Knight vs Samurai

[Infinity Blade]

Knight (man-at-arms)


Samurai


A FEW NOTES:

1.) This thread's main scenario involves a European knight/man-at-arms from the 15th to 16th centuries and a samurai from the mid-16th to early 17th centuries. In such a scenario, their weapons and armor will be at their most advanced (samurai during the Edo period could use a variety of armors aside from their most protective forms). However, if you'd like, you're more than welcome to make your own separate post in this thread detailing what you think a battle between a knight and samurai from different time periods (from the aforementioned) would be like. If you do this, be sure to specify which time period each is from.

2.) This thread's main scenario will ignore firearms. Again, if you would like to discuss what would happen if both warriors are given their respective firearms that they used historically, you are welcome to make your own separate post in this thread detailing what you think would happen.

3.) Both warriors have their horses. This fight can take place on horseback or on foot.

[Infinity Blade]

I will at least try to post my full thoughts later in the day, as there's some work I'd like to get done today. If not today, certainly I'd like to do it by the weekend.

However, I will say this. If you're imagining this fight starting with the two of them getting in a sword duel (pop culture loves to imagine warriors using swords as their first and foremost weapon), get that image out of your head. Both warriors are going to use several other weapons before they have to resort to using their swords.

So the fight is probably going to be less like this


and more like this (image source).


(Although, the drawing directly above depicts what the two would look like in the 13th century, not in the centuries stipulated for the main scenario of this thread.)

[Supercommunist]

Depends on what kind of knight but he probably has the edge given that his weapons are better at dealing with armor, whereas the samurai's wasn't.

The samurai's bow might be a good way of killing the knights horse, but in a 1 v 1 I don't think it will help much. Aiming with a bow is difficult and even today there is a 21 foot rule regarding holstered pistols and knife combat.

[Infinity Blade]

Before I begin I want to make a few final disclaimers.

1.) I know some relatively basic things about historical warriors, but I am by no means a dedicated expert. Guys like Venomous Dragon, Kazanshin, and Supercommunist above me almost certainly know more about these warriors than I do. Even so, I think I know enough about knights and samurai to make a reasonable judgement on this topic.

2.) Keep in mind that, realistically, the level of skill, experience, health, etc. are also important to who would win a duel, especially since it's not like either is so much better equipped as to make these factors of limited relevance. Sometimes the person who holds the advantage in these regards might be the knight, other times it might be the samurai. To correct for these factors, I'm going to assume a knight and a samurai who are approximately equally skilled and experienced in combat. Both, of course, are healthy individuals.

3.) If this post isn't of the best quality, I apologize. I still had other things (namely work) on my mind as I wrote this post and, as I've stated above, I'm not an expert.

Armor:

The knight, of course, is decked out in full plate harness made of well-tempered steel. You know the look; it's literally in the OP.

The samurai is decked in a type of armor called tosei-gusoku. You know the look of this too, but you might not be as familiar with what it's made of. The vast majority of armor worn by samurai over the centuries was made with a combination of some ferrous metal and rawhide, with varying proportions of the two. But what ferrous metal was it? Iron or steel?

That depends on how rich the samurai in question was. The best a samurai could get was some sort of laminate plate armor made of both steel and iron (armor like this was likely reserved for the torso and head, as they need protection the most). That is, it would be composed of an outer layer of steel and an outer layer of iron. This had an interesting perk; the more durable outer layer of steel gave better protective qualities, while the more flexible inner iron layer would help deaden impacts (especially if struck by a projectile).[1][2] Just so we're clear, this doesn't mean this armor was thicker than the completely steel armor the knight has, seeing how the Japanese were able to create examples of this laminate armor that were as little as 1 mm thick.[2] It's just that this is how the best armor incorporating steel was made. My opinion is, while this unique perk may have its advantages, I'm pretty sure armor that is one-part steel and one-part iron is not going to be as strong as armor (of similar thickness) that's completely steel (and tempered steel at that).

