The Instigator
Dufflepud
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
sonicdrake
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

European Knight vs. Japanese Samurai

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/26/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,231 times Debate No: 46830
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Dufflepud

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing that in a duel in which both contenders are equipped with armament as specified, the European (in this case Italian) Knight would have a significant advantage over the Japanese Samurai. Con will be arguing the reverse, that the Samurai would have an increased likelihood of winning. Con may not argue that there would be no advantage.

Clarifications:

-Only the two combatants are present

-Neither combatant is on horseback

-Ranged weapons will not be used

-Both have recieved training that is standard for those of their class

-Each are equipped with the following armament (streamlined so that the debate is more efficient):

Samurai:
-Iron O-Yoroi armor
-Katana

Knight:
-Italian-Style Steel Plate
-Italian Longsword


Round one is for acceptance ONLY. No new arguments may be introduced in the final round.
sonicdrake

Con

First of all, thank you for posting this debate! Surprisingly, I have given thought to this before and am curious to know what other people think. Dufflepud, can you specify what the setting will be at the top of your next speech? Thank you, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Dufflepud

Pro

For the sake of reducing the variables beyond the martial ability of each warrior, lets say that they are fighting on an open, flat plane, and that there are no obstacles to get in their way.
Edit: Having exceeded the character limit of 7,000 by an aditional 15,000, I will be cutting down my argument significantly. I will provide the entire thing after the debate.

Armor

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

A set of full plate armor weighed around forty to sixty pounds, and barely restricted the movement of its wearer². To put this into perspective, a modern soldier’s kit often contains well over a hundred pounds of gear³. Additionally, the armor’s weight was spread out across the wearer’s body, as opposed to a modern kit that sits on the waist. The result was a knight that could run, jump, somersault and climb with nearly as much ease as an unarmored soldier. Although myths about the wearers of these armors are prevalent, the reality is not only that a knight off horseback could fight with ease, but that scores of unmounted men at arms (not knights) would wear full or three quarters plate armor into battle to great effectS08;. Often, the armor worn by these non-noble foot soldiers was tempered, although probably of lesser make than that of a KnightS11;:

“Plate-armor for foot combat was well-balanced, maneuverable, and sometimes even made of tempered steel. It was well-suited for fighting in, and is far from the awkward, lumbering cliché...”

Unlike the knight’s suit of tempered steel, designed to provide maximum protection with minimum weight and interference, the Samurai’s O-Yoroi was made of small iron plates woven together, or “lamellar.” Iron is significantly weaker than steel in similar quantities, and as such it could not be forged into the wide plates that make up O-Yoroi’s European counterpart. The result was that, to be of any effectiveness, the suits were often just under seventy poundsS09;, and this is after taking into consideration the fact that Knights were significantly largerS10;.

“In reality, most samurai were quite tiny... usually very slim and ranging from 160 to 165 centimeters (5’3″ to 5’5″) in height. For comparison, European knights of the same period probably ranged from 180 to 196 centimeters (6′ to 6’5″).”


Additionally, it was made to be loose fitting and boxyS09;, so that it would fit a rider on horseback. As such, it was heavily restricting in terms of the motion of its wearer. This was exacerbated due to lack of articulation. Full plate had completely articulated joints, meaning that the range of motion allowed was nearly complete.

Steel plate, often over a foot tallerS10; than its Japanese counterpart, was also often twenty pounds lighter, and provided a much fuller range of motion. However, even more critical is the protection provided by it. As O-Yoroi was a lamellar design, it was completely vulnerable to the thrust of any kind of narrow blade, which would be able to go straight through the woven joints between each iron plate. As a result, the Knight would be able to strike anywhere he wished and expect to cause significant harm. In addition to this, one must remember that in order to force through the joints in plate armor, one needed a narrower thrusting blade, something the Europeans understood fully when designing their weapons. However, the Japanese Katana was primarily designed for cutting, and although still a decent thruster, the tip was wider than that of the longsword, and would have difficulty entering. It’s curved design made it far better at cutting, but cutting blows were completely ineffective against plateS11;.

