Suikoden Unique and Informational Kibbutz Objective Xperience

Suikox Home | The Speculation Shelter | Tablet of Stars | Suikoden Timeline | Suikoden Geography |Legacies


  [ View Profile | Edit Profile | Nation System | Members | Groups | Search | Register | Check PMs | Log in | FAQ ]

Knight vs. Samurai
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Starslasher

Chunks of Chaco-late.


Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:55 am    Post subject: Knight vs. Samurai Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Looking at video games, specifically RPGs, and more specifically Japanese RPGs, you have to wonder about the actualy knights and samurais. how much on par are they?

There was this web site showing a forum asking the question: Which would win, the European Knight or the Japanese Samurai? This topic on that site gave in approximately more than 20 pages worth of posts. It was facsinating, they were giving in all this information about armors, damascus steel, fighting stlyes, chivalry and other factors. i wonder how long this one can last.

Well, to give in my opinion, the Samurai was a fighter based on speed. The European Knight had an advantage of strength, as well as the heavy armor. If put on one on one, then i guess that the Knight would defeat the Samurai. Knights are trained to run and fight on heavy armor, os speed and stamina would not be that big a problem.

What about your opinions?
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan



Bork! Bork! Bork!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Ranadiel

The Squirrel Mob


Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Post Count: 1143
Location: Plaats
68112 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Oh hurray this a topic I can absolutely fall in love with. Now then in order for a correct discussion of this type you have to decide nearly an infinite number of factors into this situation. First off which time period are you going to take the samurai and knight from? Different time periods have slightly different weapons and armors which will slightly alter their fighting styles. Then which weapons are they going to have? Knights used a plethora of different wepons from various swords to spears and lances to perhaps even axes in some cases. Then samurai, while always being depicted as using a katana, also used various other weapons primarily the bow. For the sake of simplicity we will assume either a longsword with no shield or a shortsword with a shield for the knight and a katana for the samurai. Now what enviorment are we going to place the fight in? Will it be near the equator, in a very damp enviorment, or in a cold enviorment? If it is any of the above it will very likely adversely affect the knight if he is wearing full plate by making it very difficultfor him to properly function.

For the sake of simplicity let us just assume that it would be an enviorment that is nuetral to the combantants. Now with all of these factors out of the way we can finally get to the fight Neither of the two fighters will have ever encountered a fighting style quite like the one they are fighting against. If the knight is using a sword and shield, then that will throw the samurai a bit further off guard, but if he is using a longsword then both of them will be equally thrown off. The fight would start off with both of them adjusting to the other's fighting style. Then in the end the winner would be the one who could addapt to their opponent's fighting style the fastest. Should we assume that both of them are used to fighting against their opponent's fighting style(by some unusual means) then the winner would simply be whoever is more skilled in fighting against his opponent's fighting style.

So yeah basically there are an infinite number of factors that could change the outcome of the fight. If you are really interested, there is an article about this written by melee weapon expert in an old issue of Dragon that does a much better job of explaining the variables then me. I forgot the exact number and I don't have it with me, but I think it is something like number 200.
_________________
"Ye shall be as gods."

Titles: Harmonian Tenki Star, Harmonian Jousting Champion
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Lord_Tiberus661

White Wolf Army


Joined: 17 Sep 2005
Post Count: 115
Location: Nameless Lands
-21593 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 8:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

i believe that the samurai would have a better chance to winning in a fight. if you factor the fact that a samurai is trained to combat a lot of different fighting styles. he would have a better chance to beat a knight who is only trained in a couple different ways of combat. and it would be imposible for the two to already be aware of each others fighting style mainly because europe believed they were the only civilized people in the known world and japan was isolated from outside culture until (if i am correct) the meji goverment. before this they would not even let foriegn ships dock. so i beleive the samurai has a better chance of winning.
_________________
The strenght of my Mercinaries will overcome those who stand against me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vextor




Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12042
Location: Hell
11250168 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Arguments of this sort will never produce any conclusive result, but it's really impossible to even pin-point the nature of an "European Knight" or a "Japanese Samurai." One critical factor is that "Knights" were not necessarily fighters; it was an aristocratic rank within many European nations.