It must be emphasized, too, that armor like this was not the norm. Steel was clearly utilized, but it seems safe to say that it was not used on a large, let alone universal, scale by the medieval Japanese. And it makes sense that this was the case, as steel is heavier than iron, much more labor intensive to produce, and accordingly more expensive .The kind of metal you'd generally see in samurai armor would therefore simply have been iron.[1][2] And armor made of iron is definitely not going to be as strong as armor made of steel. 

Primary weapons:

The knight's primary weapon is the lance, although European heavy cavalry replaced lances with pistols during the 16th century. The samurai's primary weapon depended on the era. At first it was the yumi (bow), but during the Sengoku Jidai it was, for the vast majority of samurai, some kind of polearm (horseback archery had become rare by this point due to changes in Japanese warfare).[3][4]

The collision between mounted samurai and masses of ashigaru on most Sengoku Period battlefields meant that the ideal world of honourable single combat which the samurai had imbibed from legends could hardly ever be realized in the press of battle, and the 16th-century mounted samurai’s weaponry reflected one aspect of that harsh reality. Sengoku Period samurai had been fed on tales of mounted archery, and there were still a few samurai whose preferred individual weapon was the traditional yumi (longbow). Mounted archery was, however, a skill that required constant practice, and the use of bows from horseback was not conducive to the success of norikuzushi tactics, so the vast majority of the Takeda samurai wielded a pole-arm of some sort.

The elite troops of the Japanese army were the famous samurai, the knights of old Japan. Traditionally, they had been the only warriors to own and ride horses. Centuries before their primary role had been to act as mounted archers, although this skill was rarely displayed on a battlefield by 1592. Instead their usual weapon was now the yari (spear), a weapon unsuitable for slashing but ideal for stabbing – the best technique to use from a saddle.

If we're talking about a samurai with a polearm (e.g. yari or naginata), as was the norm for samurai during the Sengoku Jidai (and the main scenario here stipulates such a samurai), then we're talking about a close quarters fight on horseback. How would the use of a yari compare with that of a knight's lance? Sengoku samurai would have functioned as shock cavalry, and they have been compared to lance-wielding Napoleonic-era light cavalrymen by Dr. Stephen Turnbull. The momentum of a horseback thrust from a yari could be considerable. Nevertheless, they also would not have produced anything like the impact of European knights.

So of what did a ‘cavalry charge’ consist when it was delivered by these horses? First, they would gallop more slowly than the horses used in samurai films, and as the samurai steed had to carry an armoured rider the velocity and momentum of a charge would be that much less than that of a modern racehorse. Mounted samurai nevertheless had the ability to deliver a considerable shock, although Japanese cavalry actions would have produced nothing like the impact of European knights in full body armour and carrying stout lances.

Mochi-yari were highly versatile weapons when wielded by strong and well-practised samurai. Spears could be couched like European lances but were far more likely to be swung freely from the saddle. When attacking another mounted samurai the greatest level of spear control was achieved by having one’s opponent on one’s left. The spear would be held with the right hand across the body, while the left hand controlled the horse. Otherwise the spear was held out to the side of the horse in the right hand and swung either in huge slashing strokes or with more delicacy and precision as a thrusting weapon. When attacking ashigaru or other samurai on foot a stabbing spear could be used like the lance of a Napoleonic-era light cavalryman, and there are illustrations of mounted samurai ‘pig-sticking’ unfortunate ashigaru on the ends of their spear blades. The momentum of the thrust could well lift the unfortunate victim into the air.

