|Knight vs Samurai?|
January 9, 2004, 4:48:42 pm
This guy has written an essay about who would win in a fight, a knight or a samurai. After reading his essay I'd have to say that a knight in full armor with a shield and a long sword would, in my opinion (and my training in Asian martial arts) beat the Samurai. But if you stripped away the shield, the armor, the Samurai would quickly dispatch his enemy.
Why do I say this generalisation? Well, the mentality of the asian fighter has always been to 'be the best you can be', while the european has always been 'augmentation'. Hence the drastically different armor and the advent of the shield. In fact, in Japan, the 'ninja' were outcastes because they employed techniques that augmented their abilities, such as covering their clothing with blood so they appeared to be wounded, putting poison on their arrows and blades, using the classic 'ninja star', etc.
I also believe the greater cross cultural breeding that happened in Europe would have bred more 'realistic' warriors. The Japanese are very prone to 'sylisation' - which works when you have an enemy of a consistent calibar. Stylisation is extremely Human, because it is a study in humanity. When you start meeting humans that do things different though, the worth of your style is deminished.
Those are just my biased and uninformed thoughts :)