3 fully equipped knights and 3 fully equipped samurai encounter each other on a road through the woods.
Who would win in a fight to the death?
>>707141774
Knights, anyone who disagrees is a biased weeaboo
The politicians that arranged for them to fight
this isn't /jp/
>>707141869
B-but..
My ten thousand folds
>>707141774
knight because plate armor
Are they knights on a crusade to take back the Holy Land? If so, nothing can stand in their way deus vult
>>707142194
if they're that fucking lost, they'll probably just pick the nearest Christian town and burn it to the ground.
>>707142334
Why would they burn a Christian town
>>707141774
Knight wins.
Dark ages plates armor is infinitely better than japanese lamilar silk and wood armor.
Japanese swords are designed for hacking into armor, but european armor is too tough, their swords will bend.
European weapons are designed for puncturing armor, and will be able to enter japanese armor.
Relative training is extremely valuable though this is assuming 16th century armor on the knight, and japanese soldier. If their training is of equal quality, the knight wins. If the training is not of equal quality, the better trained soldier wins.
Also: 16th century saw the appearance of match-lock and early flint-lock firearms. So if the knight has a gun, then the japanese guy has a hole in him before the fight even starts.
Suck my glorious european dick weeb faggots.
the samurai were glorified nobles who weren't masters of fighting or anything like that, and their armour was inferior to that of the knight, who was more often than not a noble who earned his place on the battlefield, but could also just be weathered veteran fighters
the knight also had superior swords to the samurai, and developed superior fighting techniques
tl;dr japs are useless and would be living in caves if not for the chinese
This is a stupid question. Knights of what era? What country? Samurai of what era? Regardless, in most matchups it's going to be knights. Mind you, neither of the two evolved their forms of combat to fight EACH OTHER, so it's going to be a strange fight for both teams. Additionally, neither group are used to working in groups as small as three, so neither of them are going to be tactically on-point. The armor is the big deciding factor here, and Nip swords aren't going to beat Euro armor, plain and simple. However, you've been vague about "fully equipped". If the Nips had their Kanabo, they'd probably be in a bit better of a spot to beat the Euros. Still, in most situations I'd give the edge to the knights, but there are simply too many variables to honestly make a certain answer there.
>>707141774
They get lost in the woods. Both die.
The samurai would disarm the knights and stab them through the weakpoints in their armor
the samurai didnt believe in using shields because they considered them cowardly. knights win.
>>707144217
>the samurai would disarm the knights
How?
>stab them through the weakpoints in their armor
Assuming they were even able to accomplish the disarming, there aren't a lot of weakpoints in full platemail. Hence why bludgeoning weapons and polearms became dominant in European warfare.
>>707144217
>stab
>with a katana
Also please explain how they would disarm the knights
>>707141774
this basically goes samuria parry every hit until one connects then they die.
samuria tries to peirce armour but fails
>>707143432
i think he means english knight in full plate armour.
>>707144697
samurai were well trained in bare handed fighting and takedowns.
>>707144217
how would he disarm a knight?
>>707144959
>takedowns
Dude, they gonna judo flip a full tin-can of a Euro knight?
Knights were well-trained to not drop their fucking weapons, and carried swords as sidearms
Don't know much about samurai, but at least with knights you'd really have to clarify when and where this knight came from, because the technology they are using and how they use it would vary greatly. It's like saying "American soldier". American soldier from what, revolutionary war, from today, from the civil war, from the 1970s? Kinda matters. I have autism.
>>707142765
Do you not know history?
Constantinople?
>>707144949
Still too vague. What's "fully equipped" supposed to mean? What weapons are they wielding? (BTW not swords primarily. For both sides, swords were a sidearm for when something bad happened to your main weapon, usually a polearm or bludgeon) Too many variables, as I said the first time
>>707144959
you know nothing weeb
>>707145069
>>707145160
The samurais would beat them easily. Just because someone had armor on doesn't make them invincible. There are weak points and with the helmet visor down they wouldn't be able to see well at all or coordinate their attacks on the samurai
sweet fuck
quality metal armor, longsword, mace & shield
vs
fucking shit "sword" and wood armor
>>707145494
Holy shit. You must have a PHD in medieval histroy. You are the smartest person in this thread by far. You should have your own website.
>>707145262
No, I know more recent history
>>707145342
i think you're suppose to imagine what a fully equipped warrior would be carrying into battle.
it still doesn't matter tho because samurai never win this fight.
this thread just ends up being weeb's saying "the samuria would cut straight through the knights sword the judo flip him on his ass then do a double back flip and land on his head crushing his skull through the helmet because all samuria are magic"
then everyone else cringes at the stupidity
wait, weren't most "samurai" archers?
>>707145593
Hate to say it lad, but armor was far and away the focus of warfare in Europe. Everything was based around making armor better, and then making weapons specifically to combat that armor. By the latest iterations of fullplate, there wasn't shit a Samurai would have been able to do.
>>707142018
of chin fat
>>707145593
not true. i personally fight wearing a helmet and you can see a lot better than you think you could.
only down side is you cant see left to right well but thats why knights are trained to fight wearing the helmets
>>707145903
Aye, archery was important for a Samurai. Most of them were archers or polearm-users. Grorious Nippon sword was a shitty sidearm and was more symbolic than practical to them
>>707146067
>i personally fight wearing a helmet
I'm sure you do everything in a helmet.