So although both could hit hard in a cavalry charge, the knight can just hit a lot harder than the samurai with a mounted charge, which is an obvious advantage. What helps him out here? A) He's far more liable to couch his lance (and the "lance rests" that were present in late medieval breastplates made them even more specialized at shock absorption), B) his lance is thicker, more robust, and just all around heavier to help transfer more force into the target (the flared arrêt de lance in late medieval lances also prevents the user's hand from slipping up during the collision), and C) his horse is a lot bigger and probably faster (more details below). And just to confirm that a knight is easily capable of replicating the same pig-sticking feat the samurai are described doing above, there is an 8th century account written by Paul the Deacon where he describes a Lombard warrior spearing a Byzantine horseman with his lance. It was so strong that he was able to lift the Byzantine up from his saddle and bear his weight aloft as the victim struggled (link). If an 8th century mounted lancer could do that, a 15th or 16th century heavy lancer definitely could.

It's important to note what kind of damage the knight's lance charge could do: it has the capacity to penetrate through armor and create a deadly wound to the opponent. This makes sense, considering the couched lance is powered by a massive animal galloping at full speed (~50 km/h or so), with the momentum of this charge being concentrated onto a small, sharp lance point. Granted, late medieval European lance combat was not limited to simply couching the lance and charging. Likewise, if the samurai's yari was of the cross-bladed variant, it could allow him to dismount the knight, and the latter could be in serious trouble. Also, it could still be used to stab through weak points or gaps in armor, or hit with the shaft like a staff. However, the knight would find it significantly easier to harm the samurai with his lance than vice versa.

A naginata, nagamaki, or nodachi would be less useful in my opinion. Unlike the yari, these are specialized slashing weapons, which makes them comparatively inappropriate for injuring a knight in full plate. With curved blades and tips not especially designed to slip through narrow gaps in armor, it would be more difficult to injure the knight with any of these weapons. Also, all three of these weapons had to be held in two hands rather than one, making them unsuitable for a full gallop charge and more suited to a close quarter melee after said charge. That's perfectly fine if you're hacking and slashing at hordes of ashigaru with some unprotected areas, a lot less so if you're confronted by a knight charging at you at full gallop.

But let's say we were talking about an odd Sengoku period samurai who stuck with the traditional yumi on horseback. In that scenario, the samurai will obviously have a range advantage, and a warbow like the yumi is a very powerful weapon. That said, while I'm certain that a powerful warbow like the yumi (with a draw weight that could easily be 120 lbs or more) could go through low quality munition armor or riveted mail, I don't think it would be powerful enough to penetrate the kind of high quality armor a knight would be equipped with (IIRC, the similarly powerful English longbows couldn't do this). I also don't think going for the horse is much more viable either, since horses by this time were clad in plate armor as well (example 1, example 2). On the other hand, refer to what I said above about the knight's capacity to seriously injure the samurai with his lance. Also, consider that just as how the samurai might target the knight's horse, the knight might target the samurai's horse. Looking at the kind of armor a samurai's horse would wear (example), it doesn't look like it's as protective as the armor of the samurai himself.

Other weapons:

Of course, the two have other weapons to their disposal as well. The knight would have a poleaxe, a dagger (which may be used in close quarters to stab through the gaps and weak points of armor), and some type of longsword as a sidearm. Alternatively, he might also very well have a halberd (or less commonly an ahlspiess), and also have either a warhammer or mace (either of these would be useful on horseback after his lance has been used). The samurai would also have a kanabō (a long club, with one- and two-handed versions, potentially with studs or spikes[5]), and of course, three different types of sword as sidearms or for close quarters use against armor gaps or weak points (in order from increasing length, katana, tantō, and wakizashi).

Neither knight nor samurai would want to be hit by the other's blunt, relatively massive weapons (poleaxe and kanabō, respectively). In fact, on foot, the two would probably be best off using their two-handed concussive weapons. However, a strike from the knight's poleaxe should be more damaging than a strike from the samurai's kanabō, as the force of the blow is concentrated onto a smaller surface area. There are different variations of poleaxe (not all even have a choppy axe blade, like the bec de corbin or bec de faucon[6]), but in short, getting hit by the hammer or spike faces of a poleaxe could cause some serious blunt or piercing damage to someone in armor. The kanabō does have an advantage in that, because a rather long portion of the weapon could be used to strike, it's more "forgiving". That is, even if one section of it misses your opponent, another section could still connect. But in my opinion, unless the knight is an inexperienced individual who isn't quite adept at using a poleaxe, the poleaxe's advantage outweighs the kanabō's.