“A complete suit of fully articulated rigid plate-armor, which has been described as unequaled in its ingenuity and strength, was nearly resistant to sword blows and required entirely different specialized weapons to effectively defeat it. With its tempered steel and careful curved fluting it was just invulnerable to sword cuts-even... those of the exceptionally sharp katana.”
Indeed, no sword from any place or time period was designed to slice or hammer through solid steel. Even the largest greatswords, often over sixty inches in length and in excess of six pounds, were not capable of the task, instead being used to combat unarmored spearmen or pike wieldersS12;. As the above quote explains, it took a special kind of blade in the hands of an experienced swordsman to effectively defeat plate.

To summarize:

O-Yoroi Armor:

-At 70lbs or so, was much heavier, even though it was made for a much smaller warrior
-Lamellar design meant it was easily defeated by a rigid thrusting blade

-Lacked articulation and was boxy in design, rendering it much more restrictive in movement

-Iron instead of steel

-Evolved with exposure only to other Japanese weapons, which were primarily designe to cut

Steel Plate:

-At 40-60lbs and made for a large individual, full plate was much easier to wear

-Plated provided weak points only at the articulations, and even these areas were well protected against all but the finest thrusting weapons

-Tempered steel design impervious to cuts, even from swords that were thrice the weight of the katana

-Evolved with exposure to all types of weapons, including ones similar in design to the katana (ex. the grosse messer or kriegsmesserS13;)

-Articulation meant greater range of motion

Finally, I will leave you with a quote that furthers my pointsS11;:

“(some high-ranking 16th century samurai lords actually owned pieces of contemporary European armor, gifts and purchases which they even wore into battle -they did not prize them merely as exotica)."

Sources

1. http://www.medieval-life.net...

2. http://www.metmuseum.org...

3.

4. http://www.metmuseum.org...

5.(Page 94) http://books.google.com...

6. (number two) http://listverse.com...

7. (“The Armor”) http://www.thearma.org...

8. http://www.thearma.org...

9. http://www.albion-swords.com...

10. (1.2 - anatomy of the longsword) http://fursantiago.timduru.org...

11. http://www.thearma.org...

12. http://www.coldsteel.com...

13. http://i1115.photobucket.com...

14. http://fc09.deviantart.net...

15.

16. (Technical Versitility) http://www.thearma.org...


sonicdrake

Con

Hey Dufflepud, I don't have a lot of time, so this first response will be quick and concise.

Your main argument is that there is a common misconception regarding the way knights are viewed in modern context. You claim that Samurais had heavier armor than knights, and that knights were more agile. However, this is not entirely true. Based on an actual experiment done by Science Magazine, it has been concluded that the steel plate armor of knights caused the wearer to be forced to expend 2.3 times the normal amount of energy required for walking and 1.9 times the normal amount of energy required for walking. Furthermore, the tight compressing of the chest caused by the armor and the low ventilation caused by the helmet made breathing much more difficult. In the experiment, it was found that the wearers of the armor experienced much greater difficulty in breathing the amount of air necessary in order to maintain healthy conditions. As a person expends energy, they usually breath in more air and take longer, faster breaths. However, the wearers of the armor were only able to take in the amount of air that is useful for regular non-stressful activities.

Both knights and samurai were warriors who were most suited to horses. The difference is that the lower class samurai would act as foot soldiers and wear a light version of the O-Yoroi armor, while knights were nearly always horseback warriors, both on the battlefield and in tournaments. As a result, knights did not need a lighter version of the traditional armor, since in both tournaments and battles knights would ride on horseback. In the context of this particular fight, since the samurai knew that he (or she, since there were women samurai) would be fighting on the ground without horses, they would have opted for the O-Yoroi armor worn by infantry samurai. The high class O-Yoroi armor was typically worn for those samurai on horseback who would fight with arrows or yari, not ground fighting.

