone from fighting. Militia and other non-professional fighting men usually didn't even need that much and would play dead after (to co-opt a boxing term) a phantom punch came their way. Professional soldiers (knights and samurai and so forth) would be more likely than militia to fight to the death, but even that was rare. Back in the day, medical knowledge was atrocious and people would get all sorts of infections and lose limbs and other terrible things I dread to think about happen to them from wounds, so they didn't like getting them. I mean it was so common for knights to surrender to someone and get ransomed off afterwards (alive) that there was a whole formality to it.
I guess my point is that someone whips out three feet of steel at you at a time when there are no painkillers and you can die from a burst appendix (and will because nobody knows what that even means), you might consider just letting him have this one after he scratches your arm with it.
I completely agree with you the Knights where mostly skilled sword masters.
? He never said that, he was mostly a skilled warrior on horse and on foot
No, they where just more evolved
@@user-vw8mq3lp1e what?
@@tauempire1793 i mean they had more technology for sure
@@user-vw8mq3lp1e I agree.
This discussion can be even made with "we are more evolved that other animals"... no, we just evolved to live like this, can you swim at 3000 meters under the water??
So the same is with samurai and knights, both are really good in fighitng against what were their enemies. If Japan ever encountered medieval europe I'm pretty sure they would have developed techniques and weapons against knights.
Metatron: "weapons like poleaxes"
warhammer: "am i a joke to you?"
Yes
I'm a big fan of her stretching too.
Lol You got your name from mystery science theater 3000 didnt you.
And she's 18 ;)
I love TH-cam
Norty
Wut
I generally dont like those comparisons, both cultures are awesome and intriguing.
But this vid is a gem. Its awesome. Well researched, touching the most interesting topic... etc.
The use of pictures is mostly plain brilliant. Dunno what else to say. Looking forward to the special vids on parts of the topics you mentioned !
Keep. It. Up ! Awesome.
+Blank- blade Wow thank you so much for your kind words friend ^^ I am glad you liked this video :3
+Blank- blade I like his objective look, with time period being the major focus of determining whos got what.
Arbhall McDougall This is necessary. Especially in europe. You wouldnt imagine how much changes how quickly if you dont work with it ^^
Especially in the XVth cent nearly every decade sees new armour and fashion.
Same with the place.
1440 Germany Looks totally different than 1440 England and 1460 Germany. Totally :D
I just say Kastenbrustharnisch. You should do a vid on that too Metatron :D
Blank- blade Indeed :D
Blank- blade easier than trying to do it today. I cant keep up with models of televisions and cell phones.
I was glad to see you mention training & skill vs technology. I've noticed in many of these "argument" videos that either the commentator or audience comments get fixated on the paper stats which in the end are not worth a lot when it comes down to combat effectiveness. They also don't seem to understand the function of the weapon systems employed. We see very similar arguments in discussions about armored warfare. People are referencing paper stats only and disregarding the training and skill of the various warfighters who employed those armored fighting systems. Much like this discussion.
I enjoy your channel for several reasons. You're level headed, you look at facts and records and don't let your opinion over ride historical data. You're humble about your presentation. This is very nice to see when a lot of channels are full of bravado and primarily opinion and subsequent speculation. You research your topic and present historical data to think about.
Excellent channel, great videos, thanks a lot.
Thank you for watching!
Knight vs Samurai????? My answer:
deus Vult.
FUCK OFF .onion allahu akbaaaaar
also the diference in size, an average european is bigger than an average japanese, that gives an advantage in range and strength
+Yuri Soleto Or a disadvantage in speed and agility
+Scream Like You Mean It not at all
+Scream Like You Mean It big people can be very fast mate, look at modern sports such as AFL
Cameron Reid I know this. What i was saying was basically the opposite of what the first comment says. Being bigger is in no way a flat out advantage haha. Thats what i meant to say.
+Yuri Soleto akashi shiganosuke vs your historical fighter of choice
I feel another edge that the European Knight would have is the size of his mount ,as European horses were incredibly large for their time.
+peter noone very interesting point :) I'll look into that
not really an advantage... bigger horse means easier to hit with an arrow, bullet or spear... unless the horse stomps on the opponent
Well IMO the knight would win, because of their superior armor and their swords and weapons. Samurai used weapons that were made to cut, not bash through armor. Armor and shields were not prominent in Japan that much, so cutting weapons were the best choice.
Then comes the Japanese bow Yumi, Which had a draw weight of around 25 to 35 pounds. An arrow shot from this kind of a bow could easily be stopped by layered gambeson, chainmail, or brigandine. (Lets not talk about full plate, it wasn't around back then) So good luck trying to get through a knight's armor.
Now, the knight attacks. Knights used poleaxes and other weapons SPECIFICALLY designed to destroy armor. The samurai armor would stand no chance.
If a mounted battle takes place, knights would have a slight disadvantage because Samurai could hurt them from afar. But if an iron-clad knight is charging at you, and he has armor all over, It's almost impossible to shoot at a weak spot, as the target is moving, FAST. (Unless you are matpat from game theory and you're biased and gave the samurai aimbot)
Now if the samurai hurts the horse, there is a chance that the arrow may bounce off the shield of the mounted knight. Kite shields were designed to do that. If you DO hit, the knight would not be dismounted, as they had special saddles that held them in place securely.
Due to the War Hammer, Mace, and Pole Ax which were designed to deal with Plate Armor the Knight would have a huge advantage. The Samari would have to try to hit the Knight in a few gaps where the Knight could just break the bones through the Samari plate. The Arrows of the Samari would be ineffective against full plate since even War Bows were almost ineffective against full plate (Why Crossbows and early guns were invented.)
A katana cannot pierce through chain-mail.
Andrew J Kiely I own a forged Katana as well as khopesh, Shinobigatana, and claymore.Had formal training in both Kendojutsu and Iaidojutsu.
In a traditional sense katana not going thru chainmail but with a little momentum it will pierce chainmail(not the plates though.)
Dont get me wrong I like my claymore but its a bit heavy for dueling in my opinion good for people with a lot of strength but history has shown us strength doesnt define the better weapon. Take the Crusaders
and the Saracens. Crusaders used Broadswords and Saracens used Scimitars. Knights had the stronger weapon but they lost the middle east to Turks.
Actually yes watch histories deadliest warrior samurai Vs vikings
ninja assassin don’t ever watch that show if you’re looking for historical or realistic accuracy.
I agree; but a longsword can't damage Japanese armor.
@Kahu Zen Dracula's strength alone will pop Qin's head like a duck's egg.
Knight had superior armor and superior weapons. Samurai had the best they could manage with inferior metal. There is little room for a proper debate.
Hold up english longbows and later french crossbows penetrated even the heaviest plate armor in the 100 years war. In a flat out sword fight the knight has the advantage. Overall it sounded like the Japanese have superior archers and spearmen. That would be the end of any real invasion of Japan.