As I've alluded to previously, the warriors' swords (longsword and katana) are sidearms. Both warriors would be invulnerable to slashing attacks from the other's sword. Similarly, thrusts aimed directly at the strong points of the armor would also be useless. For swords to be useful here, they must either be used to thrust through the gaps, joints, or weak points of the enemy's armor, or they must be used in some way to deliver blunt force trauma. The knight has the option of using half-swording: i.e. grabbing the hilt with one hand and the mid section of the blade with the other to gain better control of the tip of the sword, and driving it through a gap or weak point in the opponent's armor. Alternatively, the knight can also perform mordhau: i.e. grabbing the sword by the blade with both hands and literally striking with the crossguard and pommel. Given the shape of the katana's blade and the lack of the same crossguard and pommel shape, the samurai is unable to do the same with his sword, and I'm not aware of any similar techniques with a katana he could use to make the best of a suboptimal situation. From the mid 14th to early 15th centuries, there was even a type of sword in Europe (what we today call an Oakeshott type XVII) with a stiff blade sporting a hexagonal cross section; some of these swords could weigh up to 5.5 pounds. This sword was primarily designed to thrust/punch through the gaps, joints, and weakpoints of armor, but (due to the reinforced edges and relatively high weight) could also be used to deliver powerful axe or war hammer-like blows to armored opponents.[7][8] So even in the department of sidearms I think the knight holds the advantage, ironically, because he's not using his sword like a sword (and more like an improvised dagger or mace).

Both warriors also have short bladed weapons (daggers or short swords) that can be used for close quarters combat. The knight could have used any one of multiple types of dagger, while the samurai has the tantō or wakizashi. These can be used to slip through any gaps in armor, and their short blade means they have much finer control over the tip of the blade. This would make it much easier to land a precise, accurate thrust into a relatively small vulnerable region than with a long blade. There were even forms of these weapons that were particularly well suited to piercing armor, especially less protective armor. The yoroi-doshi was a tantō with a thickened blade and spine (picture->). If he managed to stab a part of the knight's body protected by maille as opposed to plate (e.g. the armpits), that could be deadly. Similarly, the knight could be equipped with a single-edged rondel dagger. Single-edged rondel daggers (which became popular in the 15th century) had a triangular cross section with a thick and rigid spine, shaped like an ice pick.[9] I imagine these would have the same purpose as the yoroi-doshi; if the knight managed to stab a less protective part of the samurai's armor, that could, again, be fatal. Both would presumably have gone through all the weapons mentioned above by the time they resorted to using their daggers or short swords. Given that both weapons are pretty similar to each other and that the warriors' success here will be contingent on their grappling skills at close quarters, I think both warriors are equal in this regard.

Horses:

Just wanted to make a few quick notes on their horses. Horses back then (especially in the Middle Ages and Renaissance) were, on average, smaller than they are today. But it looks like the knight's and samurai's horses reflect how the two would fight on horseback. The samurai's horse is a small and sturdy animal related to the kind of horse the Mongols used. They were well suited for traversing through the hilly and mountainous regions of Japan, as well as for providing stability for mounted archery. They wouldn't have the speed and mass a knight's horse would have, and so they weren't suitable for the same kind of shock cavalry charges a European knight would perform (this is consistent with what I wrote above).[10] This wasn't a problem for samurai in their real historical context (since again, the purpose of this horse was meant to traverse through hilly terrain and provide stability for mounted archery). But here, if the knight – who's going to be mounted on a charging rouncey or courser (or even a destrier) – connects with the samurai and/or his horse using his lance, that would be a problem.