>>707145892
Problem is people are "fully equipped" in different ways, and "knight" is really broad.
>>707145825
You know about Egypt right?
It happened after that.
European longswords would shatter Nippon's glorious steel anyday
>>707146199
Nice ad hominem there. Really proves your point
>>707145903
Archers who used stone tipped arrows, which are worthless against full plate armor.
Gomenasai, my name is Ken-Sama.
I’m a 27 year old American Otaku (Anime fan for you gaijins). I draw Anime and Manga on my tablet, and spend my days perfecting my art and playing superior Japanese games. (Disgaea, Final Fantasy, Persona series)
I train with my Katana every day, this superior weapon can cut clean through steel because it is folded over a thousand times, and is vastly superior to any other weapon on earth. I earned my sword license two years ago, and I have been getting better every day.
I speak Japanese fluently, both Kanji and the Osaka dialect, and I write fluently as well. I know everything about Japanese history and their bushido code, which I follow 100%
When I get my Japanese visa, I am moving to Tokyo to attend a prestigious High School to learn more about their magnificent culture. I hope I can become an animator for Studio Ghibli or a game designer!
I own several kimonos, which I wear around town. I want to get used to wearing them before I move to Japan, so I can fit in easier. I bow to my elders and seniors and speak Japanese as often as I can, but rarely does anyone manage to respond.
Wish me luck in Japan!
>>707146199
haha good one, fuck i walked right into that.
but you didnt have any counter argument to my point.
you say helmets can have down sides but im telling you they are very useful and there down sides are minimal compared to not wearing a helmet at all
>>707146281
No I don't but thanks
I'll google the Crusades on my own time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gjHa4RQyek
>>707146848
Pure cringe.
Like most of the thread seems to have reached consensus on, I agree the knight would win. Only because of the plate armor, nothing the Katanas could do against it.
samurai wuld win because main weapon of samurai is bow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo
/thread
>>707147201
>Bow
>Full plate armor
Max kek
>>707147355
yeah nobody ever killed a knight they were invincible to any kind of attack
I believe a marine with a lmg would rrekt them all
>>707146062
destroyed
>>707147609
There is a lot of writing from the period on Knights, I'm pretty sure it's commonly written that how knights were usually killed was being outnumbered by peasants, thrown on the ground and beaten to death with blunt weapons. Plate doesn't make them invincible, but if you think the cloth and wood armor Samurai used is even close you're shitting yourself.
>>707147609
Well they only really went against other full plated knights with heavy swords. Your samurai with his shitty light armor and stone tipped arrows doesn't stand a chance.
>>707147691
>Lmg
Civilian plz go.
>>707141774
knights better armor
>>707148008
>Civilian
Pretentious exmarinefag plz go
get in the back of the knight laugh at his exceptional low speed wait for him to lose his stamina push him on the floor take his helmet off piss in his mouth check mate eurofags
>>707145160
>Knights were well-trained to not drop their fucking weapons,
Also, chain gauntlets. If we are talking about fully equipped anyway.
>>707146477
SCA?
>>707148234
>can't take a jest.
>>707148690
Fug
>>707144959
>helmet protects every part of head but chin
>can't see
lol
>>707148507
>muh great speed an skillz
Samurai are not ninja, stop mixing them together fags.
>>707148568
oh your sword is chained to your hand?
Let me parry and twist your sword around and snap your wrist then. How are you gonna fight now?
>>707148994
>parry a broadsword
>with a katana
Nice meme.
>>707148507
You do know that plate was light enough to easily mount and dismount a horse? Also I can think at far more tiring things (like listening to your bullshit) than keeping your shield trained on somebody trying to run around you.
>>707148994
How would shamurai parry?
>>707149140
Not that anon.
False, a mounted knight would mount his stead partially armored and a squire would finish dressing him.
Knights would win , plate armor and chain mail is Berger than would armor and a sharp sword
>>707149140
>Samurai running around getting tired
>Knight pivots
>Oh woe is me, I have to turn on my heel, how will my stamina last!
You underestimate the weight of samurai armor, and underestimate how strong a knight is in the first place to be a knight.
>>707147609
Plenty of knights have been killed in the past.
By other knights.
Full plate armor was so protective knights would sometimes not use shields and pick up a second sword
>>707146062
i lost
>>707142018
the folds dont make the blade stronger, they homogenize the steel so it wont be as shitty
the europeans already had much more homogeneous steel, aka superior to jap steel
so right off the bat you have katanas made from shittier steel than european swords, and they are no more capable than the superior european longswords
Knights, samurai can't cut through hardened plate steel
/thread
>>707149871
Exactly. No one gets that the reason why the Japanese had to fold the steel so many times is because the Japanese islands have shit all for good iron and other metals. It doesn't make them sooooo much stronger than swords from other countries, it just makes them comparable.
