Ha no its a weapon

Knights.

Samarais did not have much experience with large-scale combat. They also did not have weapons suitable for defeating knights' platemail armor and shields.

I'll give the answer to the mystery weapon tomorrow but keep guessing your close. I like how you think putin.

Remember it led to the destruction of both samurais and knights but one of them could use it in battle

Sir Nick Houghton has the top job in the British military, giving him access to tanks and machine guns and shit. Sir Chris Hoy has a pretty nifty bicycle...

It's going to have to be the knights.

you're talking talking about longbows as the weapon or something like arbeques but it's pretty dumb to set up a situation and then throw in a random determiner

also samurai had plenty of experience in large scale battles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_battles#Edo_Period

if I had to put money one side without any extra random things LEGION decides to throw in I'd go with samurai because of their lack of armor and mobility. A bunch of knights wielding just swords on open field would be massacred pretty easily.

Sir Francis Drake could give them a run for their money at sea, or Lord Nelson (Knight Grand Commander of the Order of Saint Joachim) for that matter

"The Japanese were inexperienced in managing such a large force (all of North Kyūshū had been mobilized), and the Mongols made significant initial progress. It had been approximately 50 years since the last major combat event in Japan (Go-Toba's adherents in 1221), leaving not a single Japanese general with adequate experience in moving large bodies of troops. In addition, the style of warfare that was customary within feudal Japan involved man-to-man duels, even on large battlefields."

If wikipedia is the standard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_Invasions_of_Japan#First_invasion_.281274.29

Putin beat me to it on the last link, but knights have more experience fighting as a group than samurais do. Having heavier armor is also an advantage, not a disadvantage, since knights are going to be on horseback (and thus the maneuverability disadvantage they would have fighting on foot goes away). A knight charge would be devastating against a mob of samurais expecting to fight one-on-one.

Samarai only fought against foreign troops twice. The Mongol invasions & the invasion of Korea in the 1500s. Who cares if they're skilled at killing similarly armed people?

I'm pretty sure 10,000 samurais will win, they can block bullets and their swords cut through cars like they're nothing, not to mention their super speed and instincts, and they can fly

I'm going to guess OP is going with primitive cannons to give the samurai the edge.

Samurais have a bow the knights have the heavy lance. I think folks also overestimate the cohesiveness of Knights BUT, with the lance you don't need much cohesiveness. If you are going to rely on horse archery skills to defeat heavily armored but relatively slow knights you need a huge amount of training, cohesiveness, and group discipline. Yes the mongols defeated western knighs, but the mongols were a professional extremely well trained army. I would doubt the Samurai would have nearly the same cohesiveness. In addition, I'm thinking the samurai bushido would not allow for tactics necessary in sustained mounted ranged fighting like feigned retreats. I think it would eventually come down to the lance and the sword, and in that I think the knight takes it.

Btw the Naginata was a spear-sword designed to cut the legs off horses. I can't help but feel it would serve well against cavalry knights.

Sir Isaac Newton could shield himself from arrows and shot behind the Principia Mathematica, and then use the mighty Powers of Science to crush the pesky Samurai.

It can't be long bows. Knights weren't allowed to use them. That was a peasant's weapon.

Although long bows did take down knights. A longbowman and a knight were roughly equally matched, and peasant with a long bow is way cheaper than a knight with armour.

"when the crusaders returned to Europe, their view of women changed after seeing how the Muslims treated their women. Courtly love, and love songs from troubadours became very popular"

Just a daily reminder that everything goes in cycles.

Knight's horses were usually armoured with barding, which would somewhat balance a Naginata. Spears are generally good against calvary charges, though, if Samurais were trained against horses, as it would sound like if they have a weapon just for it.

The yari spear superceded the naginata, but yes Japan had a history of mounted combat which their footsoldiers were trained against. In fact I'd say combat in Europe and Japan were pretty similar on the whole, except the peasantry were more trained and armed in Japan while European peasants had little military skill.

SYnapse's daily cycle reminder thread.

Knights were taken down by longbowmen (and guns, later on)
Samuria were eventually taken down by police armed with Manriki gusaris.

Secret weapon or no, I'd still have to go with a charge with lances.

If peasants are included, then I'd change my answer, but the original post just lists knights and samurai.

There are too many variables. There was no generic European knight to be compared to a generic samurai. A good Japanese general would take into account the mobility of his troops. A good European general attempt to nullify the mobility of the samurai and bring his superior armor to bear. The size of the horses might play a big role. The terrain would definitely play a big role.

The secret weapon is honor lol

The secret weapon is B.O.

I think at the very least a time frame needs to be given, since both Knights and Samurai are terms that apply to a vast swathe of time. Samurai were around until late 19th century, Knights are technically still around.

That said, I think a more balanced orce would give the Samurai the edge. Samurai wielded more than just swords, and encompassed mounted and footsoldiers, wielding spears, bows and swords. They composed much of Japan's military force. Knights on the other hand were an elite order, leaving many of the combat roles to peasants. Non-samurai did fight in Japan;s armies, but not to the extent of non-knights unless I am very much mistaken. Above assumes we're talking about 15th or 16th century.

Sorry, first sentence should say "more balanced FORCE"