To get an idea of the power difference we're talking about between the two warriors' horses, consider the following facts. In 1989, archaeologists found the skeleton of a horse from the site of Takeda Shingen's mansion (Takeda Shingen was a daimyo who lived from 1521-1573) in what is now Kōfu City. This horse had a shoulder height just shy of 1.2 meters and was estimated to weigh 250 kg in life.[4] By contrast, medieval European horses of a height of 15 hands (1.52 m) – a size that seems to have been consistently reached from the 11th to 16th centuries – would have weighed ~550 kg.[11] In other words, the knight's horse can be expected to be over twice as massive as the samurai's horse. The difference in power is extremely obvious.

Conclusion:

More often than not, I favor the knight. Simply put, his armor is significantly superior, and he is equipped with weapons made to deal with said armor. I'll emphasize again that this is under the assumption that both the knight and samurai are healthy individuals, and neither is at a significant disadvantage in skill or experience. This is also assuming we're talking about a 15th-16th century knight against a mid-16th-early 17th century samurai, and also ignoring firearms. Knights from earlier centuries were not as well armored as they were in the 1400s and 1500s. I suspect that no knight short of maybe a late 14th century knight would best a samurai in tosei-gusoku. 

References:

[1] Absolon, T. (2011). The Watanabe Art Musuem Samurai Armour Collection Volume I~ Kabuto & Mengu (Vol. 1). Trevor Absolon.
[2] Absolon, T. (2017). Samurai Armour: Volume I: The Japanese Cuirass. Bloomsbury Publishing.
[3] Turnbull, S. (2012). The Samurai Invasion of Korea 1592-98
[4] Turnbull, S. (2019). Samurai Vs Ashigaru: Japan 1543-75.
[5] gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/kanabou-samurais-mace.html
[6] myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html
[7] myarmoury.com/feature_spotxvii.html
[8] www.thearma.org/spotlight/oakeshott_typology.html#.YIQaI31Khz8
[9] myarmoury.com/feature_spot_rondel.html
[10] krigetkommer.weebly.com/renaissance-armies/samurai-painting-guide-part-3-horses
[11] Pryor, J.H. (2006). Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades

[Supercommunist]

Neither knight nor samurai would want to be hit by the other's blunt, relatively massive weapons (poleaxe and kanabō, respectively). In fact, on foot, the two would probably be best off using their two-handed concussive weapons. However, a strike from the knight's poleaxe should be more damaging than a strike from the samurai's kanabō, as the force of the blow is concentrated onto a smaller surface area. There are different variations of poleaxe (see [4] linked down below for more variations), but in short, getting hit by the hammer or spike faces of a poleaxe could cause some serious blunt or even some degree of piercing damage to someone in armor. The kanabō does have an advantage in that, because a rather long portion of the weapon could be used to strike, it's more "forgiving". That is, even if one section of it misses your opponent, another section could still connect. But in my opinion, unless the knight is an inexperienced individual who isn't quite adept at using a poleaxe, the poleaxe's advantage outweighs the kanabō's.

Another advantage of the poleaxe is that there are a lot of grappling techniques.

You can use the spike to hook limbs and weapons, whereas the kanabo is just a bashy tool.



A lot of armored fighting also comes down to grappling. In a lot of armored sparring sessions it appears that being grappled to the ground is basically game over, so daggers may actually be one of the most important weapons used in this fight.








Also while the knights plate armor is generally superior to a samurai's it is worth noting that like some european armors japanese armor could be proofed against some gunpowder weapons.



For more info look up Tameshi gusoku.

[Infinity Blade]

I hadn't considered the grappling advantage for the poleaxe. Good point.

I know both Europeans and the Japanese created bulletproof armor, but I wasn't entirely sure how a fight where both are equipped with such armor would go (which is part of the reason why I decided to exclude them from my analysis).

[Infinity Blade]

I think I might need to correct myself on one bit.

It is true that the yumi was the samurai's primary weapon initially; from what I understand, it would have been their primary weapon from the Heian to Muromachi periods. But it looks like during the Sengoku period, the yari became more popular than the yumi. In fact, one source I've read claimed that horseback archery skills were rarely displayed on the battlefield by the end of the Sengoku period.