Samurai were also a social class, but they were required to train their martial abilities. Failure to do this often ended up in execution.

As far as the "heavy armor," although armor was certainly the strong point of European fighters, the better armors were not developed until much later in history. The heaviest armor were basically impossible to use unelss you were mounted. For this reason, some knights had to be lowered onto their steed with a pulley.



It's also incorrect to assume Japan didn't have armor. For the bulk of the times when the samurai were promonent, they used armor. Japanese armor is vastly different from armor worn by those in europe, but they are typically steel plates covered with cured leather. These were used extensively in the 11th-15th centuries when civil wars were rampant within Japan. Armor use declined with the onset of domestic peace during the Edo era--there was no real need for armor. That's why people tend to assume samurai don't wear any armor.

As far as weaponry, samurai are actually better known (in history) for using bows (particularly while mounted) and also for spears. These weapons were a lot more effective in wars compared to a katana (easy to break, sorter range, and loses it's sharpness after a few uses). Some samurai even used firearms during the sengoku era.
(Some knights used firearms as well, but the practice was less prevalent).

So the question is what people consider as being a "knight" or a "samurai." Then each person needs to evaluate whether their ideas conform with historical facts--this takes research.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox Hound

Former White Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 49
Location: Kingdom of Highland
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

I have the feeling that the knight is going to get owned because the huge amount of people here that are a samurai fan. (Well considering that Suikoden is Japanese, what do you expect? :D )

Actually........if you ask any historian they would tell you that European armours far surpassed their Japanese counterpart. This was due the lack of iron in the Japanese era.

The iron armour version of the Japanese was due to the influence of the Europeans, mainly the Portugese around the 16th century if I'm not wrong. The most important thing that you must know is that the European were using "steel", and not "iron" like the Japanese. Steel is by far the most superior form of metal in those era.

But this must not included on the weapon. The katana was formed using the highest grade of metal-material, so you can bet that the most katanas were formed with the highest class. While in europe, due to the massive amount of metal, you can basicly have the highest quality of weapons (like a schianova, two-handed bastard), or the lower ones (ordinary sword). But regarding armor, none could beat the full plate.

Also the myth about the knight's armour being heavy was just...well..rubish. Infact, european armor were easy to move with compare to say, a japanese armor (a yoroi). The pinnacle of european armor, the Maxmillian, are basicly invulnerable to sword cut, but yeah, they could still be cut if you hit it on the joints.
http://www.arador.com/gallery/gilman1.jpg

Regarding the sword training, the so called "myth" that european knights were only brute savages who only relied on strength was also rubbish. Knights also had their disciplined sword training, such as the art of Fiore or George Silver. So they can be said to equal their japanese counterpart.

but in the end, it all comes to the warrior themselves, how muc they dedicated their training and how much they are hardened in combat. I would basicly like to pit William Marshall (one of the greatest knight of europe) againts Miyamoto Musashi if possible. But again, the timeline is different, Marshall lived in the 12th century, while Musashi in the 16th's. Also by the time of Musashi, europe were already mastered guns, only rivaled by the chinese. :D

and finally...the isolationist theory for the japanese is a bit biased.

My 2 cents.
_________________
"Freedom comes at a price, Blood" - random WW II Vet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nash Latkje

The Guy Your Mother Warned You About...


Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1039
Location: Nordes Mont
41000 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Hmmm... I'd have to say that saumrais are betetr than knights... not because there is a more larger crowd that perfers samurai... but becaue i myself just prefer the quick, skillful and instant death like moves and just the dangerousness potrayed in multiple medias of the way of the samurai... such as the Last Samurai starring Tom Cruise...

Ok... so the knights have stronger armour and are made more superior to the japanese... but... what good is armour, if it still leavse you with many openings, slow you down and restrict felxibility?...