>>707149871
Not to be a weeb but katanas are nore practical than broadswords
Also, samurai used bows first, katanas last, while knight was pretty much lawnmower if grass was unarmored peasants
>>707143038
Actually that armor cane after knights
Knights was more of a fear factor that happened to weigh them down immensely
Samurai had packed lined and shit armor for mobility but not stability
Samurai wins one slice, or one arrow shot
Knight only wins if crusader(less "honor" more killing stuff, better armor(chainmail))
Gladiators would rekt knight tho, no arguments against that for sure
The samurais would win easily.
Next question.
>>707141774
samurai, cmon, they are molded into killing machines since birth
>>707150350
Katana are more practical.
>No weight behind the swing
>One sided
>Thin
>At risk to shatter
>Used to slice, can't stab well
Broadsword
>Wide prevents breakage
>Two sided
>Has weight behind it to cleave
>No likely to break
Katana is lighter though
>>707142765
Those niggas conquered everything, ran out of cash, had to go home.
Did i stumble into /tg/? Also this whole thread reminds me of Deadliest Warrior.
>>707150614
How would a mostly naked man who fought for show defeat a knight?
Samurais can focus their chi also which can knock a man down at a distance.
>>707151373
>
>>707150874
Katanas didnt shatter though
>>707144959
bruv. they've never seen an english knight, they'd freak the fuck out and assume its an Oni. (The fancier plate mails with decorative helms)
Plus a broadsword would cleave right into that tentacle loving faggot.
>>707151360
Knight is weighed down by armor and would only fight on horse
Off horse movement is hard with armor, plus impractical broadsword
Gladiators have specifically protected areas, plus cardio training and used to running from bears and shit
Gladiator wins
ITT: Weeaboos defend the chink sword.
>>707148994
You know that japanese swords of the samurai era was made of shitty metal right?
That it would bend like a piece of shit once hitting a knight's sword
>>707150824
Arguably, the same could be said of knights. If you're comparing Edo height samurai with, say, High Middle Ages-era european (Let's say German (Holy Roman Imperial in this time, but whatevs)) knights, then it's a fairly similar training regime, given that they're both pulled from a mid-tier class and trained to be warriors from a young age.
They're fairly comparable in that way, but with Japan being the island weirdo of East Asia, they never really developed practical technology for protracted combat like, say, shields. (Not to say that shields didn't exist in Japan at the time, just weren't widespread)
Basically, if you take two fairly-similarly sized men, with similar upbringings in martial tradition, and pit them one-on-one, I'd say the edge goes to whoever has better technology and resources, which would pretty much only be the knight in this case.
>>707151834
Not as hard as you'd think. Even a full coat of maile with accompanying gambeson isn't any heavier than a modern soldier's kit. (Average ~87-120 pounds for American Army)
>>707152273
Thank you. Weebs, take note.
Your "superior 1000 times folded" katana isn't gonna cut it.
>>707141774
Assuming both are pre or just post firearms, but each side had no guns, the knights would win. Japanese people had shit metal. Really shitty. Knights did not. Most samurai swords would barely penetrate knights armor, while the knights much heavier and stronger swords would easily breach samurai's defenses. And if the Knights had shields it would be even more of an overwhelming victory as shields are a great boon (which is why almost every military troop eventually had them) and the Samurai would have little to no experience against them. I may be a weeaboo but I'm not a full retard.
>>707141774
One spess mehreen
Honestly I think its completely up to fate, they are both expert swordsmen trained from birth. Knights with heavier armor, Samurai with long range ability. Swords notwithstanding I think its too even to call.
>>707149735
Second sword? The fuck, no they wouldn't. They would use a pollaxe in full armor or just a regular sword.
The samurai would get rekt. They had almost no significant development when it came to swords. They stuck with 1 design for hundreds of years.
Meanwhile in Europe the middle ages were 1 long arms race. Contantly adapting to counter new improvements in arms and armor. Seeing how the fighting style with a katana mostly focussed on delivering cuts, a technique that stopped working in Europe around the 13th century, they would be screwed.
Samurais were also masters of strategy AND tactics and also gentle arts such as haiku and calligraphy. They would use their superior mind to outwit the western knight including using energys to create fog for concealment purposes.
>>707151834
A fair percentage of slaves fighting in those arenas, by the way, were taken from the Roman Legion (Especially in the Republican period), soldiers that had fled from battle or shirked their duties.
To our best knowledge, that's actually how Spartacus himself became a gladiator. Taking Spartacus (A fairly remarkable man) even as our baseline for a gladiator, that puts their training on tier with about the Roman Legion of the period at best, with equipment designed more for an entertaining fight than anything practical.
>>707141774
The Sam'u'rai, but only if they are wielding their traditional graphene ketanas.
there was a show on SPIKE that pitted two groups of warriors against each other to settle arguments. they did ninjas vs pirates, American swat vs GSG9, and i think they did knights vs samurai.
chinks win
>>707143432
>Samurai of what era
Only one era with samurai worth talking about, which is the sengoku jidai.
>>707152756
Viking vs. Samurai, if memory serves.
That's actually a far more fair fight, as even though a viking from, say, the Great Heathen Army would have better equipment than even an Edo Period samurai, they're poorly trained by comparison as they're just, well, farmers that took to trade and raiding.
