Knights Templar vs Samari

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Knights Templar vs Samari (Page 1 of 6)

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:52:59 PM EDT

The knights templar vs the Bushido - Samari warrior... Who would win the epic battle???

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:54:24 PM EDT

[#1]

Templars by a long shot.
Not even close.

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:55:32 PM EDT

[#2]

Templar

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:55:47 PM EDT

[#3]

Samurai, obviously. Templar don't know what the fuck they're doing.

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:55:51 PM EDT

[#4]

R. Lee already did this, on TV...so you can go watch it.

(Samurai completely dominated FWIW, won every test hands down)

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:56:21 PM EDT

[#5]

Samurais.

Archery.

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:56:24 PM EDT

[#6]

steel armor and armored horses win , BUT, the bow and arrow thing would make closing the distance costly .

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:57:21 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:58:09 PM EDT

[#8]

Samurai. Definitely the Samurai.

Posted: 2/28/2010 8:58:43 PM EDT

[#9]

I think a Samurai sword will cut through chain mail armor and leather. I'm certain that a Samurai archer on horseback would easily kill a Templar.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:04:02 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

I'm certainly not a midevil historian, but my impression was the Knights Templar were a heavily armored cavalry unit. Bows don't work real well if that's the case.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:04:45 PM EDT

[#11]

Here,

Watch the man himself settle the dispute. Samurai kicked but.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:26:34 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
R. Lee already did this, on TV...so you can go watch it.

(Samurai completely dominated FWIW, won every test hands down)

Every show says the samurai can beat everyone. I think they have a sick samurai fetish

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:29:22 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
R. Lee already did this, on TV...so you can go watch it.

(Samurai completely dominated FWIW, won every test hands down)

Every show says the samurai can beat everyone. I think they have a sick samurai fetish

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:32:33 PM EDT

[#14]

Samurai, hands down

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:32:43 PM EDT

[#15]

The Templar Knights were used to fighting Arabic horse archers. I doubt the Samurai had much experience fighting heavy cavalry.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:40:35 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Templars by a long shot.
Not even close.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:42:18 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Templars by a long shot.
Not even close.

Is this post in Japanese or English?????

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:45:22 PM EDT

[#18]

People seem to forget that the Knights of Europe were every bit the dedicated warriors that the samurai were of not more.

R. Lee also needs to learn more about the techniques behind European Martial arts.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:45:52 PM EDT

[#19]

Templars.

All the Samurai did were keep down the peasants in their own damn country. They might rise a notch on the warfare ladder when they start taking over other countries thousands of miles away.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:48:04 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Templars.

All the Samurai did were keep down the peasants in their own damn country. They might rise a notch on the warfare ladder when they start taking over other countries thousands of miles away.

exactly....which is why I dont speak Japanese

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:48:23 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
The Templar Knights were used to fighting Arabic horse archers. I doubt the Samurai had much experience fighting heavy cavalry.

This is correct.

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:49:44 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Templars by a long shot.
Not even close.

Is this post in Japanese or English?????

Both...can't you read?

HH

Posted: 2/28/2010 9:51:18 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.

Right...

Knights Templar were mostly French...

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:05:35 PM EDT

[#24]

Wow it suprises me sometimes the love given to samurais.

Your pitting the samurais against the warrior monks of the Knights Templar/ Teutonic order.

The Western Kinghts on horse back would be:
Faster by a wide margin
Better armored with plate
They trained to the same degree as the samuai and had the benefit of facing many different people and strategy in armed combat across Europe and the Middle East
Essentially your pitting leg infantry, albeit very well trained, against a platoon battle hardened M1A2 tusk equipped DAT.

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:06:24 PM EDT

[#25]

Samari

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:15:59 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I think a Samurai sword will cut through chain mail armor and leather. I'm certain that a Samurai archer on horseback would easily kill a Templar.

You think wrong. Japanese steel was actually a pretty inferior product. We've kicked this around arfcom before, but basically, the steel billet had to be repeatedly folded to get the impurities out. The problem is, each fold creates a potential failure point if the forge weld isn't uniform and correct. So, better ore = less folds = more reliable blade. Katana got away with it because the metal armor (yes, they used maile in Japan) was of pretty shitty ore as well. An actual historical katana, btw, will actually be thicker and heavier than a period broadsword of the same length.

Next, it's just "maile", not "chain maile".