Quote:
Also the myth about the knight's armour being heavy was just...well..rubish. Infact, european armor were easy to move with compare to say, a japanese armor (a yoroi). The pinnacle of european armor, the Maxmillian, are basicly invulnerable to sword cut, but yeah, they could still be cut if you hit it on the joints.


I see... well then i know that those japanese samurai armours are pure poo... but i thought you meant samurai overall.... as in the free clothed type, with two swords by their sides... a long katana and a wakazashi maybe?... well, still samurais have greater speed due to their light and nicely streamlined blades... while the knights, still fairly fast, doesn't match up to the samurais speed...

Quote:
Regarding the sword training, the so called "myth" that european knights were only brute savages who only relied on strength was also rubbish. Knights also had their disciplined sword training, such as the art of Fiore or George Silver. So they can be said to equal their japanese counterpart.


I still believe that the way of the samurai is better than the knights...

well whatever the reasons are... i can ignore the some... logical things then... lets just say that the armour of the knights were Nothing... lets just also say that the kngihts were skillful in battles and duels... even still... i would choose a samurai over a knight...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Camus the Noble

Les RenÚs


Joined: 24 Sep 2005
Post Count: 1881
Location: Vinay Del Zexay
1056014 Potch
224 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Hmm... Well, this depends on what we are discussing? Is this a "which is better" thread or a "who would win in a fight?" thread?

As for which I prefer, that would be the samurai, for a number of reasons.

First, let's look at their respective codes of ethics, Bushido and Chivalry. Bushido is comprised of seven major virtues, and they are as follows (these are of course, translated and thus may not be exactly on the mark: Loyalty, Honesty, Honor, Benevolence, Courage, Respect, and Justice. A pretty nice, well-rounded, moral code. No arguments there. Now, Chivalry. Chivalry is a bit less defined, and is not quite as complex. The major points of Chivalry were Fealty (parallel to Bushido's Loyalty), Courage (also appears in Bushido), Willingness to Sacrifice the Self (compare to the Samurai's blind loyalty), and Piety (note: this is the one least represented in Bushido). Again, a good moral code. I do, however, have one objection to the European knight's ethics. As a knight was usually a governmental figure, the Chivalric virtue of Piety essentially is a state endorsement of the Christian religion. While I realize how common this was back then, I have a deep loathing of any state that sponsors religion, no matter what time period. Then take into account the fact that the samurai were more likely to actually follow their code; knights raped, looted, and pillaged on an infinitely larger scale. Give this point to samurai.

Now, as for who would win in a fight, well that's something totally different. Let's first look at the equipment. Knights probably have better armor, as the Japanese helmets did not always cover the face as thoroughly as the European style. Also, armor might be better for the knights; I believe that Europe has better mineral resources, but I could be wrong on that. Now, I believe that the samurai would have the better weapon. From what I understand, the katana was forged with more care and using a better technique than the common European broad- or long-swords. The katana is also less cumbersome, what with its narrower blade and curving shape. Finally, the samurai would also have an advantage in battle training. If this battle is duel-style, the knight would be out of his element. Knights were used to wreak havoc among the enemy's peasant infantry. Samurai were much more skilled at discriminately killing things. And also, don't forget, many knights were just aristocrats with no battle skills. So, the battle advantage also goes to the samurai.

Of course, many factors could influence these scenarios, such as time period, what region or country the knight or samurai is from, etc. I believe, though, that the samurai was generally better as a soldier and as a person.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vextor




Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12042
Location: Hell
11250168 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Japan actually had iron (well, they won't be able to make swords without those). They were able to make steel as early as the 12th century. They had metal armor rather early; western armor styles didn't have much influence at all, because european armor was rarely imported into Japan (firearms sold better).