>>707151834
>Knight is weighed down by armor
Silly myth.
The weight is very well distributed.
You can run around and do jumping jacks and whatever else you want.
>>707152756
Deadliest warrior or something. It was fucking retarded.
>>707153025
do you know what the show was called?
>>707150529
>the "plate armor weighs a lot" meme
come on faggot
>>707153197
Deadliest warrior. And yes, as the above said, it was pretty retarded.
Rather appropriate for the average SPIKE-viewer though.
>>707153267
its fun to watch intoxicated
>People in this thread still thinking swords were a primary weapon
How many times do I have to repeat myself, swords were a sidearm, polearms and bludgeons were primary weapons on both sides. They had better performance and were easier to learn than sword techniques.
>>707152591
well now that's just unfair
>>707153333
also check'em
>people arguing about training and equipment
their swords and armor literally don't matter
knights were 6ft+ and 100kg on average, japs were 5ft8 and around 75 kg, knight wins every time
>>707153496
Actually, historically speaking, people were shorter back then, so while they may have not been 6ft, thae japs were like 5'5" so yeah, Knights still win.
>>707153336
Ehh, arguably.
There's a lot to be said for half-swording, especially towards the 15th century when plate became more widespread. That's when broadsword-fighting manuals and whatnot became a big deal, but then again, that's also the golden age of the polearm.
>>707152705
no everyday 16 hours a day, gladiators at their peak where train and equiped to fight entire batallion of conquered barbarians and they were always expected to win, don't mix gladiators with any kind of other weak fools thrown into the arena for blood, to be a gladiator you needed dozens of impossible to win fight, and then a rich men would invest a lot of money in one of them to create the ultimate killing machine equiping them with custom made weapon and armor, they where powerful political tool for someone wanting more power in rome
>>707153094
that is how they could fight dragons and trolls
>>707146385
> I know everything about Japanese history and their bushido code
>I am moving to Tokyo to attend a prestigious High School to learn more about their magnificent culture.
>>707153333
good quads
>>707153496
>their swords and armor literally don't matter
Are you an idiot? A better trained and equipped 5' 6" guy could destroy a 6'6" guy of similar build. That's the point of weapons and armor, they make up for any psychical traits that are lacking in the user. Which is why the knights win almost every time.
>>707153764
don't lie... how autistic are you?
>>707141910
underrated.
>>707153359
I know this was an actual technique (half swording, murder hew) but that pic is hilarious.
Basically a guy in his pyjama and just a helmet attacking a fully armored knight who looks like he is doing a little taunt dance.
>>707153909
>not recognizing stale pasta
>>707153611
That's a myth, pure and simple.
Humans haven't been getting steadily larger throughout history, we have peaks and valleys, and the average height (According to the research of one Prof. Richard Steckel of OSU) was closer to the height of today than it was to the average European of the 18th and 19th centuries. 68.27 inches average for the early Middle Ages, apparently.
Why this is isn't exactly certain, but there's some correlation between city growth + disease susceptibility that might be the case for that.
>>707153737
Yeah. Swords, even at their best, were being overshadowed by polearms. Not saying swords were shit, they just were outclassed.
Not to mention logistics, spears were easier to produce for whole armies, since they required a hell of a lot less metal, and were, as I mentioned earlier, quicker to train troops with.
Once we get into the higher-end or larger polearms, the "less metal" argument does tend to fall away a little, but generally I still think less metal ended up being needed, and when you're supplying an entire army, every penny counts.
>>707154017
>psychical
>>707153254
This. Plate mail was easier to wear than carrying around than your average camping pack.
>>707150529
Plays too many vidya. I bet you think 2 handed weapons were slower than 1 handed weapons too, huh?
>>707141774
what period are the knights from because a knight from th 15th and 16th century in full maximilian or italian white armour would probably win while a norman 11th century knight in full chainmail would probably lose
>>707149140
All a knight would have to do is turn around/pivot. And there are 3 so a simple triangle would mean they wouldn't even have to do that.
>>707151718
Katanas were never meant to slice trough plate armor though.
>>707153764
Gladiators were intentionally gimped, equipment wise, to create longer more entertaining fights. They would rarely fight to the death as well.
>>707149375
False. C'mon man. There are dozens of youtube vids of this. Don't be that guy.
Paladins can heal.
>>707154178
I heard it was related to the amount of protien available to them. Which is why the germans were so much bigger than the bread eating romans
could be bullshit though
>>707149131
It doesn't take much to kill a sword. You can, if you aim right, parry pretty much any non-blunt weapon with any other none-blunt weapon fairly easily.
>>707141774
a strong longbow can puncture plate armor at 100 yards. just sayin.
>>707154197
Logistics of European warfare is an interesting topic, actually, especially towards the beginning of the 15th century and onwards.
For instance, the reason that England is such a barren wasteland without trees is due to their reliance on the longbow in the Hundred Years War.
And the "less metal" argument doesn't really even need to be accounted for with polearms. You could fashion a decent levy out of some slightly retooled farm tools, most notably in the case of the war scythe and the billhook.
>>707154417
>this
>>707152238
Which is why accuracy is important. You can parry a broad sword with a stick if you aim low on the blade (near the hand) or early in the swing. But if we assume they both have the same skill level, knights win.
