Feudalism started in both Japan and Europe at the same time, but does that mean that samurai and knights are the same? Feudalism is when the knight/samurai provide service for the lord, and in exchange, the lord provides land for the knight/samurai. Samurai and Knights: were the similarity greater than the differences? Samurai and knights were more similar than different in 3 broad areas; social position, training and armor, and honor and death.…
Imagine yourself as a Samurai, you are in the middle of defeating the European knights who are covered in plated armor. You begin to worry but then, you win, these are the reasons why a Samurai is better than a knight. Feudalism in Europe and Japan were both very similar. They both has rulers, and they both had rulers who hired nobles, and they both had nobles who hired landowners, and they both had landowners who hired warriors to protect the slaves and their land. If samurai and knights were to have fought against each other the samurai would have won because, they had movable armor and it was easier for them to dodge anything that a knight would slowly lunge at them with. If a Samurai and knights battled the knights would have fallen because, their armor was very defective. A knight's armor wasn’t made for easy movement, this made it more difficult for them to fight, but overall they were well protected(Document B). Their armor did defend them but, a Knight’s armor could easily be penetrated by a soldier…
Up until the end of the thirteenth century the mass cavalry charge was the ace-card of battle. The destructive fury of a group of heavily armoured knights could break any unit. Knights lived their entire life to fight. They trained all day in the art of war and at tourney they practised war-games constantly. As time progressed they developed more discipline and cavalry units began to regroup and hit second or third units with a charge. However, throughout the period the discipline of knights was always suspect and the pursuit for personal glory a priority. What would a peasant warrior do when faced…
Samurai were a little higher up than Knights in the feudal social order. In the social order in feudal Japan if you were a Samurai you were a warrior who owed loyalty and military service to Dalmyos for land or regular payment. All of the Samurai plus their family made up about ten percent of Japans population. Now, Knights on the other hand were warriors who owed loyalty and military service to a lord for land. There were about twelve thousand Knights in England and Normany France in the twelfth century. (Documents A, B)…
For six centuries the medieval knight dominated the battlefield and influenced the Western world greatly. The armored, mounted warrior, born in Middle Ages, revolutionized warfare and became the foundation of the new political structure known as feudalism. The Church put the medieval knight to the ultimate test-the First Crusade of 1095. The Church, which Christianized almost all of the knights, gave them a very high status in society, one that was sought after even by kings and princes. In the end, the legendary knights of the Middle Ages were lost in a world in which there was gunpowder, muskets, cannons, national states and so on.…
Both of these warriors kept an oath of loyalty to their lords and to serve them, but samurai and knights had different obligations, codes, and contracts to follow. Samurai's loyalty to their lords were hereditary (Doc B). Meaning that their contract of loyalty to their lord could last many generations in their family. In contrast, the knights contract was not hereditary and only had to be served by the one who promised to (Doc B). This means that the knight’s family or son was not forced to serve their lord and would be able to discontinue the contract once the knight was done serving. Samurai and knights both had different expectations from each other. Samurais were expected to always put their duty first according to their code of Bushido. This included their family and own personal life. Loyalty and service was the focused point in a samurai's life (Doc E). Whereas knights focused on serving and helping everyone out and not just their lord, according to their code of Chivalry. They focused on being loyal to the king, showing mercy to those who need it, being polite and helpful, and doing no wrong (Doc E).…
(AGG)knights were an important part of the social system during the middle ages in Europe.(BS-1)Their training and education started at a young age continuing into adulthood. (BS-2)They were then considered to be weapons for their lords. (BS-3)It was expected that all knights live by a strong code of conduct.(TS)Knights helped give rise to the economic and political system known as feudalism through their contributions and involvement in the economy,military,culture and law.…
The textbook definition of chivalry is “a gallant or distinguished gentlemen” or “the system, spirit, or customs of medieval knighthood.” In the Medieval era, a knight had to behave in a certain manner, they had to follow the chivalric code or where punished. A knight had to be honorable and courteous towards others, and uphold a system of values of loyalty. A knight was required to have not just the quality and abilities to fight battles in the savage period of the Middle Ages but at the same time was relied upon to remember his chivalric duty and to maintain his composure. The concept of chivalry gave inspiration for stories about King Arthur and his round table in the Medieval period (169, Pearson).…