Japan also had numerous firearms in the 16th and 17th centurries, but these were almost completely destroyed after the sengoku era due to the ruling Tokugawa shogunate's governing policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Leb

Pizza Toppings


Joined: 16 May 2004
Post Count: 4233
Location: Razril
497133 Potch
936 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It's hard to approach this topic seriously. When you do, there's a big question here:

What does one mean when one asks "Knight versus Samurai. Who would win?"

Does that mean taking the greatest commander in Europe during the age of knights and pitting him against his pre-Meiji Restoration Japanese counterpart? I couldn't possibly decide who was the greatest in each. Would we take the most famous leaders that come to mind, like Richard the Lionhearted and Oda Nobunaga, and pit them and their armies against each other? Nobunaga would likely win simply from superior weaponry and armor-- there's a good 500 years between them. Does it mean just taking one knight and one samurai and just letting them duke it out? That'd probably be even matched, and ultimately depending on one's use of their weapon.

Yeah... that's the most serious look I'm gonna give it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
Fox Hound

Former White Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 49
Location: Kingdom of Highland
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Wed Oct 05, 2005 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Sars Ad-Minh wrote:
They had metal armor rather early; western armor styles didn't have much influence at all, because european armor was rarely imported into Japan (firearms sold better).


Yes, they have iron, however they focused it on their weapons, and not armors. That's why the japanese (EDIT) exported their weapons to china during those period. And yes they had armors, but it's a lamellar an iron, which was indeed inferior to a plate. When the portugese came in the Japanese quickly adapted their armour styles. So in history record the Japanese had scrapped their lamellar and uses the european style, this is from the late sengoku era in the 16th to early 17th century, from the pinnacle of japanese armoury, which had a portugese influence,

http://www.yoroi.co.jp/gazou/tokugawa01.jpg

This one had some chinese influence, but also based on european basic,

http://www.yoroi.co.jp/gazou/04.jpg

Both of them looked cool, huh? :D

compare them to europe from the 14th to the 15th century.

http://nowacki.org/albums/nyc200503/IMG_2362.sized.jpg

http://www.varmouries.com/vpics/gre_01.jpg

:D

JNX wrote:
while the knights, still fairly fast, doesn't match up to the samurais speed...


This is from Keith Ducklin, a Royal Armour member.

Quote:
Keith Ducklin, fight interpreter at the Royal Armouries in Leeds England:

Surely the notion that fully armoured men-at-arms and knights were slow moving and clumsy must finally laid to rest? European armour was developed and wornd over hundreds of years precisely because it gave the warrior maxium protection and mobility. in the 21st century, historical specialists all over the world are donning well made, properly designed and accurately weighted medieval harnesses to demonstrate that they can run, jump, climb, ride, and fight with great agility. Yes, the general weight range for a battle harness was, and is, between 60 adn 80 ibs, therefore it takes time and practise for the average modern historical enthusist to become comforatable. However, the manner in which the armour is fitted means that in a relatively short period of time the wearer developes the necessary poise and musculature to sustain the effort. It is true that different armours can restrict the wearer in different ways, bu thtese are minor problems and quickly overcome. I've spent ten years 'in harness' at the Royal Armouries, regularly giving arming and fighting demonstrations, while many of my colleagues regularly mount their horses to practice armoured skill-at-arms and jousting. Our visitors constantly assure us that we are all fast moving adn dextrous!

The Knight's armour included a harness which spreads the weight of the armour evenly through the body, reducing the clumsyness of the wearer.



As for firearms, due to the renaisance, the way of the sword in europe were slowy abandoned. The japanese conserved them by banning guns.
_________________
"Freedom comes at a price, Blood" - random WW II Vet


Last edited by Fox Hound on Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Starslasher

Chunks of Chaco-late.


Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

While it's true that there are many factors that affect the battles of knights and samurais, how well do they work in battle as a whole?

With the Crusades, the knights had been on equal footing with the Saracens, even though the Saracens had lighter armor and weapons. The Muslim armies had been able to defeat the Chirstian armies with the combined forces of mobitility and range that the mounted archers posessed. This was actaully taken from the Turks and Mongols from Central Asia.