Now, I will provide a brief simulation of what the actual battle will look like. The knight will know that he is completely protected, while the samurai will be unused to fighting such a heavily armored opponent and will initially be thrown off guard. He will then learn that his katana is unable to penetrate the opponent's armor, but is capable of deflecting the opponent's longsword quite easily, as it has much greater speed. However, the samurai will have more frequent combat training than the knight and will realize that the full suit of armor is taxing to the knight's body. Since the samurai himself wears lighter armor than the knight, he will be able to lead the knight in a long, drawn our battle without much offense from either side. The samurai would be faster than the knight, both in terms of running speed and swinging speed, since the knight has heavy padding on his thighs, usually weighing 8 or 9 kilograms. After several hours, the knight will be exhausted, and yet the samurai will not stop fighting because his honor is devoted to the battle, so the knight will not be able to enact a truth. Through sheer exhaustion, the knight will be forced to either surrender or retreat, since he has no way to force the samurai into direct confrontation. The battle will be long and hard fought, but definitely a victory for the samurai at the end.

http://www.ehow.com...

http://news.sciencemag.org...

http://www.history.com...

http://www.thearma.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Dufflepud

Pro

Note: I will be rebutting Con's arguments in the final round. Also, all sources referenced are listed in first post.

Armament

Here is maybe the largest point of contention when one brings up the question of East vs West, Samurai vs Knight. In popular culture, the Longsword is seen as a slow, heavy, unwieldly weapon that was used without fighting finesse. However, this couldn't be further from the truth, and in the context of this match up, the longsword comes out on top.


Range

The longsword blade tended to be around 36-40 inches, with a full length of anywhere from 46-50 inches[10]. In combination with the Knight’s longer arms, it would have had excellent reach, especially when thrusting. On the other hand, the Katana’s blade tended to be on the order of 23-28 inches, with a full length of around 34-40 inches.

Given all of this, it is safe to give the edge, so to speak, to the longsword in this category, especially, I can’t emphasize enough, when one adds the length of the blade to the length of the wielders’ arms. As a tall modern fencer, I can attest that while size and reach isn’t everything (and I lose all the time to very short fencers), it is most definitely a factor.

Advantage: Longsword



Weight

Surprisingly to most, the Katana gains no advantage here as I touched on earlier, with the Katana generally ranging from 2.5-3lbs, and the longsword being 2.5-3.5lbs. Although the upper range of the significantly “longer” longswords may have been greater than the upper range of the Katana, the sidearms used by our warriors would have been pretty much the same weight despite the difference in length. The Katana may have been a couple of ounces lighter, but not enough to be at all detectable, especially when you consider that the larger knight would have been stronger. This quote demonstrates my point beautifully¹¹:

“As leading sword expert Ewart Oakeshott unequivocally stated: "Medieval Swords are neitherunwieldably heavy nor all alike - the average weight of any one of normal size is between 2.5 lb. and 3.5 lbs.”

To give an example of this comparison, the cold steel longsword weighs 44.9 ounces, or about 2.8lbs, while their 29 inch bladed katana weighs 41.2 ounces, or about 2.6lbs¹². The closeness in weight despite differences in length is best understood by looking at the geometry of the weapons. The Katana is curved, and would be slightly longer if unbent, while the longsword is completely straight. Additionally, the longsword tapers off to a thin, stiff thrusting point, while the katana maintains uniform width so that the tip is properly weighting for excellent cutting.

Advantage: Neither



Handling and “Speed”

Once again, people are surprised to learn that, in fact, the Longsword handles better than the Katana, simply because of its point of balance. When looking at a later longsword, such as the one used by our knight, one notices three things. Firstly, as mentioned earlier, the blade narrows as it reaches its end, resulting in more weight towards the back. Secondly, the crossguard is fairly large, adding more weight near the hands. Finally, it has a weighted pommel, providing even more counterbalance¹³. This meant that the point of balance, where the weight on either side was completely equal, was far closer to the hands of the wielder. The result is a blade that changes direction significantly faster. This is the same concept as a lever - a short lever requires significantly increased movement to lift an object a certain distance, whereas if it’s twice as long, significantly less movement is required. On the other hand, the katana lacks all three of these attributes, making the sword decidedly more unwieldy[14].

