Knight vs Samurai - Accurate Historical Comparison
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 07. 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.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
"KofunCuirass". Con licenza Pubblico dominio tramite Wikimedia Commons - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
"Hon kozane dou gusoku" di Ian Armstrong - www.flickr.com/photos/ianz/267.... Con licenza CC BY-SA 2.0 tramite Wikimedia Commons - commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
Follow me on my social networks:
/ themetatron
/ metatron_youtube
Metatron-153...
/ 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
amedeo.capor...
and his instagram
amedeo.capor...
Check out my friend Salvo's channel
/ @littlesalvo000
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.
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
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.
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
“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
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 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
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?
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 *
"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 czcams.com/video/l5mqf-GNIXI/video.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 CZcams
Norty
Wut
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
Excellent channel, great videos, thanks a lot.
Thank you for watching!
Knight vs Samurai????? My answer:
deus Vult.
FUCK OFF .onion allahu akbaaaaar
Metatron: "weapons like poleaxes"
warhammer: "am i a joke to you?"
Yes
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
Extremely unbiased look into the hypothetical. Great video
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 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.
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
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 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 !
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.
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.)
Very interesting and well thought out. I always appreciate your videos, thank you
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
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.
This is actually a good review. Thank you for the upload.
This video is utterly amazing! So informed!
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.
I really Love the way Metatron, speaks and expresses Himself, so elegantly and expertly.
You’re approach is so refreshing.
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.
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".
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.
Thank you. Well thought out and accurate, as usual.
Nice video mate, very well put together 👍👍👍
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.
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.
Such a great and respectable channel. Lots of knowledgeable details and topics. I really enjoy the METATRON😁
I love your quick pretty intro that doesn't take from the video!
"The stretching, I'm a big fan!"
Of course, you are...!
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?
love your videos, keep up the good work.
Metatron, you're the bomb. Where's your TV show that's what I want to know. Never seen a more informative video on the topic. Love all your videos, really nice work.
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
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*
I love your page man you make learning so much fun!
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.
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...
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
Awesome Video! Very interesting.
Very informative. I learned a lot.
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
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.
I recently subbed to your channel and have been looking through the vids you post and found this on, this is a good one unbiased and based on facts and not opinions. Thank you for a great channel.
About time we had a video that was accurate :) thanks for the information.
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.
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.
Thank you very much for the most sensible, non-biased comparison I've seen on the topic. Cheers
Joined the channel based on your recommendation.
Thank You.
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?
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
exelent video, thanks for the info.
Ty great vid. Looking forward to vid on jp armor construction
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.😅
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
I think you are right.
New to your channel and I enjoy the atmosphere.
You and sir Knyght, I have many videos to discover.
Regardless of age, I will comment on the videos as I happen across them.
Relevant or not, comments will be situational.
When you spot the Sun, know that the video was much appreciated, and provided much to contemplate.
I know I'm late to the party, but I really love and appreciate your very informative videos.
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
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
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.
thank you for this video. i believe everything you're saying. i kinda figured this, but it's always good to realize someone agrees with me.
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.
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
Thanks to For Honor, i hope that this channel will flourish. Ive been a fan for a bit over a year now, and this channel is fantastic
hey metatron I love ur videos please keep up the work
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!
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
I randomly found your channel. However I very much do like it and will defientely subscribe and like.
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.
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
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.
Metatron, I've watched a lot of CZcams commentary behind Knights and Samurai, and your video was the most thoughtful in terms of research and comparison. Usually videos on these topics just include one enthusiast ranting why theirs is better and offering subjective statements such as "think about it..." rather than offer factual research. And even though Shadiversity does do his fare share of research, he still has a hint of bias in his analysis - but you're is by far the most professional in terms of tone and factual content. I was surprised that you even went as far as to compare side by side the fencing techniques. I will be considering you an authority on this subject from now on. Very well done.
Excellent video, love the way you approach both sides of the argument fairly.
Just curious what, if any, anti-armor tactics were employed in the 15th century Japan. Was armor seen as much of a threat on the battlefield as in Europe?
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.