@Puppet your a bais no pussy getting hater. Plate armor is weak around the neck and when you can find someone who can not expose weakness well standing in sand with hundreds of arrows being shot at him at once...let me know. Unlike the Europeans all swordsmen or Samurai were also marksmen or very skilled archer since I dought your intelligence is very high at all. If you werent a total douche mabye you would have heard how the dutch flooded an army of plate armored foes. Just to remind you, none of these soliders will run away there samurai they dedicated their life to fighting. Swords and bows mostly archery both on foot and horseback. In a real invasion of Japan the knights are fucked.
Katana were not inferior try again
@Puppet btw the Japanese had 90 pound bows... Oh huh yea man thats the same poundage as an english longbow. Wow no way!!... Lmao ask yourself does the facts of history hurt. I'm sorry that European plate armor doesnt work like it does in your fantasys. To win an invasion against Japan would need a general who was a very intelligent man. Someone who could see the truth without biased. Its a biased dumbfuck like you who lead the Spainish to their defeat. Even with their superior armor.
@Puppet 16th century dumbfuck back then the spainsh had control of most of the worlds oceans.
"The stretching, I'm a big fan!"
Of course, you are...!
I also think the European knight is better. they have better armour and also better armour piercing weapons.
+Casper Mittendorp You seem to believe, though, that uruk-hai are the true best warriors in the world.
+magicspook well, if they existed that would be very awesome! xD
+Casper Mittendorp No it wouldn't. We probably wouldn't be here if they did O_O......they weren't exactly.......friendly........
+magicspook really they die with one hit or glancing blow in lotr movies they fall like leaves in the autumn
+Casper Mittendorp as far as my limited knowledge goes, knights didn't practice horse archery like samurai might've, so I'ma say my thoughts are "It would be interesting to see".
its very hard to compare Japanese and European militaries in the 15th century. mostly because Europe was technologically more advanced than Japan.
its like comparing soldiers from 2015, to soldiers from 1915. obviously, the soldiers from 1915 could kill the soldiers from 2015. but the soldiers from 2015 clearly have the advantage, even though they might both be equally skilled as warriors.
7:32
If a knight, in his smooth, seamless armor, saw that samurai, with those ridiculous horns on his helmet, the first thing he would do is grab them and either pull the helmet off or throw the samurai to the ground.
More like a new crusade would be called lol. HE SAW A DEMON! 200k men sent to japan to kill those demons!
If a samurai saw a knight with that intent the first thing he would do is shoot his arrows at every weakspot he can find from a distance
Tell me, how easy do you think it is to shoot an arrow through the tiny gaps in a suit of armor?
Why do people always think samurai have superpowers?
@@bigbadseed7665 super powers my ass, samurais are humans that can shoot arrows from a moving horse and I don't see why that won't make them very accurate while yes that would be extremely difficult.
I'm sorry, but I simply don't buy it. Yes, a samurai would be very skilled with a bow, when it came to hitting an entire person. To hit the tiny gaps in a suit of armor, while the man in the armor is moving and trying not to get hit, is a different matter. Besides, a knight's armor was specifically designed to be difficult to penetrate, because penetrating armor is what European combat revolved around. It's entirely possible, I'd even go as far as to say very likely, that the knight would be able to close the distance without getting hit, especially since it wouldn't even worth trying to shooting him until he was already relatively close. The samurai would probably only get one decent shot before needing to switch tactics. At that point, the knight would have a distinct advantage. His armor is designed with protection and only protection mind; the samurai's helmet has a giant crest and leaves his face exposed. The knight's weapons are all designed for piercing armor. Several of the samurai's, namely his two swords, are not. If the samurai decided to use a yari/spear instead, the knight could either counter with a pike or a halberd or render the spear's reach useless by getting past it and attacking with his longsword. Obviously these aren't foolproof strategies, but they're more than what the samurai has. Finally, the samurai doesn't even have any weapons that use sheer force to counter armor. The knight has at least two, the halberd and the mace.
I'm sorry, but the knight is simply better equipped to deal with a serious fight, and it speaks to the differences between their histories. Europe in the middle ages was one big arms race, and knights were always striving to outdo each other. Meanwhile Japan was largely isolationist for huge portions of its history, allowing samurai to focus too much on frivolous things like archery and "intimidating" helmet designs. Also harassing peasants. Why do you think a samurai's sword is designed to optimize cutting, rather than piercing?
I think that you missed some advantages of the Knight....the Katana is a single edge blade, in a war theres no space for clean perfect cuts and the blades will be hiting lots of metal surfaces, the blades will get dull very easily. Thats why they mostly fights with the Yari; the Knight sword is a double edge blade, this means that if one side gets dull, you can use the other. Also the handles were made in a form that you could use it like a warhammer in case of the both sides getting dull or to cause blunt trauma.
Other misconsception is about the weight of both armors...they are are similar but the O Yoroi is heavier than the full plate.
Great, great, great video! Thank you so much for making. I'm actually writing a book that literally includes Samurai's fighting against Knights. You helped me a lot. :D
+BASSFZz I am glad I did
Samurai Vs. Knight I don't know what would win, all I know is Harambe always looses.
Harambe Vs. German Great Sword?
Big oof
Ah, yes. A comment from the time when Harambe was the nr1 meme.
I really Love the way Metatron, speaks and expresses Himself, so elegantly and expertly.
I think the concept of comparing knights and samurai and putting them up against each others is a pretty strange idea. Both developed in very different regions and cultures with very different fighting styles and general combat. They were never ment to go up against each other. Never understood why you need to compare them, both were the best in their field.
That’s literally why people compare them and debate who would win in a hypothetical fight. Like you said, “both were best in their field”. They’re two totally different but legendary groups of warriors so naturally it’s fun to think about
People like to compare them because some people are just naturally curious. Curiosity isnt a bad thing and it shouldnt be discouraged because it is why we are where we are today. Thank you curiosity
It always did bug me that people didn't do a whole lot of research when it came to X vs Y. Example: Deadliest warrior did Viking Vs Samurai, the samurai was pretty accurate for the most part, but Viking was many shots off, they tried ti say the vikings used Longswords, but they only used 1 handed broadswords.
+BluVampireHunter Deadliest warrior MAMMA MIA xD I so much need to make a video about that xD
Metatron That would make for a good debunk video, go for it!
not next one but the one after it xD
Excellent!
+BluVampireHunter Deadliest warrior is a piece of shit. I've taken that show apart plenty of times. Kinda like a hobby now.
They put the elite of Japan up against a what looks like a Viking grunt. Hardly a fair comparison. Why was the Samurai not put up against a berserker or huskarl, the elites of the Viking ranks?
All your points are invalid, Knights had pommels to throw. Enough said, just kidding
Really enjoyed the video.
Aw God hahahahahahahahahahahahagaha Even there haha
+todd ballantine lol
+todd ballantine Fuck, someone's gotta make a game where throwing a pommel at an enemy gives an OP debuff!
+todd ballantine That's right, because the tachi and katana lacked pommels samurais had no means of ending an opponent rightly.
I kinda just realised it really says something for Japan that it's being compared against an entire continent.