Third, samurai used yumi and kyudo to train "samurai principles", not primarily as a tool of war. Killing an equal (fellow samurai, or a templar knight, for example) with arrows would've been considered cowardly. That's why the samurai class rejected firearms after trade with the dutch, portuguese, etc started up and guns were introduced. Peasants blasting away at samurai just wouldn't do. Besides, the yumi probably weren't strong enought to blow an arrow through the shield, the surcoat, a layer of maile and the padded arming coat under it. 150 pound longbows had problems doing it, I don't see an 80 pound yumi doing much better. Yes, a 150 pound longbow will penetrate maile under most condidtions, but an off-angle hit on the maile, or something else in the way (such as a shield), would be enough to stop the arrow.

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:22:13 PM EDT

[#27]

Well let's see....Templars vs. Japanese warriors of the same time period...the Japanese used the Tachi from horseback and only seldom. Primarily the used the Yumi and Yari from horseback while others used the Naginata to take out horses. the Tachi (long sword) was used once the Yari (spear) became unavailable or the yumi (bow) was impractical.

I believe the Templars primarily used their sword and lance from horseback, but I don't believe the relied heavily on the bow from horseback.

Both wore armor but he Templar armor was more rugged being made of metal, all be it, more heavy. Samurai armor was surprisingly tough considering it was made from a plant -bamboo.

Both were very dedicated religious warriors willing to sacrifice themselves to win.

The Templars were probably larger men, Japanese men from the time were smaller than their European counterparts. This may or may not have a different effect on strength issues.

Probably a pretty good fight. Single armed combat would probably go to the Japanese because of in depth hand to hand combat training. Armored Calvary vs. armored calvary would probably go to the Templars because of armor differences and unit training.

Interesting for sure.

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:28:19 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
Wow it suprises me sometimes the love given to samurais.

Your pitting the samurais against the warrior monks of the Knights Templar/ Teutonic order.

The Western Kinghts on horse back would be:
Faster by a wide margin
Better armored with plate
They trained to the same degree as the samuai and had the benefit of facing many different people and strategy in armed combat across Europe and the Middle East
Essentially your pitting leg infantry, albeit very well trained, against a platoon battle hardened M1A2 tusk equipped DAT.

I think we were assuming 12th century or so knights, with maile.

If we kick it up to 14-15th century knights with plate harness, the samurai would get 100% owned.

remember the old "deadliest warrior" bit show? the only group they put the knight up against got to use guns. Everyone on the show knew that nobody wanted to see the vaunted samurai get his ass kicked. Just like the "ninja spartan" matchup. Nothing could deal with bronze plate, and the non-plate wearer got owned.

Full plate harness was a pretty awesome invention. Would stop swords. Would stop arrows from 150+ lb longbows. Would stop crossbow bolts. Would stop lances. New techniques (such as half-swording) were specifically invented just to lever between the plates. The poleaxe became the new knight weapon.

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:31:14 PM EDT

[#29]

needs more poll

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:34:30 PM EDT

[#30]

A Katana isn't of much use against a man wearing plate and mail (or even just mail) and carrying a heavy wooden shield. Only chance the Samurai has is with the bow. To be effective against a Templar's armor you need either a clubbing weapon like a hammer, or very pointed thrusting sword or dagger.

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:35:19 PM EDT

[#31]

Templars, probably without breaking a sweat.

The level of ignorance of how effectively European knights could fight and the level of Hollywood-based hype regarding the effectiveness of the samurai that is prevalent in modern culture is astounding.

Didn't the Portuguese fight a series of duels with samurai while in Japan and the only one that lost, lost because he was piss drunk? I think that says it all. Besides, the katana may be great on flesh and light armor, but it's not gonna do shit against battle-ready heavy European plate or chain, nor will it stand up to the extra reach and larger attack and defense options offered by a good longsword.

Quoted:
Here,

Watch the man himself settle the dispute. Samurai kicked but.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOvSyeP1fc0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE48KQ9OCKM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRFjGaj_wfI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ah2tjy1TgeQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXXR8e0lzzQ&feature=related

That show proved pretty well that while R. Lee is great, he really should stick to what he knows and stay in the 1700s and later.

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:38:42 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

A Katana isn't of much use against a man wearing plate and mail (or even just mail) and carrying a heavy wooden shield. Only chance the Samurai has is with the bow. To be effective against a Templar's armor you need either a clubbing weapon like a hammer, or very pointed thrusting sword or dagger.