>>707154474
Might be. That argument was also made for why Revolution-era Americans were so much taller than the average island-born Brit of the time, buuut it's unlikely that it was just the one thing.
>>707145160
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S_Q3CGqZmg&t=1m55s
Combat between knights is actually pretty cool. Here's how one might flip a knight provided they too have armor.
>>707154557
considering the significant weight difference between a broadsword and a katana, i dont think you can
>>707150874
I never got that whole "Katana's can't pierce well" thing. You just have to angle it rather than simply thrusting in a straight line. Rest is true though. Due to shit metal they had to rely on speed (because they couldn't make awesome armor, so a heavy weapon was pointless).
>>707150614
In a 1v1 perhaps.
>>707141774
depends on where in japan/china the samurai came from and where the knight came from
>>707154636
Fair point. No matter how you view it though, polearms were logistically more practical than swords in most respects, especially training. Every human inherently knows how perform a thrust, and with that base it wasn't much work to improve upon that until you had a half-decent soldier.
Swords weren't bad necessarily, but in most fights they're at a severe advantage against polearm formations, but they were fairly reliable, which is why they were relegated to sidearms rather than phased out of warfare entirely
>>707150529
Are you saying chainmail is better than plate armor? Are you drunk?
>>707154800
Generally speaking katanas and longswords weigh about the same.
schologladatoria did a bunch of videos on katanas vs longswords as well as swords as primary or secondary weapons.
>>707154245
Congratulations, you found a flaw with auto correct.
>>707155008
>depends on where in japan/china the samurai came from
>China.
What?
The samurai trained put their soul into their swords.
Knights trained to put their sword into their enemy.
European swords were a better quality, Japanese steel was only folded because it was inferior (the swordsmiths actually called it pig steel). Knights and samurai trained from about the same age, but knights had better equiptment, trained toward strength (and not just fighting technique), and trained in a variety of martial forms; samurai just practiced sword, bow, and early forms of karate and jujitsu.
>>707155138
>mobilefag
Samurais do 1d8 damage
Knights do 2d4 damage
>>707155083
i bet the knight, with his armored arm, could block a katana.
Knighs would win in a matter of seconds if "fully equipped" knights would more likely be on horses with plate armour weeb japs don't stand a chance against superior europe steel,armour and skills
>>707155437
Ha, knights get a better curve and can't roll a 1.
Not to mention Samurai dump their highest rolls into Dex and Wis, while the Knights understand Fighter builds better and use their best rolls for Str and Con
>>707154432
I think I read that the average suit of platemail was less than 50 pounds, better balanced than a modern fireman's gear, and even possible to swim in.
>>707154800
You can parry a broadsword with a god damn butter knife from Walmart. Lrn2physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parry_(fencing)
Is an example of how you parry. You deflect, you don't directly fight the momentum. Even if you wait 'till the apex of the attack very little force is required. And if you do it early on the other user won't have been able to generate much force at all.
Same goes with straight up blocking. Easy af to do. The only difference is with a block, if you have a shitty weapon/strength, you need to time it really well or aim for the wrist.
>>707155026
Certainly not relegated to sidearms.
Swords found a new place as warfare shifted to pike & shot, especially towards the Thirty Years War.
That'd be the zweihander, pictured. There's some really interesting stuff about the specific type of soldier that wielded them in Landsckneckt mercenary troops. The gist of their duty was to function as shock portions of a pike square and rush opposing pike squares to snap off pike heads with these bigass swords.
Despite the size and reputation from myth, they're quite light, certainly lighter than any halberd or guisarme you'd find.
Swords continued to be part of a soldier's kit until about the Napoleonic Era, and even then, the bayonet had mostly taken over. By that point, they truly were just a sidearm.
>>707155666
i never said you couldnt parry it, but ok be really aggressive
>>707155693
Well, I should have clarified that I meant one-handed swords, so in that respect there certainly is egg on my face.
Yeah, Zweihanders were pretty useful. In general, anything with a range advantage in combat was favorable, and two-handed swords certainly fit that bill.
>>707155833
Yep. Took Europeans awhile to get the whole "fuckhuge piece of sharp metal" sorts of weapons out of the arsenal.
>>707155693
>snap off pike heads with these bigass swords.
I hate this fucking myth. The doppelsoldner ( the landsknecht with the zweihander) created gaps for the other landsknecht to enter. Not cut off pike heads, that is hard to do and terrible for your sword.
>>707156015
A man's sword was analogous to his penis, and... well...
>>707155773
Well considering I said they could parry a broadsword with a katana and you said
>considering the significant weight difference between a broadsword and a katana, i dont think you can
I think I have good reason to think you said you couldn't parry a broad sword with a katana.
> but ok be really aggressive
Isn't that what people do here? Isn't being insincerely aggressive the same as saying hello to a neighbour?
>>707142334
only if the Venetians are about.
samurai wins !
>>707155773
Also, what do you expect from Satan?
>>707156149
Didn't mean to carry on the myth there, more exaggerating to make it not seem like a high school history paper.
