How are samurais the same as knights?

Answer 1

For more or less reliable sources, the actual wikipedia articles; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai Alright, the actual list, from what I know myself; 1) Both, in the begining, were chosen based on battle prowess rather than birth. Proved yourself in Japan, you were a Samurai, proved yourself in Europe, you were a Knight, however both in Europe and in Japan the rules were changed so that only people of noble birth could be Samurai and Knights respectively. 2) Whereas all other soldiers were specialists in this weapon or that, that is, you had swordsmen, archers, cross bowmen, cavalry lancers, lancers etc, Knights and Samurai were trained in the use of ALL weapons, and they were to be wielded, both on foot and on horseback. 3) Both Knights and Samurai, could ravish peasant women with impunity without being punished. It was considered "ungentlemanly" behavior and "unchivalrous" but in practice, most abused that "privelege." 4) Obviously both wore bodyarmor, although, the metal plating armor of Europe was indeed far stronger. While a Samurai sword would not likely break when slashing at European plate armor (quality swords did not shatter just like that) IT WOULD bounce off, leaving the European Knight wearing it, unharmed. Make no mistake though there IS a Japanese weapon, capable of taking a Knight apart, the weapon is known as a "Tetsubo." It was a brutal weapon, that few men in feudal era Japan could wield with significant skill. One such man though made his name through the skillful use of it, namely, it was Miyamoto Musashi's own father, who had a reputation as the "master of the Tetsubo." Musashi's father was not a swordsman, but he DID have a reputation for skillful and "fearsome" use of the Tetsubo. I don't care what part of mideval Europe you're from, that weapon will break every bone in your body. Also, the Tetsubo was made from Japanese oak, a type of wood even stronger than hickory. The Tetsubo, as you saw, was a Japanese oak club with iron studs. It was light enough to wield, but powerful enough to rip Japanese armor to pieces, and able to make a big enough of an impact, to shatter the bones of an armored European knight. In an encounter with a European Knight, seeing the man's body covered with steel, a Samurai would have likely chosen the Tetsubo, not the Katana. If you are a hardcore European "patriot" who believes an English Knight could take on a Samurai, sorry, all his bones would probably be broken. This is especially the case, if the Knight was against Musashi's dad. 5) In Europe, if you could not competently play chess, you were not considered a Knight. In fact playing a masterful game of Chess was considered a "Knightly accomplishment." In Japan there was a similar rule; all men of Samurai birth, had to learn how to play Shogi (Japanese Chess), and play it competently. The idea of including Chess, as part of a martial artist's training curriculum, is not new; it has been around in Europe, since the days of the Roman Empire when Chess was supposedly introduced to the peninsula, and since very ancient times, anyone who wished to become a general, or a martial artist, had to know how to play a decent game of Go. Well regarding Go at least in some circles. Both the Samurai, and European Knights, had to hold their own in a game of Chess. In Europe there was a saying among Knights "a man who sacrifices his pieces, will sacrifice his men." Among European Knights Chess was such a highly regarded game, that, a given noble, could a total wuss, a weakling who BARELY survived Knight training, however if he could play a mean game of Chess, and on the battlefield his tactics could win the day, he was respected. Such was the case for "Edward the Longshanks" of England; contrary to his portrayal in the movie "Braveheart," King Edward "The Longshanks" was in fact a skinny British geek, a pushover. Nevertheless, he was an extremely cunning tactician, and yes, he was also a Chess master who could play the game blindfolded. King Edward caused the Welsh and the Scots no end of grief, because neither Scots, nor Welsh, had a general even approaching King Edward's cunning. That depiction in the movie "Braveheart" of King Edward as being a 60 something macho man, while his son was a pathetic nerd? Its a load of crap dude; both father and son, were "pathetic" British geeks. Albeit, Edward at least, was a very smart one. Some men were warriors, and some men were tacticians; that was the view both in Europe, and Japan. 6) Both Samurai and Knights, began their training early, for the Samurai training began at the age of 5, and for Knights, at the age of 7. The Knights though, had three different training stages; the page, the squire, and finally, the Knight. The title of "Knight" was confered when a young man reached 21 years of age. Far as I know, the Samurai did not have the "servant boy" system; what they had instead, was a Martial Arts ranking system. The idea of martial arts ranking, did not begin with Dr. Jigoro Kano, it in fact has always existed in Japan, for as long as the country has had soldiers. However instead of roughly 15 belt ranks, as is the case of most modern day Japanese martial arts and their derivatives, the older schools had four ranks. Kano felt more ranks were necessary, because too many people were calling themselves "master" when they weren't. The idea of the Dan ranks for example, has to do with the fact that Kano felt, a distinction needed to be made between someone who was simply "highly skilled," and someone who was the real deal, an actual master. In Japan, a person recognized as a master, does not wear a belt at all. At least, not one that is ranked. There were four stages of training in the majority of Ryu (martial arts schools) in Japan; they were SHU, the stage in which form and technique are learned EXACTLY as the teacher hands down the knowledge, it is the "protecting" stage, where the fundamentals of what make the style distinct from others, is protected. Next came the HA stage, which entails mastery of the techniques, by which point the Samurai in training, could effectively defend themselves against ANY average foot soldier. Finally, came the RI stage, in which technique is transcended, to the point that seemingly limited, the Samurai could apply their skill to ANY situation, unrestricted by the seeming limits of the style they practice. There was yet another stage, called KU, also refered to as the "stage of emptyness." In east asia, the word "empty" and "infinity" share the same meaning. The stage of KU, or the stage of emptiness, is, how can I put this? It is a stage, of total focus, total harmony, and connection with the spirit world, a mixture of instinct and logic, where the martial artist's moves are governed as much by their own will, as by their instinct, a stage, where technique is devoid of even the tiniest flaws, and perfection is constantly present, even in the most heated of fights. Exactness, precision, priority, timing, anticipation, the martial artist who has reached this "legendary" state, all those things come naturally. In this regard Knights and Samurai were different, as European Knights, governed by Christianity, did not believe soul purification, and battle, went hand in hand, namely because Christianity has no ideas of "karma." 7) Finally, there is the fact both Samurai and Knights, ran the gamut in terms of morals and ethics. Some, were despicable men, while others were genuinely men of honor, sincere in the ideals of Budo or Chivalry. You have seen that cartoon show Justice League Unlimited Right? You know the character Shining Knight? In real life some European Knights REALLY WERE that sincere regarding their ideals, however, most only got an A for effort, while others, were as far from the ideals as Knights could possibly be. If European Knights were alive today, they would likely express disgust with both Britain, and the United States, even the ones who were only "average" in terms of ethics. 8) Oh wait I forgot, I forgot; although Samurai and Knights studied all weapons, in the end, a Samurai, like a Knight, was defined by his skill with the sword. hope that was helpful [[User:67.148.120.72|67.148.120.72]]stardingo747

Answer 2

Knights and Samurai are the same in that they they occupy a similar position in their respective feudal societies. What I mean by this is that while they were different in many rituals, combat styles and titles they basically were the same class, i.e. warriors. This was the same in many cultures including India and Greece where the warriors had and important position in their social hierarchy.