A question comes to mind: When the Mongols attempted to invade Japan, did any of the Mongol ships reach Japan? Besides the Kamikaze that drove off the Mongol ships and ruined their chance to reach Japan, had there been any of them that had the chance to fight against the Japanese? I had heard, although from an unreliable source, about the samurais beating the Mongols and the Mongols beating the knights, hence in that sense, the Samurais and beat the knights.
_________________
Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan



Bork! Bork! Bork!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Fox Hound

Former White Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 49
Location: Kingdom of Highland
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Hmm, a bit of history lesson here,

In the Crusades the knights has been beaten due to weather, inept leadership and the most important of all, the fearless and undisputed supremacy of the Saracens knights, who're mainly used camels and horse archers. After Richard the Lionheart, and Frederick Barbarossa, the rest the Crusades were just hopeless primary due to lack of fundings. The christian army were basicly just child's play to the Saracens, and Europe had had enough. But Europe somehow manage to payback the loss with the defeat of the mighty Ottoman Empire around the 17th century by the Holy League consisting infantry, musketeers, and heavy cavalry (however the Ottomans was said to have the very same problems as europe back then).
Btw, one of the greatest generals from the war with the Ottoman Empire from the Holy League, which defeated the Ottomans, was Count Vlad-Tepes Dracula. :D

Quote:
the Mongols beating the knights


Yes the mongols and the knights met, the Polish-Lithuanian knights to be exact, involving a few of skirmishes in the Lithuanian border, but that's just it. The area that the Mongols managed to conquer were Russia, and they were forced to pay tribute around three century or so, the Mongols never came close to the Prussian State ruled by the Teutonic Knights. The mongols also managed to sacked Baghdad but they didnt dare to expand it.

This was the Golden Horde (the Tartars) and NOT the Asian Mongols under Kublai Kahn, these two are actually different. It's even said that even without the death of Ogadai, invading the rest of western europe from the Polish-Lithuanian states will be disastrous and nearly impossible because the would be logistic problems because of the terrain.

Quote:
I had heard, although from an unreliable source, about the samurais beating the Mongols and the Mongols beating the knights, hence in that sense, the Samurais and beat the knights.


The mongols, some of them DID reach Japan, and the samurais manage to defeat them. But like europe, the japanese were blessed by storm that wipe out the entire mongol fleet which sailed from Korea, like europe with the complex terrain of herself. So that sense is basicly biased. It all comes to the warrior themselves.
_________________
"Freedom comes at a price, Blood" - random WW II Vet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox Hound

Former White Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 49
Location: Kingdom of Highland
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Camus The Noble wrote:
First, let's look at their respective codes of ethics, Bushido and Chivalry. Bushido is comprised of seven major virtues, and they are as follows (these are of course, translated and thus may not be exactly on the mark: Loyalty, Honesty, Honor, Benevolence, Courage, Respect, and Justice. A pretty nice, well-rounded, moral code. No arguments there. Now, Chivalry. Chivalry is a bit less defined, and is not quite as complex. The major points of Chivalry were Fealty (parallel to Bushido's Loyalty), Courage (also appears in Bushido), Willingness to Sacrifice the Self (compare to the Samurai's blind loyalty), and Piety (note: this is the one least represented in Bushido). Again, a good moral code. I do, however, have one objection to the European knight's ethics. As a knight was usually a governmental figure, the Chivalric virtue of Piety essentially is a state endorsement of the Christian religion. While I realize how common this was back then, I have a deep loathing of any state that sponsors religion, no matter what time period. Then take into account the fact that the samurai were more likely to actually follow their code; knights raped, looted, and pillaged on and infinitely larger scale. Give this point to samurai.


uh...no, the samurais are also the same, the pilaged, murdered peasants in a large scale, just for their rices also infintely threatening them. The samurasi back then weren't as honorable as you thought they were. :(