But yeah, this is certainly more accurate. And the only reason I didn't mention the doppelsoldner by name is because I can't spell it and am too lazy to google.
>>707156149
Yeah, if you hit the pike anyways, it would probably just give, rather than snap, considering the length between the wielder and the pike head, you're really not going to be able to generate that kind of force
Listen to based Gny. Sgt. Hartman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
>>707156267
Hilariously enough, that wasn't just a fixture of armor. 16th Century-ish, a massive donger codpiece was a fashion statement. There's some hilarious paintings of Henry #8 wearing that shit.
>>707156406
No problem m8. I just see this cutting off pike heads thing way too much on /his/. It triggers me.
>>707150529
>one slice
nope, its been tested. if use actual hardened steel Italian plate from a comparable era and not a tin can, then you'll find a slash does nothing and a thrust from a katana can only penetrate about an inch on the thicker parts of the armour. being as you cannot half-sword for accuracy or murder strike to use blunt trauma with a katana, samurai had little way of countering it.
>>707156693
You would think /his/ would know better.
>>707153359
>Sir you've forgotten your backup sword!
>Not now Jeeves I'm doing my pre battle sword dance!
>>707156272
fencing is a shitty example considering each person has the same training, and weapon.
>>707154252
>2 handed weapons were slower than 1 handed weapons
Fucking hate this trend in games. Unless you're whipping a rapier around a 2 handed sword is going to have vastly better speed and control (with the drawback of not having a shield)
>>707156596
Fun history fact.
The huge codpiece became a fashion trend due to nobles and kings having infected syphilis dicks, especially fat Henry. Your junk needed to be wrappend in bandages soaked with herbs and ointment. To hide this huge stinky bulge they wore large codpieces. This then became a trend, because they saw rich famous people doing it.
>>707156814
It's the first I found, but I used it because it demonstrates how to do a proper parry with pretty much any sword. And a proper parry was known to all swordsmen. You redirect the force by pushing the tip of the blade aside. That applies to all weapons and forms of melee combat. However, this is exceedingly hard to do with blunt weapons, especially if you do it during the apex of the attack.
>>707157091
And here i thought it was to hide the boner one gets while in combat or killing peasants.
itt
>>707156850
Fucking right? How that started I do not know. Two handed weapons are almost always faster to swing (thanks to the same principle that makes pullies awesome), you have vastly better control during the swing, and much less rebound time.
>b-but they weigh moar!
Yeah, but you don't grip it with one hand, or with your hands overlapping one another.
>>707156693
All good, fam.
Speaking of shock troops now that we seem to all be in agreement that knights are better and weebs all suck, ever read 'bout the Gallowglass? I mentioned how Japan was the island weirdo of East Asia, but the British Isles are definitely the same for Europe.
>>707145593
Bullshit, from the mouth of a jap-fag. Look in your heart, and you will see you are a faggot who idolises small asian men.
>>707143140
samurai were a literal class of soldiers until they became unnecessary in certain situations and we're given land, essentially turning them into a noble class. They also fought mainly on horseback with bows.
>>707157091
topkek
Learn something new and gut-wrenching every day on /b/.
Love me some European nobility, what with the syphilis and inbreeding and Habsburgs,
>>707150529
Nope. Not even writing a rebuttal, you're just wrong you silly cunt.
>>707157463
Yeah the Irish were weirdly isolated and really had their own thing going on. Below a 15th century poem describing an irish kings battle dress.
He pulls around him a shift of fine satin.'
'He closes around him the cotton wadding.'
'Red gold makes up his sword's cross-hilt.'
'On his tooled belt hangs a red-hafted long dagger (sgian).'
'A breast-plate encircles [him].'
'A helmet above the decorated mantle.'
'A long spear he carries.'
'A cornered shield he bears on exploit.'
>>707144805
His penis lol
Probably the knights depending on the load out.
The Samurai have a decent chance of winning tho if they use their speed or can fatigue the knights.
>>707158365
Aaaaand I saved a fucking thumbnail.
Got this from yahoo answers. I dunno if its shit-tier or biased or what, it looked big.
It depends on the situations. But here are a few examples of hypothetical duels.
Horse back (both circa 14th century)
The Samurai were (mainly before the Sengoku era) most skilled at horseback archery, but the arrows they used were not made to pierce the heavy steel armor of European Knights of that same time period, so unless a phenomenal shot were made, they would have to rely more on a Naginata (Japanese halberd). The Knight would likely respond with a Lance, as a sword would be a death wish in a horse to horse encounter.
The Samurai would have a much greater advantage in this situation, as the Naginata can thrust, slice, bash with the endcap and some variants have hooks that can pull the knight off his horse-whereas the Lance can only thrust. The horse riding samurai had a different purpose than the European horse riding Knights. The samurai sought out single man duels, whereas the knight on horseback was one of many similar men charging a position-usually of infantry and most commonly in a flanking maneuver. Knight on Knight clashes were more rare than Samurai on Samurai clashes on horseback. In this particular case, due to maneuverability and versatility of weaponry combined with ideologies of combat, I give the Samurai the better chance of victory in a horse mounted duel.