So it may be that instead our Sengoku period samurai would more likely be armed with a yari, and he could use this weapon on horseback (although, not in the same shock cavalry charge a European knight would perform). While I still think a regular yari would be of limited use against a knight in full plate, there were cross-bladed variants that allowed a samurai to pull an opponent from his horse. I believe that would give a spear-armed samurai better odds against a knight when fighting on horseback (that's to say nothing of whether he could then win more often than not, however).

[Supercommunist]

^Big powerful warbows are very difficult too use and very tiring on the arms, so in a 1v1 fight against an armored opponent its probably not terribly useful, and might actually tire him out before they start brawling.

[Infinity Blade]

I think you're right, so above I've considered what might happen if the samurai were to start out with a spear instead. I don't think a regular yari would be very useful against a knight in full plate either, but a cross bladed one could give him a better chance.

Anything else that might be worth noting?

[Supercommunist]

Besides trying to aim for gaps in armor with his spear, a samurai could probably use his spear like a quarterstaff. They are accounts of people have their skulls caved in by humble staffs, and while a helmet would reduce a lot of the impact it, a direct hit to the head could potentially stuff the knight, so its not like the spear is totally useless.

[Supercommunist]

Long video but towards the end you can watch people testing lances against armor:

[Infinity Blade]

I'm very surprised it didn't penetrate the maille. I've seen a 12th century spear tested on riveted maille (granted, there doesn't seem to have been any padding behind it, but still), and the guy was on foot standing in place. Theoretically charging on horseback would have a lot more force behind it. Were the angles of the lance strikes off (I didn't look at the tests in detail)?

[Supercommunist]

^Before guns were invented it seems good armor tended to good defeat weapons. Now its the opposite where the best armor really stands no chance against the most powerful guns.

Weapons vs armor testing will greatly depend on the quality of the weapons and armor as they are many types iron and steel. Medeival steel tended to be far inferior to steel today, and in fact, during the era of pike and shot, most armor was made of iron instead of steel because the latter was more difficult to produce.

It's also worth noting that in most battles, the majority of causalities occured when people started routing. If you go look at some big ancient/middle age battles, you'll notice that the winning side tends to have sustained way fewer casualties.

When two opposing forces were actually fighting in formation, there was probably a lot of ineffectual stabs and thrusts being exchanged, with a man dying ever once in awhile.

That said, while chainmail is good protection, it still is capable of being pierced by spears and swords.

While I don't own it myself, there is a obscenely expensive book called the knight and the blast furnace that discusses the forces needed to penetrate diffrent types of armor and I believe it usually took about 120 joules of force to penetrate mail. Same source stated that a lance could generate 300 joules of force, empathis on could. You can find some screenshots online if you peruse some historical forums or subreddits.

Also its worth pointing out that the shape of the head:

Todsworkshop makes a bunch of good videos and he seems to take the quality of weapons and armor into great consideration when doing his tests:

In his crossbow tests for instance he found that while broadheads are the best at penetrating fabeic they suck at dealing with metal armor. On the reverse, the plate cutter bounces off of chainmail and gambesons but is great at messing up brigandines, and bodkins are meh at dealing with fabric armor but are pretty good against chainmail.





Note: while he is using a super modern crossbow in the 2nd video, it's meant to be a simulation of a high poundage long bow as the modern crossbow he is using launches longbow arrows at very similar speeds.

[Infinity Blade]

Yeah, I just realized that the lance used against the maille aventail was leaf-headed.

My thinking right now is that it's not necessarily guaranteed that a charge and hit from a lance will damage metal plate armor, but I definitely think it's a realistic possibility. I think Eric Lowe put it nicely here.