Advantage: Longsword



Cutting Ability

Here is where the Katana truly shines, as its curved blade, weighty tip and differentially hardened blade makes for a cutter with excellent edge retention. Unfortunately, this makes it impotent against plate armor.

That said, the longsword is by no means a slouch at cutting. Just watch any video in which a historically accurate, straight bladed longsword is used to cut[15];, and you will see what I’m talking about. A show called “lock and load” is one of the main reasons why the myth of longswords not being able to cut is so commonly propagated and accepted, but as the video I link to demonstrates, it has been thoroughly debunked. Should con attempt to use it as a source, I will explain in full detail why it is complete nonsense.

Overall, cutting attacks would be far more effective against O-Yoroi than steel plate, and in the context of armor, the longsword would have the advantage. However, I am simply comparing the blades here.


Advantage: Katana


Thrusting Abilit

As demonstrated with diagrams above, the longsword’s reach, balance and narrow cross section make for an excellent thrusting blade. When looking at the cross section of the katana in the image above, however, one notices a broader tip that would find significantly greater difficulty in piercing armor. It doesn’t take much explanation to demonstrate the superiority of the longsword in this regard - after all, it was designed for the purpose of piercing.

Advantage: Longsword


Versatility

The longsword is a better thruster and the katana a better cutter, but both are excellent at both, and as such one might think they are equally versatile. However, because the longsword is double edged, it has sixteen lines of attack as opposed to the katana’s eight. On top of that, as the quote below demonstrates, there were numerous other ways to wield it, including inverting the blade for use as a hammer[16]:

“Both these swords are established cut-and-thrust weapons... however... straight double edges permit cutting along 16 different lines of attack compared to eight with a single-edged curved blade. This lends itself better to agile transitions between assorted cuts, thrusts, and parries. The longsword's well-honed but less keen edge purposely allows it to be "half-sworded" or readily wielded by the blade as if it were a spear, short-staff, or war-hammer. Its hilt arrangement permits different manners of gripping for different specialized affects at different ranges, such as close-in binding and trapping as well as delivering unique one-handed springing hits from a farther distance. Finally, its slim profile and greater length offer a longer reach in both cutting and thrusting.”

Advantage: Longsword

As Con con demonstrates in his argument, many think of the longsword as a cumbersome weapon that a Japanese swordsman would have no trouble dealing with. It takes only a brief look at actual longsword fencing to see how utterly ludicrous these claims are. I've provided a video, which I would advise watching at least part of, as it is a great demonstration of how a period accurate longsword would have handled.

;
sonicdrake

Con

Speed - Speed is the velocity at which any hand-weapon can perform defensive and offensive actions to deliver hits or impede blows. Again, this category is a more subjective matter to quantify. The quickness of a hand-weapon depends partially upon the user's own prowess, as the weapon itself does not move, the swordsman moves it. Practice with historical specimens of both sword types suggests neither weapon has any particular speed advantage. Each sword employed a style of swordsmanship that emphasized taking the initiative as well as controlling distance and timing. Since the relative weights of both sword types are nearly equal, the issue comes down to the geometry of how each can be moved. A shorter curved blade can slash more quickly, but a longer, narrower, straight blade can certainly thrust more quickly. Generality, one style purposely emphasized a quick drawing cut and decisive single strike. The other intentionally incorporated long-reaching stabs and quick combination blows. These factors are not decisive to dominate the tempo of a fight. Both were effective, and the circular motion of a cut is still the same whether the blade is long or short, straight or curved. However, the slashing cut of a shorter curved weapon wielded in strong fluid motion can be more maneuverable than the less oblique cuts of a longer straight blade similarly used. Verdict: Katana.
Samurai Armor
The earliest use of samurai armor, called yoroi, consisting of heavy metal plates and a metal helmet, dates from 1181 to 1185 A.D. The assemblage of chest plate, arm plates and helmet weighed 60 pounds and was worn only by samurais on horseback. Samurai foot soldiers wore do maru, a lighter version of yoroi armor. The armor included metal plates that extended below the chest plate for additional protection, thigh guards, shin guards and plates that protected the neck and part of the face.

