Would a Japanese samurai defeat a Medieval European knight? That’s a questionﾂJohn Clements attempts to answer in hisﾂessay titledﾂ”The Medieval European Knight vs.
The Feudal Japanese Samurai?“ﾂ
Inﾂthis “amusing historical diversion”, Clements uses over 7,000 wordsﾂto explain theﾂkey elements of an encounter between the two warriors. While I recommend you read the essay, here’s my 300-word summary for those of you that grew up with MTV.
The Scenario
We’llﾂimagine that these warriors are both highly trained and experienced in the fighting skills of their age. Both fighters will have similar strength, speed, stamina, age, health and courage. They are meeting on the battle field in a fight to the death 
The Armor and Shields
It has been said that while Europeans designed their armor to defeat swords, the Japanese designed their swords to defeat armor. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers.
And whileﾂwe know the katanaﾂwas a powerful sword,ﾂClements says, “thinkingﾂit could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd.”
The Swords
The rounded Japanese katana was made for cutting and slicing. It could be used one or two-handed,ﾂon foot or on horseback, with or without armor. The Medieval swordﾂwas well-made, light and agile, capable of delivering dismembering cuts or cleaving deep into body cavities.
Those who think the Medieval sword and shield was and is just a 窶忤ham-bam, whack-whack窶 fight are as greatly misinformed as those who imagine the katana was handled in some mysterious and secret manner and can cut through anything as if it were a light-saber.
So what can we really know?
Each warrior used weapons, armor and techniques necessary to overcome the enemies of their day and age. Therefore, we can窶冲 say that either the knight or the samurai wereﾂuniversally greater under all conditions and against all opponents.ﾂ
In the end though, my own answer to the question of who would win is that it is unanswerable窶ｦbut would be an awesome experiment.
Yes, it would! So who cares that it’s an unanswerable question, who do you think would win?
If you liked this post, please submit it to
JapanSoc,
StumbleUpon, or
Digg, and if you haven't already,
please subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks!
I guess I would have to go with the Knight as that armour would be difficult to get through… but bonus points would go to the Japanese for trying hard!
I think it would be a tie because the knight and the samurai have so much in common. They both started training with a sword as early as six years of age (especialy with knights during the 15th century). they both were trained by a master,and they both followed a code. the knights had chivalry and the samurais had bushido.however i think that most people will say the samurai.because they were around longer than the knight. this is because japan was an isolated island and mostely the fighting was clan warfare so the the need for new inventions was not so important.the warfare of europe changed quite dramaticly compared to japan in the middle ages and when the gunpowder was introducced to europe it was then end of the knight. fire arms was introduced to japan later on and also ended the samurai because anyone could use a firearm but the sword needed much more skill. if i have made any mistakes on what i have said please feel free to correct me
What you’ve said makes sense. There’s no doubt that these days the samurai is more popular, but when it comes to the fight, the knight was probably just as lethal.
oh wow where to start…..ok so im a mamber of the sca heavy fighting group and i fight samurai style, katana and armor is all authentic. i have been doing so for 4 yrs now and am consitterd one of the better fighters…….BUT the sca is primaraly made up of people who fight with sword and shield.trust me guys the task of getting your katana in a trained shield weilder’s openings is sutch a hard thing to do its now even funny. you have no ‘push power’ and defense is very hard when you have a giant heater shield in your face,basically the onaly way to win is to pick em off before they can get romotley in their striking range (trust me again…..not an easy task).
and armor ooooohhhh the armor……..plate armor is invincible against a cutting weapon like the katana(unless you happen to cut like a strap or something)(witch btw were mostly hidden)
remember the katana is not magical or a super sword, its a sword.and swords evolve to defeat armor,in this case samurai armor.witch is either iron or leather with a shit ton of silk lacing . but why i told you that is the katana is a weapon designed to cut through said silk cords and leather. where as the claymore or basket hilt exct exct is designed to “bash”in armor and make the armor fail at spots thus decreasing mobility of the enemy.
in summary while the samurai is trying to slash through a knights plate armor, said knight will get his shield in the samurai’s face and just throw shot after shot untill so many bones are broken and so mutch internal bleading has occoured that death is inniment.
im a samurai at heart but there is no doubt im my mind that the knight would win under one on one circumstances.