Tomartyr Yes,indeed.Another interesting thing is that Japan (many local warlordsfighting)was like a mini Europe(in Europe many countries fighting)
Its the style, he didn`t sepecify one country but i supoose that german knights are a good comparrasion
It isn't really a fair comparison when you think about it. Europe fights a lot more so they will have more experience to develop weapons to combat each other. Which is why Europe developed weapons and armour so quickly.
Grim Looters Nah i suppose that German Style of Combat would be more effective.
it's not Japan versus Europe it's Knight versus Samurai
The longsword does have some sizable advantages over the katana, particularly against armor, it is also more versatile than the katana, you can half hand much more effectively because of the long and straight blade, you can use the murder stroke with a longsword but I doubt you can with a katana, the longsword has a double-edged blade where the katana can only cut from one side, the longsword is far better at thrusting, also the longswords arguably has a better crossguard and length which make it more effective at defending particularly against pole weapons. Really the only advantage a katana has is it may possibly cut a little better but that isn't much of an advantage, against no armor or light armor they will both kill or maim you, against heavy armor cutting is not really important so cutting a little bit better is not an advantage while the long sword is designed to be effective against everyone, the katana might also be a bit better in very tight quarters because it is shorter. The objective conclusion is if you discount skill and focus purely on the qualities of both blades the longsword is the clearly superior weapon, if you bring skill into it then a master with a stick could beat a novice with either.😅
You seem to miss the crucial difference. In Europe arms and armor underwent continual development but in Japan the Tokugawa Shogunate tried to reverse or at least pause economic and technological development. The most obvious example of this is the removal from Japan of all firearms. But the famous Samurai sword the Katana is another example. Up until the end of the Samurai with the Meiji Restoration the Katana remained a weapon made of bloomery iron. The Chinese had Europeans by this time had long had steel - wootz steel and then blast furnace steel. Europeans dueled regularly - first with swords and later with pistols. But the Samurai were encouraged not to duel. Their daimyo resolved disputes and ordered the losing party to suicide. Consequently the Samurai were not particularly good at using their short two handed saber - an obsolete ancient weapon. Europeans meanwhile had developed a wide variety of swords with lighter thinner steels that had a longer reach.
John Remulus I'm sure your comment is an interesting question but it is 'off topic'.
+John Remulus One of the long topics in the comments here mentions some valid reasons why the european armour was "defeated".
Arabs recorded european knights as being neigh unstoppable, appearing like pin cushions of arrows. The european armour lost when the warrior inside gave up from fatigue, which was pretty quick in the hot desert.
Knights were generally captured and ransomed for money since their armour meant they were harder to kill you could actually capture them easier.
Sources? You were the first to make a statement like "Arabs slaughtered knights *easily*" John Remulus
+John Remulus that was before the envent of plate armour and they never came to mideurope
the osmans were stoped at wien
+carlos dumbratzen Well, the battle of Vienna took it's place in late XVII century, after plate armor was actually used no more because of the gunpowder, and after creation of Hussars, so I don't really get this point.
a who cares arthur gets out the holy handgrenade and its all over
+debba stevens Unless Samurais send their killer rabbits :D
Zlatko Sehanovic depends on the numbers but yes that would be a problem :p
+debba stevens NEE
I seem to recall the holy hand grenade killing the killer rabbit.
"1... 2... 5!"
"3 sir!"
"Oh yes, 3!"
*throws*
And that's just one kind of sword. It almost seemed as if you were trying really hard to Hype the samurai up. In An honest battle the Knights would win pretty easily, because the Knights literally have can openers and the samurai have no way of defeating their armor. So an army of knights would win against an army of samurai. Skill is probably equal or close, but at the end of the day the samurai would be unfamiliar with the Knights armor, the Knights would easily be able to penetrate the samurai's armor and hurt them. Now if you take off the armor and do a samurai versus knight sword versus katana sword fight. It would probably be a lot more interesting. It would be basically two handed saber versus arming sword.
I loved the video, and I really enjoy the time and effort put in. The only thing I would have to ask is that I would love to know more about the logistics of both cultures. For instance plate mail is amazing, but there is no phesable way to supply an entire army with it, or how in Japanese warfare the katana was clearly too expensive to mass produce, and most Ashigaru (I hope I spelled that right) used pole arms.
My personal theory around this phenomenon.... people hate the idea of a person that is good at everything. We have a name for those people in movies, they're called villains.
Not to be confused with a jack of all trades, this type of person is highly skilled in many areas. But why do we find an aversion to this type of person? It's because we're taught to be part of a team. "No one is the best at everything, just try to be the best at something." is a common phrase used in a corporate oligarchy to help teach those inside of it that they are cogs in a clock.
This leads people to stereotype warriors based on their most prominent attributes; knights with their intimidating shell of armor and their large size (the size of franks, goths aka germans, etc. were much larger than most. I won't go into how large Italians were because I never cared to look up their size beyond Roman times which states they were a bit shorter than their northern conquerors/conquests) thus leading to my next point....
......That this "team based" selectivism ultimately means that every person that is good at something must ALSO be bad at something. Thus knights must be unskilled, samurai must be like paper flakes in the wind, and the Katana is some otherworldly weapon that can slice mountains and three pigs at once.
This is of course completely false; Samurai armor is exceedingly impressive and knight armor has just as much if not more mobility than Samurai armor (if we're talking the last few centuries of knights being present on the battlefield) due to its technology.
That said what I consider the most impressive feat of Samurai skill and prowess is often glossed over for nigh pointless things like unarmored katana dueling.... their archery, particularly on horseback. The Yumi bow is perhaps the most frightening weapon in the Samurai's arsenal and horseback archers are historically proven to be one of the most fearsome forms of ancient warfare. (Ask the Mongolian Empire about it.)
While knights did use ranged weaponry on horseback (crossbows being one of the most common) and without horseback they still are most known for fighting by other means. At range I give this fight to the Samurai. However....
...I still give this fight to the Knight. The last thing a Samurai wants to do is get in close combat with a Knight. In close combat there is not a single ancient warrior in history that has the lethality, training, and armor of a Knight in close range: on horseback or foot.
+Ocek I highly doubt the samurai would have much of a range advantage given how the plate armor would prevent arrows from penetrating their armor...
Jason Marcus, even crossbows have a hard time piercing through plate armor alone, much less of it has mail and gambeson underneath
samurais and katanas are waaaay to overrated
I like katana's and longswords etc.
And depending who u ask knights and longswords are overrated. I see fanboys all over the place
Louis Darilla The Knights recked plenty of Muslims. The crusader states lasted for 200 years despite being massively outnumbered and almost completely surrounded. Bare in mind that Richard basically undid all of saladins achievements during his crusade, he only came short of retaking Jerusalem itself, but that wasn't because Saladin stopped him.
And after the advent of the European knight, the Muslims were gradually pushed out of Spain during the reconquista.
Giagantus im into pretty much any style and design of sword. I've always loved swords though, don't know what it is but i just find them stunning.
anime...
I found this fascinating. Great pictures used to illustrate. As I watched I imagined the lives of both kinds of warriors, their lives dedicated to honing their crafts. The literal life or death outcome of their practice astounds me. Thanks!
