Knight or Samurai ?

[White 189]

This is a stupid question.

I prefer knights, the pop culture over hype around Samurais kind of destroyed their image for me.

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,534]

I gotta go with Knights here. If I recall, Samurai's were a very confusing bunch and I am not even sure I remember what their original purpose was. It all seemed really scattered. Knights, to me, seemed to actually stand for something concrete and therefore had more of a purpose. Can't deny their almighty stoutness. 

[JonasDarkmane 19,785]

Are you serious about this? You offered the chance to choose vikings? I am of course going to choose vikings, due to my heritage >: D (I'm an Icelandic viking)

 

Plundering stuff, stealing doors (private joke) and dying in battle as to get to Valhalla >:T. That is our life

 

 

 

By Wreky

 

 

[King 5,625]

Are you serious about this? You offered the chance to choose vikings? I am of course going to choose vikings, due to my heritage >: D (I'm an Icelandic viking)

 

Plundering stuff, stealing doors (private joke) and dying in battle as to get to Valhalla >:T. That is our life

 

 

 

By Wreky

 

 

 

Vikings didnt have horns on their helmets, picture is a fail.

 

 

As for the question, Knights interest me more due to the idea of proper chivalry in battle. 

[White 189]

Vikings didnt have horns on their helmets, picture is a fail.

 

But unicorns have horns. 

Edited February 17, 2016 by White

[Vulcan 3,254]

First off, I do have to admit that I rather enjoy literature from both sides

 

but I have to vote Samurai on this one, 

 

Their weapons and armor were much lighter than their knight counterparts resulting in their battles being a much more interesting clash of skill. 

[JonasDarkmane 19,785]

 

 

Vikings didnt have horns on their helmets, picture is a fail.

 

It's not on the helmet, it is projecting through the helmet as this is a unicorn >:T

 

And you only know this because I told you D:<

 

 

Vikings are best (totally biased) <3 <3 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

On 2/17/2016 at 5:10 AM, Kyoshi said:

I gotta go with Knights here. If I recall, Samurai's were a very confusing bunch and I am not even sure I remember what their original purpose was. It all seemed really scattered. Knights, to me, seemed to actually stand for something concrete and therefore had more of a purpose. Can't deny their almighty stoutness. 

 

Well both groups kind of changed purpose over their respected histories. Samurai went from simple mounted archers, to Daimyo warlords, to special police. While Knights went from heavy cavalry, to enforcers of the nobility, to soldiers of God. Neither one really had a permanently fixed function for the entirety of their existence but they did both fulfill consistent roles even if that particular role changed every couple of dynasties.

 

In summation, a knight did not perform the function his professional legacy began with if he was knighted a century later. Nor however did a samurai in the Meiji era have no connection to his edo period ancestors though.

 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 

Why not both?

 

(Not mine. Credit goes to yutori-custom)

 

Seriously though, the two actually are far more similar than they are different. Both armored and highly trained warriors with a code. It would be foolish to say every one of them was a paragon but it would be equally ridiculous to say no exemplars of such protectors ever existed. Both have always held a fascination to me precisely because, for being from different continents and their respective people having so little contact between each other, if a knight and a samurai were both to sit down for tea, they might have a startlingly large amount in common at least vocationally.

 

Miyamoto Musashi wrote, "the pen and sword, in equal accord." (It's where I get my username from.) Samurai were expected to be calligraphers and compose haiku as much as they were expected to be swordsman and archers. Similarly, knights were often educated and literate during times when that was uncommon, men of intelligence just as likely to know or even compose music as wage war.

 

So on this debate, I would say samurai or knight, and specifically not Viking, exactly the kind of raiders that both knights and samurai would combat.

 

 

On 2/17/2016 at 5:49 AM, Vulcan said:

Their weapons and armor were much lighter than their knight counterparts resulting in their battles being a much more interesting clash of skill.

 

 

That's actually a myth, an arming sword is not that much heavier than a katana (and I've held and used both.) In contrast, a naginata is likely to actually be heavier than a halberd. Secondly, there were just as many martial art masters of Europe as there were in Asia. With distinct techniques used for when fighting an armored opponent versus an unarmored one. These men of shining armor were trained and knew how to fight, they weren't just wailing away at each other with no sense of grace or refinement.

 

 

It's not like samurai did NOT wear armor either, they just wore different armor. Japanese armor was made from light materials because they did not have an abundance of minerals to make into heavier armor, so slashing weapons like the katana and naginata made sense. In Europe, with metals aplenty they could forge heavier plate armor, which slashing weapons just glanced off of but stabbing and thrusting weapons could pierce the weak points in the armor.

Edited October 14, 2017 by Steel Accord

[Envy 6,168]

I'll go with knights because I'm, to be honest, much more fascinated by Western history and culture.

[Invincible 2,091]

Knights. Honor or lack thereof, blind loyalty is a weakness in my opinion.

[Tao 7,776]

Given I have over 20 books on Japan and Samurai,  I have to go Samurai.