examples of what a knight is suppose to be like it does not hender my love for Knights at all.…
A knight is someone who is looked upon to be brave, mature and wise in his understandings. He should be strong in his courage when it comes time to defeat the enemy, as in the tale Beowulf. Beowulf looks to be brave and strong when he goes in to fight Grendel and after he has defeated him and his mother. That outlook on who a knight is to be is twisted in the tale Monty Python. The knights in Monty Python ride on imaginary horses and argue over pointless things and seem as if they are just spilling out the first thing that pops to their minds. Sometimes the argument will start off on one thing and be something entirely different by the end.…
Feudalism was very popular in the Middle Ages. Feudalism was when land owning nobles became independent of kings and princes. The classes of feudalism defined the classes of the Middle Ages these classes include, lords, vassals, fiefs, manors, and serfs. The feudal obligations between a lord and his vassal were simple. The lord provided the vassal with land and protection and the vassal provided the lord with military service and ransom.(Doc. 4) For example “I, John of Toul. Make known that I am the liegeman of the count and countess of Champagne… I will aid the count.”(Doc. 2)…
The Middle Ages should also be labeled the Age of Feudalism because of the absence of imperial authority that was replaced by local political organization known as the feudal system. The feudal system was based on loyalty and obligations between landlords in their vassals. In exchange for protection and land (fiefs) from the Lord, the vassle gave the Lord his loyalty, military service, and ransom if needed, as shown in the feudal obligations of document 4. After the fall of the Roman Empire, its territories in Europe had to protect themselves from outside invaders. To do this, these local kingdoms gave land to those willing to send knights in…
My articles focus on the issue of immigration, specifically illegal immigration. It started with 9/11. The principle focus was how these people got into the country undetected. We were unable to let go of the immigration issue for around 6 years. While the topic has been around since about 2006,(amnesty marches from Mexican immigrants) the direct focus it has gotten came from suspiciousness from 9/11 about immigration. We have a pattern of xenophobia after major events in the US, for example communism and Japanese internment camp. The United States has specifically focused on Mexico because most of the immigration comes from there. Up to now no one wanted to become involved with immigration problems. Politics has damage all efforts to maintain standards that were in place. People want to focus mainly on the Mexican people as the problem area, but the problem is far bigger than boarder problems with Mexico. The problem started with allowing an influx of immigrates without any reasonable standards in place. Many years ago when anyone or families came to America, they had to have a sponsor. Just a few of many events that has lead to immigration debate is the fact that they can become citizens with little knowledge of this country or the English language. Changes are being made to accommodate their needs. Without any type of contribution they are able to collect, gain support that the American people haven't been able to do. An example of that is the American people that are on fix incomes and having a hard time making ends meet, aren't able to get any help, yet immigrates can find ways with full support to obtain whatever they need. When it comes to illegal, people from Mexico aren't the only ones that fit into that category, There are people that have been able to come into the United States that was to be for a short time and have never left or worked to become a US citizen that are among the illegal immigration…
During the Hundred Years’ War, monarchs began to collect taxes and raise armies on their own. This contributed to the decline of feudalism because collecting taxes and raising the armies to fight were normally the lord's jobs. Lords played a huge role in feudalism. They had workers that grew crops which fed the whole area, they had a say in government, and they were important to the king.…
Feudalism had military society. Manorialism involved the service and obligation of the peasant classes. The economic power of the warring class rested on landed estates, which were worked by peasants (McKay, A History of Western Society 261). Here we can say that feudalism and manorialism is connected to each other. Nothing in our world is made for nothing. People need something to return for their service. In manorialism was the same. Peasants needed protection, and lords asked them to surrender themselves and their lands to the lord's jurisdiction. Peasants were ties to the land by various kinds of payments and service, despite of freedom of land. The peasant had to pay fee to marry someone from outside. They had to give percent of their crop to the lords. They…