Samurai probably wouldnt use a sword, he'd be more likely to use a yari.

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:39:44 PM EDT

[#33]

The Templar's

Samurai are fucking overrated

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:49:07 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Templars.

All the Samurai did were keep down the peasants in their own damn country. They might rise a notch on the warfare ladder when they start taking over other countries thousands of miles away.

Well said.

Knights = constantly evolving to meet new and extremely varied opponents of broad strengths and weaknesses
Samurai = stagnation defined. Do great against each other, but put him up against a knight worth his harness and he's going to get destroyed

Posted: 2/28/2010 10:55:54 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
A Katana isn't of much use against a man wearing plate and mail (or even just mail) and carrying a heavy wooden shield. Only chance the Samurai has is with the bow. To be effective against a Templar's armor you need either a clubbing weapon like a hammer, or very pointed thrusting sword or dagger.

Samurai probably wouldnt use a sword, he'd be more likely to use a yari.

I'd take sword and shield versus a spear any day of the week in close combat. The spear is a formation weapon against an enemy like a knight, and the yari wouldn't make a good pike.

Posted: 3/1/2010 7:27:32 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

Knights Templar were mostly French...

And by this point had been schooled in archery by the British.
And the Templars had archer units; the Knights were excellent at combined arms fighting.

Posted: 3/1/2010 7:45:10 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Well let's see....Templars vs. Japanese warriors of the same time period...the Japanese used the Tachi from horseback and only seldom. Primarily the used the Yumi and Yari from horseback while others used the Naginata to take out horses. the Tachi (long sword) was used once the Yari (spear) became unavailable or the yumi (bow) was impractical.

I believe the Templars primarily used their sword and lance from horseback, but I don't believe the relied heavily on the bow from horseback.

Both wore armor but he Templar armor was more rugged being made of metal, all be it, more heavy. Samurai armor was surprisingly tough considering it was made from a plant -bamboo.

Both were very dedicated religious warriors willing to sacrifice themselves to win.

The Templars were probably larger men, Japanese men from the time were smaller than their European counterparts. This may or may not have a different effect on strength issues.

Probably a pretty good fight. Single armed combat would probably go to the Japanese because of in depth hand to hand combat training. Armored Calvary vs. armored calvary would probably go to the Templars because of armor differences and unit training.

Interesting for sure.

OH GOD JEEBUS CRIPES FOR THE LOVE OF GHOO, no it was not made of fucking bamboo. Never was. Iron, occasionally leather, and steel. Not bamboo. As far as the original question goes, mail is not especially effective at stopping arrows, and Japanese arrows were a little longer and heavier than typical European war arrows - not hugely so, but enough that it could have made a minor difference in penetration at short ranges.

Are we talking about 1200's samurai versus 1200's Templars? I'd be inclined to give it to the Templars. I say this as a guy who does almost nothing but samurai in the SCA, as a guy who was working on his PhD in Japanese history. I do have a small clue here. Samurai are cool, but don't underestimate the effect of the massed charge with couched lance. 1200's samurai tactics, especially pre-Mongol invasions (1274/1281) weren't well tested against foes other than samurai.

ETA - The samurai were not "stagnation defined" any more than any other culture, not until the 1600's. During the 1400-1500's, their tactics and technology benefited from contact with the Europeans and the constant large-scale warfare of the era. I'd put them against any European army by the 1570's in a man-to-man fight, but the Japanese were way behind the curve in artillery.

Posted: 3/1/2010 7:53:04 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

I'm certainly not a midevil historian, but my impression was the Knights Templar were a heavily armored cavalry unit. Bows don't work real well if that's the case.

Go read up on Agincourt, there Henry V's Longbowmen slaughtered the French Armored cavalry. The British lost a few hundred men, the French lost about 10,000!!!

Posted: 3/1/2010 7:55:14 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Templars by a long shot.

Not even close.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:05:16 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

I'm certainly not a midevil historian, but my impression was the Knights Templar were a heavily armored cavalry unit. Bows don't work real well if that's the case.

Go read up on Agincourt, there Henry V's Longbowmen slaughtered the French Armored cavalry. The British lost a few hundred men, the French lost about 10,000!!!