I think Pieter Buis had the right of it. Put it this way: when people weren't tilting with intent to kill, they put on extra-heavy armor and blunted their lances. That should tell you a lot about what they thought might happen with regular warfighting armor and live lance heads. As should the fact that even with tournament armor and tournament lance heads, people still got seriously hurt on a fairly regular basis.

On top of that, mounted fencing treatises always advise you to parry your opponent’s lance strike. Nobody assumed that your armor was good enough to just eat a lance strike from a mounted man.

Now, as Pieter and Marcell Rába rightly point out, that doesn't mean that lance points always punches through armor plate. Depending on the angle of the strike, relative motion, and all sorts of other factors, they might skid off or merely dent the plate. But nobody felt safe assuming that would happen. There's your answer.

www.quora.com/Could-the-lance-of-a-knight-penetrate-plate-armor

Also, I'm in the process of making a post on the 11th century counterparts of the two warriors. That should be coming up eventually.

[Infinity Blade]

Okay, so we've seen the two at their near apex (apex would be with gunpowder weapons and with bulletproof armor). But now it's time we look at the two from the 11th century!

The knight:

For this fight we'll use an 11th century Norman knight (from 1066).


Image source


Same image source as above.



The knight is wearing a maille hauberk and he should be wearing quilted padded armor underneath this. The hauberk protects his upper arms and thighs. The lower legs would typically just have strong boots, although if the knight were rich enough, he could have maille chausses. The forearms are not covered, and maille gauntlets were not a thing yet. There is, of course, also the conical nasal helmet and the massive kite shield. The horse has no barding for protection.[1]

As it would be in later centuries, his primary weapon is his lance. I’ve seen this lance described as a long, relatively light spear (contrast this with the heavy lance used in the 15th and 16th centuries). Some Norman knights indeed held the lance in a couched position for a shock cavalry charge, but this wasn’t always the case. It could be used on foot and could be used to stab overhand or underarm. Apparently some knights even threw their lances![1]

The knight, of course, also has his sword, which would have been a one-handed sword similar to the kind the Vikings used[1] (Oakeshott Type X). This sword’s primary function would be for cutting[1][2], but could have some use for stabbing. The pommel could also be used for clubbing foes.[1] Of course, a mace is a dedicated clubbing weapon, and is something the Norman knight could have as well (it looks like there was some variety as to what the head could look like).

The samurai:

On the opposing side is the 11th century samurai.


Image source


Found image from here


(This last image is a photograph of an actual samurai from the 19th century. Interestingly, after the Sengoku Jidai ended and Japan entered the relatively peaceful Edo period, some samurai opted for retro-style armors because...why not? There were no more large scale wars, so they could afford to wear outdated types of armor. The ō-yoroi was revived in the late 17th and 18th centuries, hence this 19th century photograph of a samurai wearing armor invented 900 years before).

This type of armor is called ō-yoroi. Honestly, I wasn’t entirely sure how best to summarize its construction, but I’ll let you read Wikipedia’s article on it (particularly the section on components) to better understand what it is. The best way I can summarize it succinctly (with regards to the head and torso particularly), the cuirass is lamellar covered by leather, the right side was covered in a separate piece altogether (the top was a solid iron plate while the bottom was lamellar), and the helmet was composed of iron plates riveted together.

Ō-yoroi was a boxy armor that was deliberately made to be larger than the wearer’s proportions. The reason for this was to create space between the interior surface of the cuirass and the samurai’s body, acting as a buffer zone that kept anything that managed to pierce the armor away from the body. The trade off is that this created issues of weight distribution of the armor. Speaking of weight distribution, a whole ō-yoroi weighed anywhere from 26-30 kg, and the vast majority of this weight was born on the shoulders. While this was a non-issue while fighting on horseback (since the horse could just bear the weight of the armor), this did make the ō-yoroi impractical for dismounted combat, all the more so since the average Japanese male at the time would have weighed ~55 kg.[3]

The samurai’s primary weapon from this time would undoubtedly be the yumi, which, at least according to Wikipedia, had evolved throughout several centuries (from the late 10th to 16th centuries). By the end of the 10th century, it was a two-piece wood and bamboo laminated bow. Perhaps it wasn’t quite as powerful as it would be 600 years later, but I’d still imagine it to be a powerful warbow. He’s also armed with the tachi, a long curved sword (the katana hadn’t been invented yet).