Samurai-1
Knight-0
Duel on the ground (both circa 15-16th centuries)
Katana vs. Long Sword
Katana has the advantages of durability and powerful cuts, but the Long sword has the advantage of manueverability. Victory goes to the man who gains the momentum of attack first.
Samurai-2
Knight-1
>>707141910
Thank you!
>>707141774
a samurai sword was made for cutting through wooden armor and the likes, it couldn't cut through full plate.
>>707158365
One of the dozen or so Irish kings at the time, I'd imagine. Important distinction you made there, given that there really wasn't such a thing as a "King of Ireland" at that point.
>>707158622
Katana vs. Broad Sword
Katana loses it's advantage of durability and cannot be relied on to block for long, but is much faster, the Broadsword packs far more bashing power, but lacks the fine edge of the Katana-victory goes to the Samurai if he can feint the Knight into an early attack, or to the Knight if he can shatter or knock the Katana away. In the end, due to his manuverability, the samurai would probably hold the advantage.
Samurai-3
Knight1
Katana vs. Mace
The Katana has the advantage of speed, but cannot stand up to repeated strikes of the mace. He will have to end the duel quickly before the Knight can shatter his sword. The Knight's best chance is to make the samurai attack first, then strike his sword hard to either shatter or knock it away. Since the Katana cannot block or deflect the mace, the Knight with a stout defense and sturdy armor has the advantage.
Samurai-3
Knight-2
Katana vs. Chained Flail
Blocking any attack from a chained flail is almost usless, as this only allows your weapon to be ripped away from you-and the Katana is no exception to this rule either. Either the Knight will strike specifically at the Katana and pull it away or wait for the Samurai to attack so he can seize it then. Either way, the odds do not favor the Samurai in this encounter.
Samurai-3
Knight-3
Nodachi vs. Long Sword
The Nodachi is at a serious disadvantage here if the Samurai does not make a clean cut right away. The Knight cannot expect to block an attack from such a sword, but if he can evade the massive blade, he can counter attack and strike at a gap in the Samurai's armor. The odds are really about even, as the Nodachi is difficult to dodge, but is also difficult to recoil.
Samurai-4
Knight-4
>>707158897
Nodachi vs. Broad Sword
The Nodachi is both longer and faster than the Broad Sword, and can cut through the chain mail in the gaps of the armor the knight is wearing easily. The Nodachi has a clear advantage in this encounter.
Samurai-5
Knight-4
Nodachi vs. Mace
The Nodachi's great lenght and slower speed could doom the weilder if the Knight strikes the Nodachi just as it passes by to hyperextend the Samurai's arms and leave him exposed. The Mace has the edge in this matchup.
Samurai-5
Knight-5
Nodachi vs. Chained Flail
Unlike the Katana, wrapping the chain around the much longer and heavier Nodachi will likely backfire and result in the Chained Flail being ripped from the Knights hand. On top of the that, the Knight has the shorter weapon to boot.
Samurai-6
Knight-5
---------------------------
In my examples the Samurai holds a slight edge, but not by much. This was a matchup we can only really speculate on since such a matchup never took place in history, but this was an interesting question. A star for you.
>>707158622
Describing a Naginata as a "Japanese halberd" removes all fucking credibility from this source.
Ignore.
>>707158897
>Knight can shatter his sword
That is not gonna happen. It would be really hard to do even if they were trying to do it.
The samurais would win. They would knock the knights down and pierce their armor at the weak points or into the visor slits.
>>707159001
And chained flails are a myth. Flail weapons did exist, but they mostly appeared as polearms and with only a few links of chain if any, many examples show it would've been leather or rope.
Prevailing theory is that the flail was something made up by Victorian antiquarians, because they cooked up loads of bullshit just for rule of cool.
>>707152590
Your average European sword weighs the same as a katana.
It's just four to seven inches longer.
>>707151360
Gladiators would be the most motivated out if them
>>707158622
Its shit tier. The knight would not rely on his lance and the cutting ability of the katana is completely negated by armor.
And what the hell is he talking about with the naginata. As if knights had no comparable weapon. A knight could fight perfectly with a sword on horseback. The saddles were designed to kinda lock the rider in place at the thighs leaving both hands free for fighting. The warhorses were bred to react to tiny instructions and were a weapon themselves, biting and kicking at opponents. The horse would be a lot bigger than the smaller jap variety, and jap horse would not be as well trained.
>>707152636
So you mean that samurai would win by writing "kick me" on knight's back in a fancy font?
>>707159839
Or the samurai would attack the joints in the armor where it doesn't cover.
>>707159001
Chained flail.
That didn't exist. They had war flails but those were multiple chains with tiny wheights on it. It would not have been used by a knight.
This entire thing seems biased as fuck and relies solely on the author thinking knights were heavy and slow. And the katana is not a light fucking sword. I hate to pull lindy beige into this but he has a good video on the katana.
>>707160072
>>707159281
Beat you to it, man.Though dog-piling on hatred for flails is certainly something I'm okay with.
>>707160072
Yeah cause he sure knows a lot about being a knight in DnD.
>>707152440
Are you retarded? 120 pounds? Obviously you've never been in the army. I have, and i have to say, 80 pounds is the maximum i've ever carried(which is still pretty heavy), but that is not battle-equipment. If i would even have to shoot in that it would be difficult, let alone fight hand to hand combat which would be impossible.