The French were attacking an English position (that held the high ground) from a narrow strip muddy ground (real shitty terrain for heavy cavalry) across hundreds of yards of open (muddy) ground. The terrain favored the English even more that that Longbows, and the English used that advantage to cut the French cavalry to shreds.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:09:24 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

I'm certainly not a midevil historian, but my impression was the Knights Templar were a heavily armored cavalry unit. Bows don't work real well if that's the case.

Go read up on Agincourt, there Henry V's Longbowmen slaughtered the French Armored cavalry. The British lost a few hundred men, the French lost about 10,000!!!

Wasn't the first time, either, look up the Battles of Crëcy and Poitiers. Though of those, the slaughter at Agincourt was the worst.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:12:58 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Templars by a long shot.
Not even close.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:14:07 PM EDT

[#43]

Mounted, long, mid, hand to hand, samurai do win (in majority). Now some may bring up the lance or polearm use, but that is negated by mounted archery..

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:28:24 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Mounted, long, mid, hand to hand, samurai do win (in majority). Now some may bring up the lance or polearm use, but that is negated by mounted archery..

A large kite shield, which a 12th century knight would have had, negate much of the advantage of archery...

More often than not, to get the job done, the Samurai would to have to bring the fight in close with the much larger European opponent.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:34:13 PM EDT

[#45]

The Samurai’s mounted archery would be a devastating weapon on the battlefield, there’s no doubt about it. But they would have to watch out and not get slaughtered by lances. So, open field on horseback the victory goes to the Samurai. Add in some terrain and things aren’t so certain.

On foot with sword and armor the Templar Knights have one big advantage, they have shields. Both warriors have very effective armor and very effective swords so neither one has a significant advantage here. The shield would probably be decisive though.

When they weren’t all decked out in full armor but were just walking along with their swords sheathed and without armor, the Samurai are back to having an advantage. This mostly comes from the initial draw. If both men have their swords out then it’s back to being a draw. Unless the Samurai has trained to use both swords. If this happens then the Knight is back to being at a disadvantage. (If the Samurai draws both swords and hasn’t trained extensively in how to use both at the same time then the Samurai is likely dead. It’s a bitch to try to use two cutting swords at once.)

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:37:23 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

I'm certainly not a midevil historian, but my impression was the Knights Templar were a heavily armored cavalry unit. Bows don't work real well if that's the case.

Go read up on Agincourt, there Henry V's Longbowmen slaughtered the French Armored cavalry. The British lost a few hundred men, the French lost about 10,000!!!

Wasn't a lot of that due to the mud?

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:39:36 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
The Templar Knights were used to fighting Arabic horse archers. I doubt the Samurai had much experience fighting heavy cavalry.

Yep.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:47:37 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Samurais.

Archery.

Because English knights know nothing of the longbow.
Right...

I'm certainly not a midevil historian, but my impression was the Knights Templar were a heavily armored cavalry unit. Bows don't work real well if that's the case.

Go read up on Agincourt, there Henry V's Longbowmen slaughtered the French Armored cavalry. The British lost a few hundred men, the French lost about 10,000!!!

Wasn't a lot of that due to the mud?

From what little I've read, the French knights and English archers were in something of an arms race, coming up with improved armor penetraiting points, etc. Since the Japanese mostly played by themselves, they didn't have the same weapons development.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:52:43 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Wasn't a lot of that due to the mud?

Partially, but not completely. It was also superior placement of units and maximal use on the part of the English of their longbowmen and the terrain.

Crécy and Poitier didn't have Agincourt's mudbath, but they went down very similarly, and ended with massive French slaughter and minimal English losses. Agincourt's mud just made it even worse.

Posted: 3/1/2010 6:56:32 PM EDT

[#50]

Some people may be confused about the time-periods involved.

While the Knights Templar were active in the 1100s and 1200s, the classic katana-wielding samurai really wasn't common until the Muoromachi period which was around 1400-1600. Before that, the tachi, which was a longer cavalry sabre was much more popular.

So when people are talking about a mounted armored templar knight fighting against an infantry samurai warrior armed with a katana, they are at least 200 years apart. The appropriate comparison would be between a mounted Templar Knight and a mounted Japanese warrior (I guess "samurai" would be appropriate, but the widespread support for bushido didn't really occur until the 13th to 14th century, after the heyday of the Templar Knights), and the japanese warrior would be armed with a 30+ inch curved tachi cavalry sabre and a long bow.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Knights Templar vs Samari (Page 1 of 6)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us