Samurai Swords
The most famous samurai weapon was the sword. The katana was a long, curved sword made of flexible steel with an extremely sharp edge. The katana was the samurai's primary battle weapon. The wakizashi was the samurai's short sword, used for close combat. The art of samurai sword-making was considered a secret and survived the end of the samurai era. Today, samurai swords are still made in Japan as objects of art for collectors.
Knights in shining armor paid a heavy price for the protection their suits provided them from swords, arrows, and Frenchmen catapulting cows. Researchers have found that the steel plate-mail armor worn during the 15th century, which weighed 30 to 50 kilograms, required its wearers to expend more than twice the usual amount of energy when they walked or ran.

"Everybody's got a certain fascination with medieval armor. It's so different from anything we see today," says physiologist Graham Askew of the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom. With the age of chivalry dead, physiologists curious about just how difficult armor was to move in have a hard time recruiting people who know how to wear armor, much less move efficiently in it.

But four historical interpreters at the Royal Armouries were thrilled to participate in his study, says Askew. He says he was impressed with how mobile they were in their replica suits, which were modeled after armor depicted in a marble effigy of William Martyn, a sheriff of London who lived in the late 15th century. The interpreters could even perform cartwheels in the heavy mail.

Wearing it for a long period, however, carried a very heavy energy cost. That's what Askew and colleagues found when they had the armor-clad interpreters run on a treadmill at different speeds and monitored their oxygen consumption, heart and respiration rates, and stride length. The interpreters expended about 2.3 times the amount of energy usually required to walk and 1.9 times the energy usually required to run while wearing armor than when they weren't, the team reports today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. This energy expenditure is much greater than the energy that a person wearing a backpack of an equivalent weight would use.

Knightly jog. Swinging limbs covered in armor is a heavy investment for historical interpreters.
Credit: Graham Askew
More Science News Videos
The problem is the legs. The pseudo-knights wore heavy leg protection: cuisses on their thighs, greaves on their calves, and pointed shoes called sabatons on their feet. Together, these weighed 7 or 8 kilograms, Askew says, and having to swing that weight with each step really weighed them down. The farther the weight was from the center of the body, the more energetically expensive it was.

The researchers also measured the interpreters' breathing patterns, which normally increase in both rate and volume when a person works out. But the volume of oxygen consumed by the armored runners stayed the same"presumably, Askew says, because the torso was compressed by a chest plate"so they were forced to take many rapid, shallow breaths.

So was leg armor worth it? Well, Askew says, soldiers probably wouldn't have protected the lower leg if it wasn't a site of attack. But as armor began to become obsolete in the 1600s with the invention of gunpowder, the greaves and sabatons were the first things to go.

The study might help answer some historical questions, such as why the French lost the 1415 Battle of Agincourt. They had to march long distances across muddy fields and must have been exhausted by the time they met the English archers.

"First you laugh, and then it makes you think," says Rodger Kram, a physiologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, paraphrasing the motto of the Ig Nobel Prizes. One interesting aspect of the study, he says, is that the pattern of walking"parameters such as stride length, angle of stride, and the amount of time the foot is on the ground"doesn't change even when a person is carrying a heavy weight on his foot. "It says there's a way we prefer to walk," Kram says.

Thomas Roberts, a physiologist at Brown University, says that the authors' methods "are very reliable and well tested," and he praises the paper's "good argument." But we can't know if the knights of old made some sort of modification to their movement or weight distribution that would have made their load more bearable, he cautions. Sherpas, for instance, expend much less energy than would be expected when carrying a heavy load on their backs; Roberts says it's unclear why that is.