To tell you the truth, I don’t know what other weapons the samurai would have used at this time. I’m sure part of that is just due to ignorance on my part, but I know some of the weapons I mentioned in my previous big post either didn’t exist or were uncommon during the 11th century. The kanabō’s first mention is from the 14th century.[4] The yari’s first mention is from a battlefield casualty report from 1334, and didn’t really become popular until the late 15th century (although, there were earlier spears with different construction called hoko). The naginata may or may not have existed in the 11th century, but its earliest clear reference is from 1146, and it seems to be that it was relatively new during the late 12th century.[5]

The battle:

Our battle is going to start with the knight trying to strike the samurai with his lance. The samurai would try to shoot the knight at a distance with an arrow. The knight could obviously block arrows with his enormous kite shield, but two concerns run through my head.

1.) If an arrow did hit an area covered in maille and gambeson, would it penetrate through and injure the knight?

2.) How badly would arrows affect the knight’s unarmored horse if they hit a non-vital region?

I ask this second question because I’ve read an argument before that (perhaps unless the horse took an arrow to a vital region) it’s not like one shot from an arrow is going to automatically fell an animal as big as a horse. Of course, the samurai has way more than one arrow, so perhaps the question should rather be how many arrows to non-vital regions can the knight’s horse take?

I’m not sure about the first question either. Obviously some arrowheads are better shaped for dealing with maille or gambeson than others, but I’m not 100% sure how well riveted maille+gambeson could stand up to a yumi, particularly one from this time period (I’m sure a 16th century yumi with the right arrow could go through it, though). Because the 11th century yumi was still a powerful warbow, though, I think it would be in the knight's best interests to not take the chance and block as many arrows as he can with his shield.

What about a sword duel? The Norman knight’s Oakeshott Type X is primarily designed to cut. Unfortunately, the samurai’s tachi is even more specialized for cutting due to its curved shape* (also, at least from what I could find, it was meant to be used with only one hand[6][7][8], just like the Norman sword).

On the other hand, the knight could also use the pommel on his sword to club with (or he could just use his actual mace for this). I don’t think the tachi could be used in an analogous manner. And then, of course, there’s the elephant in the room that is the kite shield. Likewise, the samurai’s ō-yoroi isn’t particularly well suited for combat on foot due to not just its weight, but also the way its weight is distributed (the knight has a belt tied around his waist, which IIRC meant that the weight is now born at the hips rather than the shoulders).

So in short, I’m not 100% sure how a fight on horseback would go, as the knight and his horse are more vulnerable to the samurai's arrows this time around. On foot, I might actually still favor the knight, if only because he has a massive shield to go with his sword, and because his armor appears to be more foot combat-friendly. This is just a guess, however, and it's only at the top of my head.



*There were straight tachi from the Nara and early Heian periods, but curved tachi were around by the late Heian period.[5] I assume, then, that an 11th century tachi would be curved.

References:

[1] Dougherty, M. J. (2016). Weapons and Fighting Techiniques of the Medieval Warrior: 1000-1500 AD. Chartwell Books.
[2] www.albion-swords.com/articles/oakeshott-typology.htm
[3] Absolon, T. (2017). Samurai Armour: Volume I: The Japanese Cuirass. Bloomsbury Publishing.
[4] gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/kanabou-samurais-mace.html
[5] Friday, K. F. (2004). Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval Japan. Psychology Press.
[6] samuraiblades.tripod.com/types.htm
[7] Turnbull, S. (2011). Katana: The samurai sword. Bloomsbury Publishing.
[8] Sato, K., & Satō, K. (1983). The Japanese Sword (Vol. 12). Kodansha International.