Were there no samurai with shields? I’ve googled about it and found mixed answers. I feel one of the main reasons for shielding is because of archers. I can’t imagine an entire army allowing themselves to be taken by archers alone.
well there were shields but they probably arnt what you are thinking of, (they are more like the roman square shield) the samurai “shield” was more of a wall that was sort of portable than a shield, and you are deffinatly right it was used against castle attacks to block against archers(and in some cases gunners) untill the unit got close enough to the doors to safely enter. i have a pic of one that came from a 16th century painting if you would ike me to show it=]
This is for the idiot posted the comment about European swords, such as the “claymore” and the “basket-hilt” are intended to “bash in” armor and cause a lack of mobility. This is perhaps one of the most absurd statements I have ever read. Swords are meant to do basically two things - and that is to cut and to thrust; whether the cutting is done through slashing, hacking, slicing or whatever, it is still the displacement of material through the impact or drawing of a sharpened edge. Swords were NEVER made to bash or blugeon. People like you are the reason why so many think that Europeans just were mindless idiots on the battlefield and used their sharpened swords as maces and clubs. If they wanted to bash someone’s armor in, they would use…..a MACE or a CLUB; perhaps a warhammer!
The European warriors were extremely well trained combatants, whether a knight or an infantryman, they were well adept at their craft, and their craft was killing their opponent before they themselves were killed. Their swords were not 15 lb. slabs of unsharpened steel used as clubs. In fact, a typical longsword with a 35 inch blade and a 7 to 9 inch handle would weigh in between 2-3 lbs. - actually lighter than a typical katana which had a blade that was about 7 or 8 inches shorter at least. A typical katana weighs in at around 2.75 to 3.25 lbs. because of the thickness of the blade, which had to be made thick becuase their steel was junk.
The Euro-swords, in all honesty were a much more advanced and complicated weapon than the katana. They were double-edged, which adds a plethora of new techniques not available with a single edged saber like a katana. They could be used in the “half-sword” and the hilt and pommel could be employed as a devestating weapon as well. Yes, the katana is a great cutting weapon, namely slicing and draw cutting - but so is the longsword — AND, the longsword is a great thruster, excellent chopper and a very good slicer as well. This makes the double edged Euro swords more advanced and overall more useful in battlefield situations…and in dueling situations as well.
So, finally I will answer the question, who would win; knight or samurai. Both men would be trained for years, but the knight in most cases longer. What most common folk don’t know is that “samurai” is just a social class, not a warrior class. Their were women who were labeled as samurai. So, the common samurai would be just basically trained in his “arts.” On the other hand, the knight is not just a social class, but a warrior class that involved training that started at about age 7 or 8 and continued on. These men were drilled constantly in battlefield technique weapons training, as well as a rather extensive hand to hand training that is just as effective as any Asian martial art.
So, here is the scenario - both men are dismounted. The samurai stands about 5′3 at best, the average height for Japanese at the time. The samurai is dressed in his armor that consists of uncured leather and wicker that is weaved together with silk lace, for this was the common form of Japanese armor. He is armed with the ever so vaunted katana, blade length of 27 inches and sharp as hell, but to be that sharp the edge has to be extremely hard, which could chip and crack if contacted on another hard surface. His sidearm is his wakizashi, just a shortened version of a katana. The knight approches the samurai, towering over him at at least 5′9 because knights were known for being tall, most likely he would be near or over 6′0. He is dressed in plate armor, which is NOT bulky and hard to move in like the misinformed public thinks. A knight’s armor, not the head to toe plate armor but a breastplate, greaves, pauldrons, spaulders, gauntlents, bracers and helm - is highly mobile and easy to move in, especially for a highly trained knight. He is not armed with arming sword and shield, though. This knight is armed with a longsword - a very verstatile sword that is used both two handed and single handed, which excels in both cut and thrust. It is through-tempered which makes it very flexible. The edges are very sharp but not overly sharp like a razor blade, like his opponents sword. The blade length is 36 inches and is double-edged. His sidearm is a long dagger tucked in his belt.