[Chara 1,565]

I love Knights from the legitimate Middle Ages on how they used to do things like slaughter and slaughter anything that would cross their paths. Samurais DID do the same thing but something about them makes me lose interest.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I love Knights from the legitimate Middle Ages on how they used to do things like slaughter and slaughter anything that would cross their paths. Samurais DID do the same thing but something about them makes me lose interest.

Even at their worst, Knights would not "slaughter anything that would cross their path." I mean serial killers don't do that. At worst, Knights were little more than armored and well trained cutthroats, especially disgraced Knights who still kept their equipment after being excommunicated.

 

As with the motif I'm trying to convey here though, samurai were no different at times. Of particular note was the Kiri-sute-gomen, a power of the samurai to execute anyone not of nobility whenever they wanted and for whatever reason as long as they explained why. Of course I need not mention how dangerous a ronin might be, let alone a roving band of them.

 

(Wait that proclivity for senseless violence is what you LIKE about Knights?)

Edited February 17, 2016 by Steel Accord

[Chara 1,565]

Even at their worst, Knights would not "slaughter anything that would cross their path." I mean serial killers wouldn't do that. At worst, Knights were little more than armored and well trained cutthroats, especially disgraced Knights who still kept their equipment after being excommunicated.

 

As with the motif I'm trying to convey here though, samurai were no different at times. Of particular note was the Kiri-sute-gomen, a power of the samurai to execute anyone not of nobility whenever they wanted and for whatever reason as long as they explained why. Of course I need not mention how dangerous a ronin might be, let alone a roving band of them.

I might have worded it wrong, I meant by "They would kill anything that crosses their path" in terms of the enemy, not normal people. Sorry about that.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

I might have worded it wrong, I meant by "They would kill anything that crosses their path" in terms of the enemy, not normal people. Sorry about that.

 

Well you aren't wrong in that, give a man a sword, and some aren't going to use it as a tool of service but as a way to bully people around. You are right in that knights were indeed, soldiers first. Remember this was at a time when people did not have standing professional armies. You had a guard, a watch maybe, and in the case of war, people would be conscripted into service and trained on the cheap. Knights were some of the most well funded and well trained professional soldiers, whose everyday job it was to fight bandits or belligerent neighbors. Some were true knight-errants, who's only Lord was THE Lord and helped the defenseless while others were the very kind of people they had sworn to protect folk from. Chivalry was and remains an ideal, and even idealists such as myself know that the desired archetype is not always the reality.

 

Again, in Bushido though, there is a divide of Satsujinken and Katsujinken. Or in english, "the sword the takes life", and "the sword that gives life." For some, the sword is something they see as empowering themselves, both a status symbol and a weapon to enforce that status. For others, the sword is a tool by which they fulfill a duty. The very thing that makes them powerful is also what makes them servile, that they are bound to serve and protect others. The modern version of this would be a police badge. "This says I have power over you." vs. "This says I have a job to do."

[cider float 2,538]

This is a stupid question.

I prefer knights, the pop culture over hype around Samurais kind of destroyed their image for me.

What pop culture? You really have to dig around to get anything on samurais. It seems to me knights are the most over the top in everything in pop culture to me.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

What pop culture? You really have to dig around to get anything on samurais. It seems to me knights are the most over the top in everything in pop culture to me.

 

I guess that depends on your media perception because I know what the OP is talking about in that samurai almost seem to have a pop culture cult surrounding them, their abilities, and their signature weapon.

[cider float 2,538]

I guess that depends on your media perception because I know what the OP is talking about in that samurai almost seem to have a pop culture cult surrounding them, their abilities, and their signature weapon.

Haven't seen that cult following either.

[White 189]

 

 

It seems to me knights are the most over the top in everything in pop culture to me.

 

Really? I'm frankly surprised. I guess each person's perception of modern media is quite different. 

[cider float 2,538]

The most over the top overrepresented romanticized ancient warrior so far to me is the Roman Centurion, Roman soldiers what have you.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cider float

[Steel Accord 6,660]

The most over the top overrepresented romanticized ancient warrior so far to me is the Roman Centurion, Roman soldiers what have you.

 

No you had it right, centurion. They were part of units called centuries hence an individual centurion. That still seems surprising to me because when I do see centurion's represented in media, they are rarely presented as individually heroic characters and more the Legion as a whole and the greater glory of Rome.

 

In what examples of this representation make up your exposure? I'm curious.

[PiratePony 8,475]

I prefer knights because I try to live by a strict chivalry code....my wife hates it.

 

Also, I found the Holy Grail that one time. 

[Shanks 10,816]

Samurai, they are both similar but Samurai had better weapons and armor. The european broad sword is good but the samurai's katana has comparable if not better cutting power yet is much lighter.

 

 

I prefer knights because I try to live by a strict chivalry code....my wife hates it.

Samurai have a code as well that is fairly similar called Bushido.

 

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Bushido

[Red Cedar 1,408]

What do you mean "or"?

 

Samurai were knights!

[White 189]

What do you mean "or"?

 

Samurai were knights!

 

You really didn't have any idea on what I meant by the title, did you ? ...(Edit: should I really write " sarcasm" beside it? )

Edited February 17, 2016 by White