Hey, thank you for those words and pictures about your martial artist friend, it reminded me that I haven't trained in a while, feels good to sweat !
Take care !
once i saw a report where they tryed to cut a sword with a katana. to make it short, the katana didnt made it, it was totaly bent afterwarts. the form of the blade after the try was more of a shotel than a katana. it was definitly useless after the try to cut a steel-sword.
then they tryed out a german longsword and it managed to break the other blade with one swing. the only damage the german longsword took was a small nick in the blade.
i also agree with you, when speeking about who was better. from a fighting-technik-perspektive knights and samurai were equal in my opinion.
the point where the knight make the race is their weaponry and armory. they simply had the better tools
I have a feeling you got this idea from the slingshot channel,.
you do know this proof nothing right? unless the katana was made by a real Japanese blacksmith from the original materials (same goes for the European one) the only thing it proofs is that it is possible that Chinese replica's are not as good as they expected.
i am not trying to be a katana fanboy though, i do think that european swords might have been better in absorbing impact shocks due to the spring temper but i don' t think it is as far apart as you are saying.
unless you know exactly who made the blades and how this test is like taking two random cars, making them race, and then declaring the brand of the winning car to be better than the other even although it might have been a race between a sportcar and a van........
In the video I saw at least, the Katana they used was very high quality, japanese made sword... it was like a $5000 Japanese sword.... vs a $20 fake chinese katana, and the $5000 sword could not go through the cheap one... and even got all bent...
i think it was a BBC report or something like this i saw on TV.
and to talk about quality of katanas: i'm not a expert, but as far as i know, katanas have very hard blades, thats why they are so sharp, but the other side of the blade is much softer. thats also the reason why the blade is curved. katanas are not very durable, compared to european swords, even the best ones. they are sliceing tools. european sword are much more durable because they had to be. europeans used shields and much better armor, so the material was much harder used than the katanas, so they HAD to be more durable.
BUT as i said i'm not a expert. if someone knows better than me, please correct me if i'm false.
well, there is your first problem, you don't buy a " real high quality, Japanese made sword" for $5000.
you are lucky when you come across a real one of $15000 but they can cost much more.
also, a lot of cheap Chinese fakes are thicker and made of metal types that are unable to become sharp but still can take a beating.
Even as much as I love the samurai. The key factor is armor and training.
They were trained equally so it comes down to armor but both he incredibly anti armor weapons.And the key factor is terrain,which samurai,which knight,from which clan,from which country so many different factors
@@michaelterrell5061 no.
The knight armour Is undiscutibly better. period
Davide B. No not really lamaller is just as protective as chain mail now during the 1400s sure but when they both get plate armor samurai should have an advantage comment back to know what the advantage is
@@michaelterrell5061 Full plate armor vs O-yoroi, knights have the clear advantage of protection and it doesn’t even impede their movement significantly. Your point is void
@@johny__hazmat8133 So...the knight gets full plate armor of the highest technological advancement...but the samurai gets his older at weakest armor? No crap the knight wins. However if both are given there correct equipment to make things Even then it’s way closer and the advantages of protection for the knight is null and void.
I believe that the main issue is that neither warrior would be trained to fight the other and if the Samurai expected a mote flexible style from the knight he would be disappointed when he received a mace to the head. Alternatively the knight could flounder and he taken by surprise at the Samurais flexibility. But this assumes the Samurai would have knowledge of the weak points in the armor, which he would not. So unless the Samurai can decipher the weaknesses in the knights armor he would lose because he would be more lightly armored allowing the knight to secure a killing blow. There are many variables and there isn't a clear winner. If say there is a relatively equal chance probably in favor of the knight purely based on armor.
That makes a bad assumption that the Samurai never fought anyone in such armour. They did learn to adapt to different styles ands types of armour. And, steel isn't always a benefit especially with the crappy visual field provided by mot European helms. I have often used that to my own advantage in SCA when fighting against those types of helms.
@Michael Terrell II the majority of samurai at the sengoku period (which the armor from this video is from) did NOT fight the chinese... they mainly fought each other which means they would have been woefully unprepared for a knight in full plate... while knight fought lighter armored foes all the time
I defiantly appreciate that you brake it down to time periods , having my martial beginnings in Japanese martial traditions, I use to be the typical Japaniphile but a friend opened my eyes to the wider world of European martial arts and that was a game changer for me, as well as leading me to a greater appreciation of my own heritage, though a bit farther north than the styles we were practicing, I imagine my Norwegian ancestors techniques weren't all that different from the German ones we practiced. If anyone has some more specific information on anything specific to Norwegian/ Scandinavian fightin styles of the middle ages, please let me know.
@Michael Terrell II by no means, I love all martial access.
If we have a late knight on horseback as well as a samurai on horseback then it will go like this: Samurai plinks away at knight uselessly, knight has a faster horse and charges down the samurai and kills him with the lance. I they are not on horseback the samurai dies even faster.
How would the horse speed be different? And wouldn't a Knights horse be slower due to the metal armor the knight is wearing? Actually curious
+TheTofuNoodle The armor doesn't make you slower. You make movements with the same speed but you will become tired quicker. You will move your hand the same speed, run the same speed (maybe accelerate slower) but you will become tired more easily.
+Udrakan Morturim European's had special heavy War Horses for the purpose, I don't believe the Japanese did, so the Knight would have the edge (or the Samurai would get the point!?!) in the hoses & lance situation.
Gaming Bear I think that knight has advantages in every situation except for ranged combat. If samurai had something to penetrate knight's armor at distance, I think he woudl win. However skill of each fighter plays a major role.
Definitely, both were highly trained but the Samurai may gain an advantage as the Knight would know nothing of Judo & the use by the Samurai of his own momentum against himself .... then find a weakspot
if in fact the katana had more cutting power it would only be due to the fact that they are heavier and my thoughts on the long sword vs the katana is the long sword is more versitile what I mean by that you can half sword ,pommel smash(I guess you could do it with the katana aswell but it wouldnt be as affective) and the blade is more flexible.and my final judgement on knight vs samuri is the knight because of his armor and we can't forget the knights also armoured their horses
To be honest, I feel that these samurai vs. knight comparisons are rather unfair. You’re comparing an isolated country’s warriors to the warriors of an entire continent with many countries that allows for proper evolution of the armour and weapons. The Europeans had an advantage from the beginning, numbers. The competition of many countries and the sum of that will most likely be better than the product of a single, isolated country. The fact that you can create a video like this comparing these two seems to be a testament to Japan’s capabilities. Please correct me if I’m wrong or am missing anything, please inform me. I do not study these kind of things to the same extent that people like you do. Anyways, I love your content. Keep it up.
Well the question isn't country vs country but a type of fighter vs another type of fighter. It's about two different warrior cultures going toe to toe not specifically countries. But I see where you are coming from
is he only making these videos because weeabos like you overrate samurais
Excellent video, Thank you so much. I think you may have forgotten to mention, since you are trying to make a direct comparison, that a samurai rarely would reach 1,70cm of height, the knight would simply overpower him by brute force and could walk right up to him without even a weapon due to his heavy armour.
