However there is sufficient evidence surviving that when paired with contemporary research has given us a much better under-standing of the function and use of Medieval and Renaissance European arms and armors to confirm that they were highly effective and dynamic skills. It's adept in unarmored cut and thrust fighting where the slightest wound from its keen edge could perhaps sever a hand or disabled an arm. Yet, individual challenges, whether to the death or not, were frequent. Because Miyamoto Musashi was a real person, and would have a slight advantage over any random hedge knight. Also, while there are weak points in the joints of the armor, plate mail still provides protecttion for 90% of the upper body. Though each is an accomplished horseman, it would also be conducive to have the single-combat duel occur dismounted, alone, on foot and without use of missile weapons.
The true power of the sword stroke is against limbs, which can be broken, and are much more accessible. The knight and it's not even close. Regular plate armour is still much than Japanese armour 50lb , but both armours offer the same amount of effective protection. Significantly, it frequently had open feet and hands and a design that permitted archery. All of those locations are nearly impossible to armor. Or if you want the real samurai experience, he comes riding a horse and wielding a bow. It has to be there though so we can all be witness to his glory.
It has been said that while Europeans designed their armor to defeat swords, the Japanese designed their swords to defeat armor. They fought for the consideration and dignity of their nation. You simply cannot narrow down such comparisons between two types of soldiers by depicting a scenario involving two individuals. I have no doubt that Samurai's were fast, armed to the teeth with crazy sharp weapons, and good with unarmed combat too, but in a straight hand-to-hand weapons fight i'd think them outclassed. The armored, mounted warrior, born in Middle Ages, revolutionized warfare and became the foundation of the new political structure known as feudalism. When contrasting these two styles of sword we should probably also keep in mind a number of points.
Knights wore armor made from metal links and they used swords and sheilds in battles. Unarmoured duel with swords respective to their culture: I would say 60—75% for the knight because of the longer sword, and possible reach advantage from height. He was armed with a heavy sword that was used for cutting mainly, and not stabbing. The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government. A longer weapon does have advantages -especially if used by a taller man against a smaller with a shorter weapon.
Battles usually have cavalry, arrows, firearms and cannons involved, if not besieging castles. Furthermore, it is particularly good at cutting against metal? At around age 21 they would become a knight. Unfortunately, many people learn their medieval history from movies. Indeed, since the shield side is so well guarded, the opponent is the one limited to attacking to only one side? If the knight has no missile weapon, I would say the Samurai, as they are more lightly armoured and can likely avoid the knights more clumsy attacks. Third off, this is Not a duel.
Even if the Samurai had a ranged weapon. Those who presume the use of Medieval long-sword merely involved a brutish hacking are also under a tremendous delusion. Contrary to popular belief, the armor knights wore was well-articulated and had almost no detrimental effect on combat movements. To build and defend his new empire, he needed thousands of well trained and prepared soldiers. Curiously, each warrior was highly skilled in using their respective armor-piercing daggers and with close-in grappling something not generally known about actual knightly fencing skills. Contempt for life and contempt for a dangerous, unknown opponent you might underestimate can be a disastrous combination.
Along with combat training and courtly graces, a knight was typically taught to dance, swim, read poetry, play chess, to hawk and to hunt with a team, as well as fight as a unit in battle. The half-swording techniques of the longsword would also not be nearly as viable here, though its hilt design might prove very useful. Although a skilled warrior could certainly improvise some, those unfamiliar with the formidable effectiveness and versatility of a sword and shield combination will have a hard time. Or will he wear the later close fitting Kamakura period do-maru armor and use the more familiar katana? The Warriors We can reasonably assume that the personal attributes such as individual strength, speed, stamina, age, health, and courage, are fairly consistent between such professional warriors. If you are ever in England then you must make a trip to the Royal Armouries. Although swords were a status symbol for the warrior elite, both groups had other weapons that they preferred and were frankly more effective.
Likely the samurai as they wear lighter armor and have substantially better mobility. In addition to the hundred or so different sword forms--both European and Asian, antique and modern--that I've test-cut with against a wide assortment of materials, I've also cut with numerous Japanese swords in this case, early-20th century specimens and modern reproductions as well as attended several test-cutting demonstrations. Elsley Court, 20-22 Great Titchfield Street, London Pan books Ltd, 1978. Yet a shield user's attacks are not at all one sided. Similar to a European knight, Samurai, while mounted on horseback, would wear full heavy armor called O-yoroi. To be fair, while there is an extraordinary amount of nonsense and fantasy surrounding historical European swords and sword arts, there is a good deal of myth and ignorance on the true teachings of historical Japanese fencing. You've obviously never handled an antique genuine, original sword.
Unlike the Gambeson, it was rare for these robes to be reinforced, or for the armor to be mounted onto it. Skirmishing was not also uncommon and there were a few large scale military expeditions to Korea and surrounding islands. Therefore if the knight had a missile weapon, I would guess the knight would win. Plate mail armor is not that heavy. The museum also breeds and trains its own 'warhorses'. A trained English archer could fire 10 arrows per minutes.
I think some of the facts here are miscalculated. Will the knight employ a center-gripped type with front umbo or one worn by enarme straps? Regardless, both samurai and european knights are inferior to the 1300 golden hoard era mounted mongol archer. European swords weren't all sharp along the blade. I deliberately only quoted that single part of your comment in an attempt to show that I wasn't attempting to invalidate what you were saying. Katanas are powerful swords used with strong techniques, but thinking they could simply cleave through a stout Medieval shield is absurd. Or will the encounter be a blind one in which neither knows anything about their adversary? They were light, agile, and stiff, yet very flexible to withstand the trauma of use.