…The two begin their duel: Now, let’s look at the factors that are in play here: First, the height of the combatants. The samurai is 5′3 and we will say the knight is 5′9. That is a 6 inch difference, a definate advantage for the knight. If you have ever been in a fight you will know that height/reach is an advantage for sure. Second, the armor of the two warriors. The samurai is armored in leather and wicker, with perhaps the smallest amount of iron or steel if he is rich or fortunate. His armor weighs in at around 45-60 lbs, depending on the amount of heavier materials being used. The knight is armored in his plate armor, which is surprisingly light and extremely well made. The Europeans were reknown for their armor crafting. His armor weighs in between 50-65 lbs. This is another point for the knight, becuase looking at the total wieght of the armor in question, the knight has the edge with the stonger material. Third, the weapons. The samurai has his katana, which is a good sword. But, it excels in cutting softer targets like open flesh and leather and cloth, not metal. The extemely hard edge of the katana will chip easily if struck hard against the metal armor of the knight. His only real shot is to use the rigidness of his blade and try to thrust through the armor. It is also single edged, which lessens the amounts of manuevers to be used. Also, his weapon is curved, allowing for reduced thrusting ability. The knight has his longsword, which at first we notice it is 9 inches longer! This is a HUGE advantage for the already taller knight. His weapon is extremely versatile with its double edge format; able to slash, strike, chop and thrust all equally well causing an abundance in technique and manueverability. He can strike with his cross-guard and his pommel, and he can use his armored hand to grip the sword in the middle of the blade and fight in half-sword techniques, which jut adds to the versatility of this weapon. The longsword is through-tempered, alowing for an edge that is not overly hard which makes the edge extrordinarily resilent. Also, his sharp sword is only facing leather armor. The last factor really isn’t a factor for most people, just something I would like to throw in here. The knight is definetely a Christian, a Catholic who is devoted to God Almighty and lives by the code of Chivalry. The samurai is a Shinto who lives by the code of Bushido. For me this is an overwhelming factor.
…Given all the factors I would say the outcome is quite obvious.
As much as that’s well thought-out and insightful, you’ve forgotten one very major thing. The samurai were originally archers. Then they became mounted archers, then mounted spearmen and archers, and finally the version that you’ve put forwards. This creates another scenario. We now have a 5′9” knight with 50lb of armor on a horse, chasing a 5′3” samurai with only 40lb of armor, also on a horse. With a bow. Shooting arrows at the knight, who can’t catch him. Eventually, one of those arrows will kill the knight. Admittedly, not very honorable, but the knight still dies. Also, you make the assumption that the katana was the primary weapon of the samurai, which it wasn’t. Their primary weapon would have been either a bow or a spear, though in some cases a naginata and rarely (in certain periods) a nagamaki. The knight would not likely have used a spear unless mounted. Thus, you have a samurai with a 5-foot-plus long spear (definite reach advantage) which would have no problem piercing even heavy armor (that’s what spears do…) and that’s assuming that the knight hasn’t been killed by the arrows.
That said, I’d agree, katana-wielding samurai against longsword/shield wielding knight is bad news for the samurai. I just don’t think it would have happened that way.
ok ok ok,no rudeness was needed,i withdraw my statement on “bashing in” i forget,ppl dont actully get out there and do this for real every day like i do….soooooooo i feel now i need to explain what i said.when i said bashing in, i ment think about it, when a sword,ANY sword, hits plate armor, it isnt going to cut through it.it will dent and crease in the spot being hit, and if the hit was strong enough it will break in that spot thus allowing for the sword to cut the exposed flesh underneath,so while the euro sword wasnt ment to bash thru bones and crack creat helms,it WAS first needed to break through the plate. i tried to onaly give my imput on japanese samurai for that is what i can ACCURATELY talk about,many of your facts my friend are far wrong on samurai.one day i will correct you on them but now i dont have the time.
i feel this should be a polite disscussion please keep it that way.
Agreed. Anymore name calling and I’ll start deleting comments.
I am sorry if I was rude, but I get so fed up with this topic that sometimes it makes me angry. People have a false idea of European weaponry and battle tactics, largley thanks to Hollywood. On the other end, people also have an extremely canted idea of Japanese battle tactics and the capabilities of the ever so vaunted katana. The katana is just a sword, plain and simple. The samurai who were warriors were just that…warriors. They are not some overly mystified magical warriors who can use their supreme blades to cut a boulder in half. These horrid misconceptions are cuased by a number of differing factors, namely Hollywood, Japanese anime and the unyeilding fascination of the west for “Oriential mysticism” and the idea that if it is Asian, it must be good.