Great vid. You could argue that the skill of an average knight would in fact be higher than a samurai due the vastly deeper talent pool, population of japan 8-12 million whereas Europe had around 80 million in the early 15th c. There's also the factor that on average a European noble would of had a considerably larger stature compared to his Japanese counter part. Both where great warriors though.
+snow bro Japan wasn't Invaded as often as Europe was either. South Europe was nearly always fighting Islam over "God", North Europe was really always fighting over (Food, crop yields, seed stock.) Central Europe didn't have Sea Coasts to suplument failed harvests and herd disease.
@@donleonsroszavilla5734 not rly over god, over the masacre of all of the levant, syria, north africa and spain done by the muslims. And of corse the sack of rome and all of southern italy, it is astounding that the french or british didnt take the time out of their day in the 17th century to eradicate them so as to control the old land trade routs
A curved blade does have a slight advantage when cutting soft targets. But you're 100 percent right. A long sword will easily remove a limb. So even if the Katana cuts a bit deeper you're just as dead either way lol. People vastly underestimate the damage even of small knives. A 10" Bowie will remove a hand
Tokigawa never banned guns in Japan, the samurai loved guns. There were gun smiths working in Japan all through the Edo period. They were called Tanegashima. You have to do more research then watching last samurai
Katana is a fragile weapon made for cutting. Its better in cutting than a longsword since japanese were lightly armored. The longsword is a superior weapon in terms of combat, it can be used to hack, slash, slice, cut, stab, bash or swing. Every possibme angle of a longsword is a weapon. Knights were also bigger and heavier than samurai, the samurai would be overwheld by the power of a knight.
Also samuraiw rode ponies if im correct while most knights on horse back rode shire breed type of horses. The yumi is a good bow, but wont do much against plate armor, while the crossbow could easly kill the samurai. 9.8/10 the knight will win.
1 thing I would like to point out is that the cutting edge of the katana wasnt always pointed up. It depended on what state the samurai was in. If he was not in combat than you are right, the edge of katana was pointed up. If he was in war mode the katana edge was pointed down.
The wakazhashi(i probably pronounced that wrong) was how ever always in the peace mode, edge pointing up.
This is according to Anthony cummins. A shinobi, and samurai historian.
The Metatron again does justice to this subject with another video that is accurate and well researched! I guess when it comes down to it, it might come down to the average European knight vs the average Samurai of the period; so lets say the German/French/italian knight would have better protection from the samurais Katana and could resist those arrows, as this would be the first thing a Samurai would do to the Knight. I'm not sure that the plate armor could defeat the Japanese Yumi bow, but lets say it gets a glancing blow in and deflects off, the angles on those suits of armor are made just for that. So it comes down to which swordsman is better, and now you look at the strength and skill of the 2 combatants, do we see that the 5 ft 5" tall European has the advantage over the 5ft 2" Japanese? Will the bigger man with the heavy armor now overpower the smaller man with his razor sharp katana? I would guess that the European sword has better penetrating power than the curved katana, so it gets down to wether the Samurai could out last the assault of the knight and out maneuver him into a position where he can come to grips with his larger adversary and pin him and win? Best way to really come to answer this is to kit out say 10 guys into each category, have 10 duels with blunted swords and see who prevails, get good estimates of the relative sizes of man from each side, (from the time period) and then match them up in accurate armor and see which side does better. My bet will be on the European, since his armor offers better protection and his sword has a good chance of penetrating the Samurai where its will hurt. Sounds like a really good basis for a Netflicks documentary!
I have just clicked on this video and I will say that any answer other than the knight wins would be unbelievable. Lol. The armor alone should have a drastically huge advantage. Unless the knight is wearing leather and is a terrible fighter he should win.
I just can’t see how the samurai could get a katana through the plate armour. Knights of the 15th century carried very pointy longswords and rondels specifically for this reason. His best bet would be a powerful bludgeoning weapon, like a two-handed kanabo.
The knight had a sword designed to penetrate small gaps, and 15th century samurai armour had many. As well as having parts vulnerable to a heavy bludgeoning.
As much as I love samurais and shoguns. Knights were much more powerful due to the weapon technology and armor.
Yeah, I've watched a lot of documentaries on Japan and the samurai, also own quite a few books. I can safely say they would be beaten by the Knights. Not because of skill or fighting style, but because of the equiment they both have. Japanese steel is much weaker than the Steel Europeans used. Although I always want to argue when someone stupidly says something about Katana or anime when they try and make a point lol. truth is if a Samurai and Knight fought, the Samurai would probably not even use a sword, but use either a spear type of weapon or a bow. Which of course, the Knight would have a shield so...samurai would unfortunately lose. Rip I suppose
@@raidonshin Japanese steel isn't weaker then European steel and actually the technology between the two weren't that difference, the myth that it is thanks to the modern sword smithing tradition which is actually a post-ww2 thing, the actual historical stuff is largely ignored unfortunately.
www.quora.com/Would-the-Japanese-forging-techniques-have-worked-in-Medieval-Europe-if-it-was-introduced-to-the-blacksmiths-there-If-so-how-would-European-swords-have-looked-like/answer/Luca-Nic-1?ch=10&share=dd5a5e27&srid=3z2sJ
Also a Knight using a shield would depends on the time period We're talking and Samurai believe it or not know about as well even use shield sometimes.
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/12/tate-tedate-japanese-shields.html?m=1
I love ur vids u are just great! the way your history lessons become enjoyment is incredible! well done keep up the good work!
I would define 3 catagories:
1. Training which ties
2. Weapons which goes to the knight
Crossbow>bow
Polearms>spears/glaives
Longsword family>katana family
Blunt weapons> ???
3. Armor
Steal plate>Iron chain
3-1 for the knight
Another wonderful video Metatron. I never would have thought that the arms race affected European Armour at a much faster rate than the more isolated Japan, but it makes perfect sense.
You say such a duel like this never happened, but I remember reading about two fights between Japanese Samurai and German Knights, on the Silk Road, and in both cases the knights won. It's been more than a couple decades since I've seen the book, and I don't recall the title, but I remember purchasing it from a shop in Barre, Vermont, which no longer exists. I'll try to do some research and see if I have the book and if not if I wrote the title down, somewhere. I can also asks some friends if they remember which book I'm thinking of.
Any chance you remember the title?
There was, actually, confrontation between Portuguese navy "knights" and Japanese samurai. The Japanese lost shamefully.
Portuguese use guns
+Nizaris1 Samurai did, too,at those days.
Paulo Henrique
yes, i just being sarcastic
***** Pretty much nope.
There were fight in Japanese inland, and Portuguese won.
You are confused. Spanish domination over Japan was after Portuguese King Dom Sebastião died in battle with no successors and the Kingdom of Portugal went to his cousin's hands, the King of Spain, Dom Felipe. Of course Portuguese battles against Japanese army were BEFORE that time.
Thelema Samurai Another idiotic weirdo that thinks european were barbarian and did not bathe...
I don't have to say that you never read a book on the subject.
Plus, any fencer with an european sword is in advantage against japanese and their pig iron katana (tomohagane is pig iron).