And also the statement that the knights had lesser training is extremely biased. Both sides had their share of training. If you want to know I suggest you to read the book of Fiore for more info, or you can probably google it. The quality of the knights swords is that they were designed to penetrate heavy armors and designed for all type of combat. The japanese katana was used primarly to slash and cut lighter armors.
_________________
"Freedom comes at a price, Blood" - random WW II Vet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Vextor




Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12042
Location: Hell
11250168 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

It's a misconception that samurai primarily used their katana in battle. During the sengoku era, when most of the battles took place, the favored weapon was the spear. Katana is not designed to attack an armored opponent. The blade of the katana would become unusable very fast if used to slice armor.

Also, the entire "the Mongols were defeated by bad weather" concept is not true either, based on historical documents kept by the Mongols themselves.

The Mongols attacked Japan twice. In the first attempt, they were not affected by bad weather at all. Their forces landed at the northern side of Kyushu. The Kamakura Shogunate back then was aware that the Mongols were coming, and rallied all warlords to fight against the Mongols. As a result, the Japanese army were prepared to a certain extent with about 100000 warriors. The mongols numbered 140000 (which were mainly Chinese or Korean), and many of them were non-combatants who were non-combatants who were there to settle newly conquered land as farmers, etc.

Initially, firearms and other unique weaponry used by the Mongols overpowered the Japanese forces (who tended to challenge their enemies to duels, or preferred more "traditional" tactics). However, they adapted quickly, and aided by their bow's longer range (bows were the prefrred weapon of the samurai back then) and through gureilla tactics, managed to push the Mongols out into the sea.

The second attack by the Mongols was larger, but Japan had more time to prepare--they created a large wall that spanned northern Kyushu. This made it difficult for the invading Mongols to establish a hold on the mainland, which forced them to retreat into their ships after each failed attack. This resulted in a lack of drinking water (leading to widespread disease) and bad weather made their ships sitting ducks for the Japanese forces to attack from a safe distance. Another factor is that the Mongols were not very skilled at fighting in the sea, while this was common for the samurai, particularly for those in Kyushu.

Also, Mongols did clash with more than Polish-Lithuanian Knights. In the battle of Wahlstadt, Mongol forces led by Batu defeated a mixed force of "Polish knights, Teutonic Knights, and French Knights Templar, plus German gold miners from Goldberg." Following that, he attacked and defeated a number of other nations, such as Hungary, Bulgaria, and a few others. Lithuania was relatively unscathed which led to them becoming a pretty strong force later in history.

Also, the "Golden Horde" didn't exist until later, after Batu retreated from Europe and established a new capital at Sarai following the death of Ogodai Khan (and the creation of the four Khans, one of them being the Kipchak). Kublai didn't come to power until 1260, so he had no role in the Mongol invasions of 1241.

In the battle at Wahrstat, the knights were defeated by superior tactics (the Mongol favorite of "feint retreat") but also by a lack of unity among the multi-national force, bad leadership by Duke Heinrich II of Silesia, and being too slow and unable to catch up with the lightly armored Mongol mounted archers. The armor didn't help much with all the poison tipped arrows raining on them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox Hound

Former White Wolf


Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Post Count: 49
Location: Kingdom of Highland
0 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points

PostPosted: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote Add User to Ignore List

Sars Ad-Mindh wrote:
It's a misconception that samurai primarily used their katana in battle. During the sengoku era, when most of the battles took place, the favored weapon was the spear. Katana is not designed to attack an armored opponent. The blade of the katana would become unusable very fast if used to slice armor.


Yes, correct. The Japanese used spears at the time and only used the katana as their secondary weapon. The knights were also the same, where they used lances and spears primarily along with shields, but the swords only as their secondary weapon. The same thing can be said about the chinese. The thing is because the heavily romanticised uses of swords from games/anime/movies in "vs topics" has leave the "reality" out. :mrgreen:

Quote:
Also, the entire "the Mongols were defeated by bad weather" concept is not true either, based on historical documents kept by the Mongols themselves.