One thing I would like to call out though - is that you said that some of my statements about samurai were false. If you are going to make that assumption then you need some proof to back up your claim. I am well qualified to displace information about both Japanese warrior culture and European warrior culture, I have studied both extensively for over 5 years. At first, I started off with the idea that the samurai was the “end all, be all” of the historical warrior elites. I thought his nearly worshipped katana was the god of all swords (thanks to the factors that I listed above) and that no warrior class in the world could touch the samurai. Through much study and alot of humility being displayed on many forums with experts who often corrected my misinformation and lack of knowledge, I began to see that my idea of samurai was extremely jaded. There swords are not some enigma of ancient metallurgy, but a solution to a problem. The Japanese had notoriously crappy iron to work with, so bad that Europeans would of just discarded it, but it was all they had to work with. These iron deposits were in the form of iron sand, a black, gritty sand that contains a high amount of iron. They smelted this junk and created half-way workable material out of it, but it still contained an insane amount of impurities. Through much trial and error the Japanese smiths figured out that if they fold and re-fold the metal while in the heating process, some impurities are driven out of it and makes the metal more agreeable. The popular curvature of the katana was not (at first) done on purpose, but was a result of the quenching process and the heat treating. The clay coated their blades so that the edge would remain extremely hard, and the spine of the sword would remain the soft, rather crappy steel that it was before. When the clay covered blade which was red hot hit the water, the hard edge pulled backwards against the soft spine, resulting in the curve, or “sori.” All of the pretty little lines and patterns that you see in the steel is just a result of the process of folding and the forging/tempering process, which as a result was ONLY done to strengthen the junky steel. Here are some definitions of some terms that may help you understand:
Hardening (Quenching): Once the forging or stock removal process is completed, a blade is heated to critical temperature (point where the steel is non-magnetic, approx. 1400 degrees depending on the steel) and then cooled quickly in a type of quench medium. This process hardens the blade, so that it may retain a cutting edge without wearing quickly. Quench mediums can vary depending on the type of steel being used. They include water, brine (salt water), oil (natural and synthetic), and modern quenching polymers.
Tempering: When a blade is hardened, it is very brittle as it comes out of the quench, and if stuck on a hard object can actually shatter. Tempering is a thermal heat-treatment where the blade is heated to a temperature below that which the blade was hardened at (usually between 350-500 degrees), and is held at this temperature for a predetermined length of time. This reduces the hardness very slightly, but greatly reduces the brittleness and the amount of stress in the blade.
Differential Tempering: In this process a blade is through hardened (see below) to a high degree, and then heat is applied to the spine of the blade to make it softer and more flexible. This leaves the edges hard, but the body soft enough to withstand shocks and impacts. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. Tempering tongs are simple tools that consist of a standard set of tongs that have a bar welded to each of the jaws. The tongs are heated and applied to the spine of the blade. This softens the blade, but leaves the edge hardness intact. Another method that requires a more delicate touch is to use a propane torch. Gently play it across the spine of the blade until the desired hardness is reached. The second method is more difficult to master and has a larger margin of error.
Through Hardening: Quenching a blade so that a consistent hardness exists throughout the blade’s thickness. With through hardening, there needs to be a compromise between having an edge hard enough to retain its sharpness, and having a softer, more flexible body that won’t break when it is used.
Differential Hardening: Quenching a blade so that the edges are harder than the spine or body of the blade. The Japanese sword is the most common example of this type of quenching. The spine of the blade is coated with a clay mixture, then heated and quenched. The thick clay coating on the spine acts like an insulator and causes the coated portion of the blade to cool more slowly (the slower the cooling, the softer the steel). This style of heat-treating is what is responsible for the curvature in a Japanese blade, because only one edge is hardened (hardened steel has a larger grain size than softer steel). There are a number of smiths today that use this method on double-edged sword blades. The hardening on both edges causes the blade to remain straight. The use of clay is also responsible for the visual effects (hamon) in the steel.
On the other hand, Europeans had a vast amount of quality iron to work into steel. They had no need to use the process of differentially hardening and forge folding that the Japanese used to strengthen their steel because the Euro steel was superior. So, most Euro blades were through-tempered and a good portion were differentially tempered (not differentially hardened). This means that the steel is basically homogenous, or basically the same hardness all the way through the blade. Some blades had minor adjustments done to the edge as a result of differentially tempering, but in many cases it was not necessary becuase the quality of the steel produced a great blade that was flexible, tough and extremely resilent. Have you ever heard of the Rockwell scale, or RC - it is a modern method of testing the hardness of steel. A katana would have an RC at the edge of around 50 to 60, with a back or spine at around 40 to 45, give or take. A Euro sword would be about 52 RC all the way through, or if it was differentially tempered; a spine at 50 or so and an edge at 54, for example. You can take a well made Euro sword and bend it all the way back and it will spring right back into place, try this with a katana and it will remain bent (its called “taking a set”).
You may be asking yourself; “why all this talk about swords?” Well, I have come to notice that in the argument of knight versus samurai, the majority of the times it comes down to katan versus longsword or katana versus arming sword, viking sword, rapier or any other Euro sword - but mostly katana versus longsword becuase of the similarities of the two weapons in function. They are both swords that are used mostly two-handed but also one-handed.