Plus, if you think european just bashed dull swords into their enemies, you are a complete jerk. Go read a book on the subject, and then we talk.
About 20 years ago I have read a book by a knight and chronicler. Jean de Joinville. I do not know the original name, but in my country it was released as Pameti Krizakovi - which mean memory of a crusader. It was written in 13th century. One has to take it with grain of salt as soldiers love to bit exaggerate. But there is a passage about drunk knight who went for some saracens - alone. When he was out for a while (cant remember how long, but it was rather significant time). Others went search for him - and they found him he was surrounded by saracens, they gave him great beating - so much that he was generaly unable to fight back - but hi was not wounded. When others arrived and saracens ran off. They took him back to camp and was only exhausted and bruised. But in a few day, he could fight again.
That story totaly stuck in my mind. That statement of resilience of a fighter in mail. I think most people cant imagine how good those metal costumes were.
I agree with your point that the knight will have a slight edge. Unless the Samurai brings some serious armour penetration (kanabo), the 11th Century samurai will be not be able to effectively take out a 11th Century knight.
Could you do a two hypothetical scenarios of this match up?
We have so far just compared them individually. But we both know that both civilizations are very adaptable and willing to learn, adapt and change. When muskets were invented, the Europeans made more bullet resistant plate armour. Japanese changed their lamellar plate armour to a reverse engineer of a western bullet resistant cuirass from the cuirass they got from Portuguese Jesuits which they called nanban doi 'western type' tameshi dosoku 'bullet tested breast plate'. They also invented bamboo carriages for faster musket reloading as well as independently created volley fire.
So the first scenario would be European invasion of Japan and being unable to deal the finishing blow fast enough leading to war being bogged down for 2 years allowing both the Japanese and Europeans to adapt.
Second scenario would be Japanese invasion of Europe and Europeans being caught off guard but being unable to win quickly enough due to attrition or superior European fortifications for 2 years allowing both the Japanese and the Europeans to adapt.
Both of these scenarios occur in parallel universes where only one of the two scenario happens and hence they did not have any previous contact.
The samurai's problem: a german longsword can destroy a katana
it's a Zweihander
Random FatCat those are two different things...
Random FatCat a Zweihander is a 5 to 6 to 7 foot war sword used to destroy Pike formations. German longsword refers a bit more to the technique of wielding the sword, which is of German origin.
Hahahah Arab sword already defeated European sword.And they sword was curve like katana sword.
Sahi Das but its made differently. Katana are weak because they are meant for dueling, like a mn English rapier. You can't take it to war, if you take it to war it will not survive.
I agree. A norman knight would have an advantage against a Japanese Samurai in the late Heidan, as well as an Italian or English knight in the late 15th century manly due to armor, the norman chainmail and the late full plate armor. But I also think that horses would play an important part. The destrier horse, specially the northwestern european breeds were war machines, as well as the breeds that follow due to the extensive need for war. But that all depends on the battlefield they would face each other. Great channel! really enjoy your videos!
Interesting as always and I want to personally thank you for inviting response without statement of credentials. Many innovations come from outside any specific community. I will take advantage of the option and try not to offend your generosity in the process.
First and foremost, the armor we think about is not the armor that was worn. Not even close. The armies of the times were composed in the main of men barely able to support a lifestyle we would recognize. The hatamoto of a Daimyo or the clique of closest noble friends of a single, well born, commander, were the ONLY people in all of Japan or Europe who could afford a suit of high tech (for the times) body armor. There were no production lines, no interchangeable parts . . . everything was individual craftsmanship. Tell me, sir, if you went out to buy a hand crafted suit of plate today, how much would it cost? Well, that's exactly what it would've cost in Maximilian's time, too, adjusted for inflation. So that's the first misconception. The most privileged friends of a very, very, rich lord MIGHT be given as presents a coat of chain . . . consider it as if a coat of chain, a good sword, and a mount trained for war are the medieval equivalent of a decent BMW motorcar. How many of those is a rich noble going to hand out before he starts getting giver’s remorse? Can privates in the regular Army can afford one of those? Or peasants, raised in a hurry? And how long does it take to train a smith who can barely make nails to create individually fitted coats of mail? I might be overgeneralizing here, but I don't think so.
Second: high born Bushi we call “Samurai” (from goshozamurai)-decked out in full panoply for serious campaigning-were never the same tactically as western knights or huskarls. Never. Western knights were his nation's SHOCK TROOPS. Since horses are incredibly vulnerable to arrows (I'll address that presently), western forces would raise peasant levies to take all the arrows . . . or cannon fire, which is where the term “cannon fodder” comes from . . . and then charge, carrying the day through force of shock and penetration of the enemy spear line, or repetition by caracole of successive lance line strikes, plus recovery and return. On the other pole of combat, the mounted Samurai was his nation’s HORSE ARTILLERY, meant to harass and kill horses to dismount enemies, or to drill enemy troops of high estate, and then recoil and recover for another try. Melee combat was for ashigaru, armed peasantry, and released convicts. And, so, Bushi cavalry armors (only nobles could afford comprehensive haramaki and jingasa or kabuto, remember) were light, complex, and meant to dissuade chance (clouted) arrows from finding vital spots. They were not meant to be used at close range, with the Bushi surrounded by armed peasantry all trying to poke holes in him.
(Okay, Bill, take a deep breath. This guy is smart and you hope to impress him.)
Third: Arrows were expensive, time consuming, and, like armor or swords, were not being mass produced. The fastest way of fashioning arrowheads, for instance, involved using nails (remember those?) for spike tips. There was NEVER an unending supply of arrows for any army. Worse, still, as I am sure you’ve already discovered in your years of experimentation, an archer loses almost all of his arrows. The likelihood of pulling the odd arrow out of enemy/friendly soft tissue after a fight barely counts. You would NEVER shoot an arrow like later troops shot muskets, i.e.: “I shot an arrow in the air, it fell to earth I know not where.” Arrows were fired by individual archers, each of whom was keenly aware that his life was measured by the number of arrows at his side. Archers shot at specific targets, with the highest likelihood being valuable or critical ones. You needn’t shoot at the peasants rushing your way: your spears would handle those. No; you were watching for a flash of color, a bit of gold in the sun, that indicates an enemy officer or messenger. Or an enemy archer, of course.
Fourth: Materials. There was some advanced metallurgy (if you count good luck charms and blessings by priest-or the goading of an impatient lord-as advancements) in the west, but, in all, not until the 1900s was there any improvement of mass produced steels of quality to crow about. So we can discount metallurgy in our calculation. Their swords broke on armor AND our swords broke on armor. Swords dull or break incredibly quickly, movies and boyhood dreams notwithstanding. Metatron: how long will your best sword and armor last in general melee? And that’s its job. The counter is: how long will a Bushi’s bow last in a firefight (and, to be fair, how long to replace the arrows he’s spent)? Then cometh the question: which is more expensive to replace when spent or broken? And superior economic mobilization is the basal paradigm of victory. The Knight, to put a fine spin on it, is too expensive a weapons system to maintain. Even if you can afford a few, you certainly cannot armor your rank and file to their level. I presently believe the mounted Bushi archer is far more cost effective than any temporally equivalent western horse artillery.