In the future, Askew says he's interested in looking at other types of armor from other time periods, such as chain mail, which preceded plate armor, and styles from Asia. Horses, too, wore armor, called barding, but running a similar study with equine subjects would be dangerous, he says. You wouldn't want to stand behind a horse in full armor on a treadmill.

Same sources
Debate Round No. 3
Dufflepud

Pro

Con has just committed plagiarism in that they didn't write a single word of their last post other than to say that they used the same sources. The amount of copy and paste is painfully obvious when one notices the odd non sequitors here and there. As such, I will be responding to the only actual arguments they've made.

Samurais had heavier armor than knights, and that knights were more agile. However, this is not entirely true. Based on an actual experiment done by Science Magazine, it has been concluded that the steel plate armor of knights caused the wearer to be forced to expend 2.3 times the normal amount of energy required for walking and 1.9 times the normal amount of energy required for walking. Furthermore, the tight compressing of the chest caused by the armor and the low ventilation caused by the helmet made breathing much more difficult.

As my sources clearly demonstrate, the Samurai did indeed wear heavier armor. Your source gives an exagerated number for the weight of European armor, and as such I would question its validity.

Both knights and samurai were warriors who were most suited to horses. The difference is that the lower class samurai would act as foot soldiers and wear a light version of the O-Yoroi armor, while knights were nearly always horseback warriors, both on the battlefield and in tournaments. As a result, knights did not need a lighter version of the traditional armor, since in both tournaments and battles knights would ride on horseback. In the context of this particular fight, since the samurai knew that he (or she, since there were women samurai) would be fighting on the ground without horses, they would have opted for the O-Yoroi armor worn by infantry samurai. The high class O-Yoroi armor was typically worn for those samurai on horseback who would fight with arrows or yari, not ground fighting.

No, there is no low class O-Yori, the armor worn by lower class Samurai was called Do-Maru. In this case, the Samurai was specified to be wearing the class of armor that is most equivalent to the Knight's armor. Con forgets that foot soldiers in Europe also wore a different kind of lighter armor (three quarters plate), but in this case both warriors were specified to be wearing what they would wear as a high class warrior. Do-Maru was certainly much closer to full plate in weight (maybe a little lighter), but Con may not change the terms of the debate after accepting them.

Now, I will provide a brief simulation of what the actual battle will look like. The knight will know that he is completely protected, while the samurai will be unused to fighting such a heavily armored opponent and will initially be thrown off guard. He will then learn that his katana is unable to penetrate the opponent's armor, but is capable of deflecting the opponent's longsword quite easily, as it has much greater speed.

This is incredibly silly. Anyone with any blade experience (such as myself, a fencer) would know that in a real fight, the blade makes contact with an opponant after very few actions. I've previously established that the notion that a Katana is more wieldly than a longsword is bogus, and even in the case of a blade that is much quicker, the slower blade still doesn't struggle to make contact. As an example, I've provided a bout between a longsword wielder and a rapier wielder (the rapier being much lighter and faster than any katana or longsword).

However, the samurai will have more frequent combat training than the knight and will realize that the full suit of armor is taxing to the knight's body.

This is utterly rediculous. I've also already established that the Samurai's armor is more taxing, especially in the context of the size of the warriors, and the idea that a Samurai has more training or combat experience is false and unfounded. As one of my earlier sources shows, knights began training between the ages of five and seven, saw action on the field of battle from their early teens, and were only knighted after intense training in the martial arts and significant battle experience. The Samurai is most definitely NOT the better trained warrior.

Since the samurai himself wears lighter armor than the knight

False.

, he will be able to lead the knight in a long, drawn our battle without much offense from either side.

This is not how any bout of swordplay works, other than between complete amateurs. These are well trained professional soldiers. Con could have at least looked into some sword fighting before making such an erroneous claim.