All in all, when it comes down to longsword versus katana - I will still go with the longsword for a variety of factors. Namely becuasue of its length to weight ratio is superior to that of a katana, and it is double edged which allows for more techniques to be used. Also the crossguard and pommel can be employed as a weapon as well - but with a katana the kashira (butt-cap) can also be used like a pommel, but to a lesser degree. BUT…I still love the Japanese sword. For cutting soft targets like open flesh and cloth, it is outstanding with it’s razor sharp edge. But, when it comes to cutting tougher material like cured leather and chainmail even, the katana loses its luster with me. It’s super hardened edge will easily chip and crack. Also, the thickness of the katana blade plays into it as well. Common physics tells us that a thinner surface takes less drag to displac material, and the Euro sword because of its superior steel and its forging/tempering process, allows it to be significantly thinner in cross-section than a katana, whom some say is like a thick crowbar. The typical cutting Euro sword is thin and sharp - but also wide at the center of percussion - another point in physics that allows for a more effecient cut. But, with all that being said the way the katana is designed, it does suprisingly well in displacing material becuase of it’s edge geometry - namely becuase of the edge is created off of the main bevel creating that signature edge that all well made katana share. But, some Euro swords also have this function as well. It is really apples and oranges - and what the sword in question will be facing.
So people, always remember that samurai are not magical warriors that use swords that were made of metal from meteorites (I have actually heard this!) - they were just men who were trained in their specific art with their specific weapons - just like any other warrior culture. European knights were just as well trained and in most cases more well trained than the common samurai, and they faced a variety of different opponenets who all wielded different weaopns and wore different armors. This is why European swords evolved as they did - because armor evolved. The weapons of the times had to change along with the times - but Japanese culture in that era was resistent and stubborn to change, holding on to tradition and alienating all outsiders. This is another plus for the European warriors, they knew what had to be done to continue to excel on the battlefield.
sorry for so many typos above, I was typing in a hurry
Very interesting topic, but why European Knights versus Japanese Samurai? Historically these types of duels could never have taken place. By the time Europeans reached Japan firearms were the weapon of choice.
I think it would be more interesting to find out if there are any historical records (Japanese or European) of actual sword fights between Europeans and Japanese taking place. The Portugese and Spanish soldiers must have had some training with swords and knives since the firearms of their day often malufunctioned, took a long time to re-load, and were not very accurate. Or how about Japan versus Korea or China? How well did the Samurai fair against these countries in sword duels?
Nagoya, you are absolutely correct about the Spanish and the Portugese. During the 17th century, Portugese and Spanish missionaries did come to Japan in hopes of winning converts to Christianity. There has been vague reports and stories passed down that Japanese and Europeans fought during these times in minor skirmishes. But unfortunately for the sake of our discussion, these times were passed the age in Europe when true knighthood and the art of steel weaponsmithing were at their peak. When the Europeans travelled to Japan in the 1600’s, the advent of firearms had overshadowed the importance of melee weapons, and the Europeans began to see the future, so to speak. So, during these times the centuries old craft of steel weaponsmithing declined very dramatically to facilitate the working of early flintlock and matchlock firearms. The quality of melee weapons such as swords took a back seat. The Portugese and Spanish were armed with swords, but these were poorly made sabers and cutlasses, not the premier masterwork quality longswords and arming swords of years past.
Thanks for the info Nic. Were the European made sabers of poorer quality than the Japanese Katana? I’m just curious based on skill and technique how the European swordsmen matched up to the Samurai. If their swords were of similar quality, neither were wearing armour or had a shield, and they were about the same size who do you think would win?
As far as the sabers carried by the Portugese and Spanish sailors…Yes, they were of much poorer quality than a typical katana of that era. But, the longswords and arming swords of 100-500 years prior to this were extremely well made, just as good or better than any katana.
Remember, during this time Europeans were basically “giving up” on swords and other melee weaponry and transferring their interests into firearms. They were considerably less trained in melee tactics than in ages past. I would say that these sailors were, on the norm, just basically trained in hand-to-hand combat and weapons training. But, there could of been a few exceptional individuals among them…this we can never know for sure.
But…I would have to say in my honest opinion that if a basic Portugese/Spanish sailor armed with his saber or cutlass faced off against a Japanese warrior armed with a katana, the sailor may be in a bit of trouble because the common samurai would, in my opinion, be better suited and more well trained in his weapon and melee/hand-to-hand combat. But, the sailor could just brandish his pistol and pop a lead ball in the samurai’s chest and that is all she wrote…
Once again, thanks Nic for the info and your insights.