Fifth: Casualties. Casualties in bushi battles, until the late 16th century, were very light on casualties, compared to western fights of similar size of forces. Not only does this reflect historical bias, for noble deaths are far more memorable than faceless commoners, but it also points toward the difference in how mounted bushi were used, compared to mounted western knights. I prefer the Condottiere for the same reasons. Fewer casualties is good for everyone . . . except city planners, perhaps.
Sixth (and last): The Naginata is one of the great weapons. It is NOT a “Woman’s weapon”. It is a “Warrior’s Weapon”. Women warriors use it, too, and with good reason. When Shoguns and Emperors alike were crying to high heaven for an end to the interference of Sohei and Yamabushi (or Tomayto/Tomahto, depending on whom you read) into temporal affairs, what was their classical weapon? The Naginata. Indeed, if I might dwell in the moment, I might suggest that, perhaps, this might’ve been some of the best, most solid, infantry of all time, though their armoring was most likely reflective of the penury of religious purses. Were many women fighting in “samurai” battles? The genetic research says: yes. Did some of them use naginata? With pride, I bet. Others might’ve been excellent mounted archers. Metatron: consider the possibilities of a tiny Japanese pony able to run at full speed up and down the hills, because his mount is a tiny slip of a girl, who can hit you in the eye at fifty paces from the gallop.
And now for the finale: Western Knight versus Samurai Knight for the heavyweight championship of the worrrrrrrrld! What happens when a European Knight on his very vulnerable horse (only Chamfron and cruppers, right? Otherwise it would be exhausted in minutes) pins a bushi down into a corner and has at him? That part, for certain, is your field. I would counter with the premise that: You don’t fight heavy armored infantry with arrows. You kill their transport with arrows. Then that heavy knight is just another jock in a 40kilo suit (that doesn’t sweat-but HE sure does) trying to sprint at you across no man’s land . . . you or I can literally dance rings around a man in a sealed up 40kilo iron suit who has just run the hundred meter dash. He’ll die soon. All you do is stay out of reach.
Thanks for the forum, Metatron. I appreciate the courtesy.
*or by enemy archers behind stakes laughing their collective butts off. We think of javelins as throwing weapons, and that’s another misconception. Every soldier carries two or three to emplace in front of him in order to deter cavalry charge. That’s a LOT better than flinging it out into infinity . . . and here comes the enemy, who’s glad you did.
And a footnote: There is a specific tactic that archers are trained in--even you--to be used against cavalry. It's called: Shooting the Clout. That tactic was designed specifically to engage cavalry at extreme range by interdicting the horses carrying it. I am a quite good shot with the clout at about 100 paces, and classical archers were likely so much better I should feel ashamed for saying it. A clouted arrow will drop right on top of a horse ( where it has no armor) and give it considerable discomfort, if not serious injury. An injured horse is a fractious horse . . . uh oh . . .
And horses had little-if any-armor for reasons easy to understand. A full grown European Knight of 900-1200ad might mass sixty-five or seventy kilos . . . and his armor another forty . . . let's call saddle, plus harness and tack another twelve kilos . . . so that great big strong horse has got about 120kg of burthen aboard. For us USA holdouts, that's 264lb. Okay. You've got 264lb (a small end knight, to be sure) on the back of this great beast . . . and it gets old, quick,even for a Clydesdale. Wait . . . then the Knight fanciers tell us that the horse was barded in coat of chain . . . and I blow soup all over the table, laughing without my teeth in. Metatron: you know how smart you are. Give me an estimate on expanding a coat of chain until it covers a horse down to its knees. 5-6kg, right? More like 200kg. So a large armored horse with smallish knight is carrying 320kg = 700lb and a smaller horse can't carry the weight at all. That poor horse will be exhausted within minutes and die shortly after any charge.
Conclusion: horses weren't armored*. Which meant that knights were taken prisoner from having their horses shot out from under them (which happened again and again-the ransom system was specifically developed for it). All that body armor is just to protect you long enough when unhorsed, and surrounded by peasants with mallets and spikes, to cry "Quarter" loud enough for an enemy lord to hear.
*It seems obvious to me (I am got old, you see) that no knight or soldier went on march with his armor on his back. Your coat of chain was on a pack horse if you were rich, or in the company train if you were poor and lucky. Knights could not ride in armor, looking for trouble. That is literally impossible to do for any length of time. Armor is really neat, but it isn't airy or the least bit comfortable. It's heavy and binding and puts its weight on your hips and/or shoulders. So the biggest problem with armor, and why they dispensed with it (not because of guns.
The timeline is wrong for that) is because of the length of time it takes to caparison oneself, even with assistance, in an emergency. You simply do not have time to put it on and mount. I expect most combats on the march were ambuscades . . . with archers . . . and knights were often slaughtered as a result.
The metal compound in a Samurai Yoroi isn't iron but it's actually steel. It's much like many other lemellar steel pieces tied together behind a skin of leather as steel lasts longer and creates more resistance to blows than iron could take thus steel was chosen. However, with the Matchlock muskets arriving into the battlefield during the Sengoku period being 1st utilized by Oda Nobunaga, European style cuirass came along with it and soon it changed the armor of the Samurai as whole steel plates took over the steel pieces in the armor making process and some even abandoned the whole leather front and just don the steel cuirass with the rest of their armor and entered the battlefield.
amazing video...everything is explained realy well...
i have one question...for exsample in a context of battlefield, how many samurais were in a battle, compared to how much they had their foot soldiers(regular soldiers); then compare it to their europian counterparts...numbers matter and people dont often talk about it
+Orka DRLJAČA thank you so much ^^ for the numbers I'll need some research myself but I'll see if I can find something about it ^^
***** "folded times infinety on the flames of the red mountian and tempered with the blood of unicorn vampires" ahahahahahahahah xD
Thank you very much for the most sensible, non-biased comparison I've seen on the topic. Cheers
Steel beats Iron. Long sword is better designed to damage the weak points in the armor. Katana is not a piercing weapon. Skill matters but the knight's task is easier.
A small correction: Plate armor is actually lighter than Japanese armor. Plate armor weighs around 33-55 pounds while Japanese O-Yoroi and Do-Maru armor weighs around 65 pounds. Tosei-gusoku weighs around 60 pounds. Plate armor is, on average, lighter, more protective and more flexible due to the use of thinner yet harder plates and articulation.
Look up the 1582 Cagayan Battles fought between Spanish Knights and Japanese Ronin in the Philippines.
more like soldiers against fishermen...
Jamsaran Lol no. They were Ronin and professional pirates. Your Weeabo self just can't accept the fact that Spanish Hidalgos defeated the Samurai in combat.
japanese aoutnumbered 10 vs 1 and they loose, the fact said spanish toledian steel defeat katana!
japanese got full period armor! plus spanish werent in full european armor and spears only , yeah thermopillae tactic win hoplite formation!
also Carrion are deacendants of CID CAMPEADOR the greatest spanish knight in the first spanish poems!