The samurai would be faster than the knight, both in terms of running speed and swinging speed, since the knight has heavy padding on his thighs, usually weighing 8 or 9 kilograms.

One doesn't "swing" a blade, the samurai was more weighed down, and once again, I've established that the longsword handled as well or better than a katana, with more reach, versatility and thrusting ability.

After several hours, the knight will be exhausted, and yet the samurai will not stop fighting because his honor is devoted to the battle, so the knight will not be able to enact a truth.

Knights were just as honor bound as Samurai (chivalry vs bushido). This is yet another silly and erroneous claim being made by Con. Also, once again, no sword bout lasts longer than several minutes.

Through sheer exhaustion, the knight will be forced to either surrender or retreat, since he has no way to force the samurai into direct confrontation. The battle will be long and hard fought, but definitely a victory for the samurai at the end.

Con demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of combat, and completely disregards and refuses to adress the mountain of evidence and sources I've gathered.
sonicdrake

Con

In this argument I will argue against the rebuttals the pro made.

Pro"s statements are abbreviated to save space.

First of all, I made my point in the first argument and then posted the source for reference in my second argument. The pro has no reason to be hostile or accuse of plagiarism before attempting to clarify the situation.

As my sources clearly demonstrate, the Samurai did indeed wear heavier armor. Your source gives an exagerated number for the weight of European armor, and as such I would question its validity.

Of all people, I should be the one making this claim. My source is directly from Science Magazine, and although it is not a purely scholarly source, neither is the pro"s. However, it is a popular and well known corporation, and would face consequences if it were to publish false information. As such, my source clearly trumps the pro"s source in credibility, and it has also conducted an actual experiment to test its hypothesis, while the pro"s source is based upon speculation, and quite possibly even guesswork.

No, there is no low class O-Yori, the armor worn by lower class Samurai was called Do-Maru".. Con may not change the terms of the debate after accepting them..

Although I was unaware that they had to wear the armor of a high class warrior, this will not change the outcome of the debate, so I will allow the pro to have his way.

This is incredibly silly. Anyone with any blade experience ". know that in a real fight, the blade makes contact with an opponant after very few actions. I've previously established that the notion that a Katana is more wieldly than a longsword is bogus, and even in the case of a blade that is much quicker, the slower blade still doesn't struggle to make contact".

This is utterly rediculous. I've also already established that the Samurai's armor is more taxing" As one of my earlier sources shows, Knights began training between the ages of five and seven, saw action on the field of battle from their early teens, and were only Knighted after intense training in the martial arts and significant battle experience"

This is not how any bout of swordplay works, other than between complete amateurs" Con could have at least looked into some sword fighting "..

Knights were just as honor bound as Samurai "..no sword bout lasts longer than several minutes.

Samurai fighting was based on speed, and I agree that usually a duel would be over in a matter of seconds, which the Pro does not understand. The Pro does not seem to realize that fighting style differed between that of the Samurai and the Knight. Most Samurai confrontations ended within the first few strikes, due to the speed of the Katana.

Whether a person becomes a Samurai or not is based on the social status of the family he is born into, and the ways of a Samurai are slowly engraved into the child starting shortly after birth. If we are comparing the amount of time that the Knight and Samurai have spent training, the Samurai has an advantage of several years. Furthermore, Knights were nearly completely horseback warriors, and their training was focused mainly on fighting on a horse, while Samurais had a more rounded training, which would mean that the Samurai has an even greater advantage.

Both my source and the Pro"s source agree that the Katana is a faster blade than the Longsword in terms of speed, and if the Knight is even only slightly capable, will know to guard against the faster blade.

The Pro contends that my claim that the Samurai will know to keep his distance from the Knight is foolish. However, we have to understand that the Samurai has something called common sense. The Samurai has fought numerous battles with his weapon, and will undoubtedly know that there are limitations on its cutting ability. Putting even that aside, the Knight"s armor was like a steel shell, and even if the Samurai did not realize his cutting ability was limited, would know to stay away from the Knight"s seemingly impenetrable armor.