The Mongols attacked Japan twice. In the first attempt, they were not affected by bad weather at all. Their forces landed at the northern side of Kyushu. The Kamakura Shogunate back then was aware that the Mongols were coming, and rallied all warlords to fight against the Mongols. As a result, the Japanese army were prepared to a certain extent with about 100000 warriors. The mongols numbered 140000 (which were mainly Chinese or Korean), and many of them were non-combatants who were non-combatants who were there to settle newly conquered land as farmers, etc.

Initially, firearms and other unique weaponry used by the Mongols overpowered the Japanese forces (who tended to challenge their enemies to duels, or preferred more "traditional" tactics). However, they adapted quickly, and aided by their bow's longer range (bows were the prefrred weapon of the samurai back then) and through gureilla tactics, managed to push the Mongols out into the sea.

The second attack by the Mongols was larger, but Japan had more time to prepare--they created a large wall that spanned northern Kyushu. This made it difficult for the invading Mongols to establish a hold on the mainland, which forced them to retreat into their ships after each failed attack. This resulted in a lack of drinking water (leading to widespread disease) and bad weather made their ships sitting ducks for the Japanese forces to attack from a safe distance. Another factor is that the Mongols were not very skilled at fighting in the sea, while this was common for the samurai, particularly for those in Kyushu.


Whoa, awesome. :shock:
I didn't know anything about this before.
It seems like Japanese were indeed adept and fearsome warriors back then. :shock:
Thanks for the info. :D

Quote:
Also, Mongols did clash with more than Polish-Lithuanian Knights. In the battle of Wahlstadt, Mongol forces led by Batu defeated a mixed force of "Polish knights, Teutonic Knights, and French Knights Templar, plus German gold miners from Goldberg." Following that, he attacked and defeated a number of other nations, such as Hungary, Bulgaria, and a few others. Lithuania was relatively unscathed which led to them becoming a pretty strong force later in history.


Correct, they did clash. However I'm not aware of the battle of Wahlsadt, , I'm only aware the battle of Legnica and and Chmielnik. The Duke, Heinrich II of Silesia was also more well known for the battle of Legnica and not Wahlsadt. A correction though, this is from the Polish historians themselves, that the Teutons actually were not present at the time, they were too busy for the invasion of Novgorod and then decided to stay out of the fighting, and so no Holy Roman Emperor's troops were present. Also only a very small group of Templars that were there at the time, most of them were at Palestine and France. The rest of them are corret though, the Hospitaller, Poles, and German miners who're not actually germans but only miners from Zlotoryja.

And well, the result of these battles? the Polish and co lost. But this has forced the Mongols to rally their forces into Hungary leaving Poland, and some of them were spotted leaving for Kiev, Russia. So because of this, the mongols were said to never again set a foot on Poland. They do sacked Hungary though, and some of their troops were spotted in Vienna, but never really attacked.

Quote:
Also, the "Golden Horde" didn't exist until later, after Batu retreated from Europe and established a new capital at Sarai following the death of Ogodai Khan (and the creation of the four Khans, one of them being the Kipchak). Kublai didn't come to power until 1260, so he had no role in the Mongol invasions of 1241.


Yah, this is also correct, my apologies , I got mixed up with the Khans on that period that I stupidly post the wrong statement. :(

Quote:
In the battle at Wahrstat, the knights were defeated by superior tactics (the Mongol favorite of "feint retreat") but also by a lack of unity among the multi-national force, bad leadership by Duke Heinrich II of Silesia, and being too slow and unable to catch up with the lightly armored Mongol mounted archers. The armor didn't help much with all the poison tipped arrows raining on them.


Ah yes, the Feint Retreat, which the knights back then accused for being "witchcraft" back in Legnica, and the duke was later executed.
_________________
"Freedom comes at a price, Blood" - random WW II Vet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Community Forum All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
suikox.com by: Vextor


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
  Username:    Password:      Remember me