Excellent video, well balanced and with great points made, especially on the similarity of styles between Historical European sword fighting and Historical Japanese sword fighting. As you say, they're both two-handed edged weapons, the ways to use them *effectively* were elevated to science in both cultures - similarities are inevitable.
To get a good impression of the cutting power, try using and comparing different kitchen knives. If you want to slice a block of meat, you'll often choose a saber like one. The curved edge helps the blade find different angles to prevent resistence.
However the typical butcher knife is heavier and with a more straight blade as you want to combine the inertia of a blunt weapon and a sharp edge.
So if I wanted to cut steaks out of a block of meat, I'd choose a katana, but if I wanted to chop through a hard bone, I'd prefer a straight and heavy sword, which works more similarly to an axe, as the angular momentum is bigger.
Anyway, congratulations for your rational and carefully made videos! Really good.
The only "sabre like" knives I've seen used in the meat industry are filet knives for fish. Everything else is done with different straight knives.
I would too give the advantage to the knight, for armor and maybe the versatility of longsword. I also read that one of the bigger(?) problems in Japaniese weapon development was their strickt ties to history and the higher ups (dont know the proper term shoguns?) and other political faces did not allow the research to differ from the traditional ways of forging gear. Would love to get your answer here (mostly to correct me if/when I am wrong) and maybe get a little extra education as I find myself interested in the medival times. Thankyou for a great video! In the end all that matters is the skill of the warrior in each corner.
both of these soldier types r top of the class. ive never heard of these figures clashing in history. it would b EPIC
Absolutely loved your video. The fact that you are Sicilian put it over the top for me. I'm a proud American, but my people are fro Cefalu and Palermo. I believe some are from Catta Belotta. (no clue the proper spelling.) Your English and accent is fantastic. Take care, and thank you for the content.
As many others (ie. Matt Easton, Knyght Errant, Shadiversity) have already stated, the comparison is more of a fantasy setting since the knight and the samurai never faced each other at the battlefield.
I personally think that the samurai and the knight have more in common than they have "against".
Ie.
- Both were professional soldiers
- Both trained from a very young age
- Both were armed and armored to the best of their abilities
- Both dominated the battlefield for a certain period of time
What I personally believe would tip the balance just a little bit to the knights favor would be these points (when looking at 15th, 16th century):
1) Knight was used to fighting an enemy in heavy armor (experience and expertise)
2) Knights weaponry was designed to counter said heavy armor (pollaxe, mace, etc. with the sword being just a backup)
3) Steel versus iron
But, like I said, just a fantasy. ;)
Good video, will have to sub to your channel!
Yes because none of this you tubers have done a nice job in describing samurai arms and armor; this is what basically happen when people biased towards europe/hema/wma decide to compare "apple with orange" without doing proper researches.
Now, don't get me wrong, is fine to have different opinions but all this videos forgot something about samurai's martial culture and history, even the one of the metraton only give you a 60% correct infos, and is still the best one.
And I know this because I've been studying the topic for years.
if you look specifically at 16th century, tosei gusoku aka samurai armor, was slightly lighter but also slightly less protective; almost all the body was covered with plates, maille or brigandine. Similar padding was worn underneath and several auxiliary armor pieces were worn to protect the famous "huge gaps" that samurai armor have.
It might not cover as much as european armor, but it's lighter, has better ventilation, better field of view and awarness of the battle, better breathig capabilities, wider range of motion, less overheating and fatigue problems: all of this factors are needed by armors to be effective in japan's envivorment ( 70% mountains, rivers, muddy rice fields, hot and humid summer, heavy rain);
full plate armor indeed would have been pretty screwed in this envivorment.
This is why they developed through the sengoku jidai many anti armor weapons, to bypass the armor, which offered immunity against edge weapons; from maces to warpicks, polearms, flails and also daggers;
And another fact that anyone seems to forget is that samurai armor was made of steel and iron plates in layered structure as mentioned in kozan sakakibara's book, some metallurgical studies were made and discovered this. Not just impure Iron as anyone seems to believe.
Cheers, Hope to be informative.
There is a major difference in the way knights and samurai are perceived. The samurai have the 'PR advantage' here as there is more of a tangible link to the samurai past. No only did they have a very long history, continuously evolving for over a milennium, the samurai phenomenon didn't disappear completely until the 1870s. Even after that many aspects survived in art, writings, and of course various martial arts still practised today. Hell, there are even photographs from actual samurai.
The traditional knight on the other hand disappeared rather quickly after the introduction of gunpowder on the battlefield. Much history and knowledge about knights has been lost and only quite recently are we piecing information back together. We've been out of touch with this warrior class for nearly 500 years. There are no martial arts that can be traced back to the 15th century. There are a few fighting manuals and some other period pieces dealing with the life, duties and training of knights, but nowhere near the wealth of information that is available on the samurai.
In the end, people tend to forget that the knight and the samurai were very similar. They were highly trained warriors, in the employ of nobility. Their actual duties and obligations are very similar. The differences in weapons and armor are simply reflections of their respective fighting styles, opponents faced and materials availability.
I believe any advantages one might have over the other, is purely a function of their equipment. Classical samurai vs knight would be an uneven match as the knight has very clear and substantial advantages in both armor as well as reach. The katana can not easily penetrate western armor, while samurai armor is pretty exposed. A longsword can also have about a 30cm length advantage over the katana, meaning the knight can strike while being completely out of reach of the samurai.
However, if you were to remove the armor, and give each a broadly similar weapon (one handed sword vs katana, dagger vs tanto,, naginata vs glaive, etc.) I think it'll be a toss-up with no clear advantage to either side. There *might* be an advantage to the samurai for having very structured and systematic ways of teaching martial arts. I only say this might be an advantage, because I don't really believe we know to what extend European fighting techniques were structured.
+akumabito2008
I disagree with your assesment of the amount of sources on knights. There were plenty of chivalry treatises, however, due to the common misconception that the Middle Ages were a mud-riddled pile of dung, everyone disregards everything medieval as mediocre. The term "medieval" is even starting to be used as an adjective to describe primitiveness now.
There's also what you mention that their decline started about 500 years ago, and that has a big impact too. And I think the remnants of orientalism in laymen's minds also contribute highly to the "otherness", and "majesty" attributed to the samurai.
+akumabito2008 What you say is very interesting and I agree with your points but to also expand on Gabriel thomsen's comment there is also another point, we are western people (Europeans or Americans) and we "like" oriental warriors (we I mean generally not you and me) but look at the Japanese, they like us! You should see how popular kick boxing is there, and look at their games, filled with European looking knights, and the anime? Everyone is blonde and brown hair with big blue and green eyes? We both like each other, and believe me modern day Japanese don't know much about their past and I have lived there for years, and this amazed me.
@Blue Mu Actually, Europeans were cleaner in the Middle Ages than in the Modern Era, when they reached Japan. Their hygiene got worse from the 1500's onwards, because public baths became far less common. This is an interesting read about medieval hygiene if you're interested: www.medievalists.net/2013/04/did-people-in-the-middle-ages-take-baths/