Con demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of combat"

What this debate comes down to is whether or not the Samurai or the Knight"s armor will wield him or her down more. My source from Science Magazine which cites an actual experiment states that a Knight"s armor was on average 90 pounds (30 " 50 kg) heavy, and there were around 20 pounds of weight placed upon the knees and thighs. This is the most credible source in the entire debate (see above), meaning that the information from my source is the one that should be used to evaluate the arguments. Meanwhile, the armor of the Samurai weighed around 60 pounds, and the majority of the burden was on the upper body. This means that the Samurai would have more limited swing, but less taxation expended upon his legs, making him much faster than the Knight.

Seeing as how both the Pro"s source and my source agree that the Samurai"s Katana is faster, and that the Samurai"s fighting style promotes extremely quick, sudden movements, he will initiate the offense, and the Knight will guard against the faster blade. Seeing that the attack does not, in fact, penetrate the Knight"s armor, the Samurai will break off from the initial confrontation. A series of blows and then a reprieve is common in battles fought by BOTH Samurai and Knights, so if both are experienced warriors, there will undoubtedly be one. Now, the Samurai will see that the Knight"s physical walking and running speed is slower and requires more effort than his own, if he has not already noticed before the start of the battle. Being the experienced warrior that the Pro claims the Samurai is, he will realize that in order to survive he must create a long and drawn out battle. The Pro fences, so he does not realize that in a situation of actual life and death the Samurai will have to carefully weigh his options rather than go with the convention.

At this point, my previous information comes into play. It is 2.3 times more difficult for the Knight to walk with armor on, and he will experience breathing issues due to the tight compression on his chest as a result of the armor, and the limiting helmet. Because of the extra weight on his legs, in terms of movement speed, the Knight will be unable to catch up to the Samurai if the Samurai does not wish to do battle. Honor bound by chivalry and bushido, both the Knight and Samurai will be forced to see the battle to the end. Without a horse, the Knight can"t retreat very far while being weighed down by all his armor. It"s fairly obvious at this point that, albeit how farfetched it seems, the Knight will eventually have to surrender himself to the Samurai and forfeit the battle. It may not be the flashiest victory, but it will be one created by necessity.

While I have successfully argued that the Samurai will prevail, I would also like to remind the viewers that my grammar has clearly trumped the Pro"s throughout the debate, and my sources are far more reliable.

Thanks for a great round!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by nicsoew 2 years ago
nicsoew
People.

Fighting skill was somewhere the same, Knight had advantage of armor, size, strength.
Knight was just far more advanced warrior and with no doubt would own samurai.
Only thing that makes samurai so awesome is Hollywood.
Katana is not magical sword nor is samurai magical star wars jedi knight.
Katana was able only to cut with limited stabbing ability.
Long sword was better at stabbing and could cut with both sides.
Posted by Dufflepud 3 years ago
Dufflepud
I forgot to provide the longsword vs rapier bout in my post, here it is:
Posted by Dufflepud 3 years ago
Dufflepud
Evidently, superscript doesn't work, so in the future I'll be using brackets to show where I use my sources. Also, the first video is source three, and the second is source fifteen.
Posted by Dufflepud 3 years ago
Dufflepud
Hehe, don't be so sure xD.
Posted by LAZARUS77 3 years ago
LAZARUS77
the sumorai will kick knights a$$... :D
Posted by Dufflepud 3 years ago
Dufflepud
On the battlefield, certainly, but not in a duel. I'm also aware that both primarily used polearms over swords, and that in the case of the samurai, the Yumi was very important, but none of that is relevant in regards to a one on one match.
Posted by Jifpop09 3 years ago
Jifpop09
This is stupid. A knight is defined as a horseback warrior of medieval times. Japanese samurai were also notable for using swift horses. Ranged weapons are key also.
No votes have been placed for this debate.