>Samurai swords cannot cut Euro armor.
Also samurai armor is mainly wood and leather , because they favor speed and accuracy. Katanas only really allow on cutting not staying were Juropa weapons are made to smash threw plate armor. Also there would be a huge different between strength and hight . Jap manlets have no chance in a duel type situation
>>707160324
I know man. I fucking hate how much damage the victorians did to the knowledge about medieval history.
Not just the retarded huge spiky ball and chain flail but shit like the iron maiden as well.
>>707152636
>using energys to create fog for concealment purposes
Kek
>>707153333
noice
>>707160729
>not understanding him mocking weebs
>being this stupid
>>707160072
Well weren't most knights heavy and slow? Im no expert but werent horseback knights not able to move off horseback?
>>707160901
>not understanding he was laughing about him mocking weebs
>being this stupid
>>707155666
devil checkd
>>707160395
Bullshit faggot. 9/10 patrols we loaded up 110+. You either A) weren't infantry or B) weren't in the military.
>>707160926
Not at all. The wheight was very well distributed and they were trained in the use of armor as early as the age of 12.
Knights would be able to run and even do gymnastics in armor. Who would fight in something that would leave you completely immobile if you tripped.
>>707144697
Not advocating the samurai, but plate armor did have weak points that could be punctured. Eye holes are one. One trained with a rapier could pull that off, but these aren't musketeers or even rapier wielding knights so yeah, I don't know.
>>707160395
Knights also had suspension for their equipment.
If properly done (with the time-appropriate garments) the armor's weight is distributed evenly over the body. People do cartwheels in that shit, look it up.
Even in later period armor like Milanese and Gothic plate, not just talking mail.
Japanese swords were designed for cutting. Plate armor was designed so that cutting it is just a laughable joke and an easy way to ruin a blade.
Lack of proper blunt weapons (vis a vis, murder stroke) means you get shitkicked by a dude wearing an evenly distribute set of armor plating made of better steel than your civilization will have for hundreds of years.
>>707161293
Do feel free to thrust a rapier through an eye hole during pitched combat. They also wore mail sleeves and gorgets so that their weak points were defensible even considering the lack of plate.
>>707161483
If you trained extensively to thrust the tip of a rapier into the vital organs of a human out of armor, you probably did the same for them wearing it as well, and even more extensively. That said, around the time rapiers became very popularized they had guns, so there's no point for armor anymore anyway.
>>707151834
as a balt and knowing my baltic history
i can tell you for sure that all that weight matters only if you lure the teutonic knights into the swamp where their massive fucking armour finally begins to drown and then they can t get out until they drop the armour
and teutonic knights had probably one of best armours in the world
so simple knights armour will even allow the guy to run
so yeah
knight>>>>samurai
any day
>>707159997
Implying he could get close enough to even pretend he is aiming at those, when it would take literally one swing to cut his arm off, if not both of them. Getting hit with any of knight's weapons would probably mean death for samurai.
>>707147916
Not a sword m8 that was used for fancy displays of skill, best way to bash something in plate in with blunt force. Swords would just become blunted and dull. Most knights would carry a dagger side-arm to get into though little nooks and crannies when in grappling range.
This sounds like an equipment versus skill kind of fight. No matter if one side is more skilled or not, the equipment the have is inferior (for the period anyway) or superior so there's always a clear winner and clear loser, despite the skills one side may have.
>>707161809
Plus knights wore mail anywhere the plate couldn't cover.
>>707161809
I pirate could beat a knight. They have guns. Bang Bang.
>>707161809
No the samurai would kill the knights. Probably solo all three while the other 2 painted the battle.
>>707161907
TIL knights wore mail over their eyes.
>No mentions of crossbows
Come'on man.
>>707161907
You can still break bones through mail, with a hard enough strike you can break bones through plate, but that would be with a percussion weapon, like a greataxe or a greatsword, not a katana. Not a whole lot of samurai weapons were made for percussion because they didn't have to deal with metal plate armor.
>>707162042
When the only vulnerability of a man is a miniature eye slit and the vulnerability of the samurai is fucking everywhere...
And the knight has a thrusting weapon (designed to pierce armor) while the Samurai has a slashing weapon (designed to pierce skin, not armor) it's not a big fucking mystery who wins.
The knight wins.
There is nothing mystical about this shit, Japan was just behind in military technology.
This is comparing apples to oranges really. I don't think a viking would fare any better against a knight. A spartan might, but that's because of the shield, also a partizan for thrusting rather than slashing. Though bronze isn't a strong metal, but if they got their hands on steel, maybe even iron.
>>707162210
The samurai would win because he would topple the knight and stick him through the eyes.
>>707162114
Precisely. So the knights were equipped with weapons and armor that put them at a steep advantage over the samurai of an equivalent period.
I'm not saying that if Japan had had to fight knights constantly they wouldn't have worked out better methodology
but in a straight up fight, it's not even a question.
I'm done with this thread tho, peace.
Linking to all my other comments so people know which ones are me.
>>707161381
>>707161483
>>707161907
>>707162210
>>707154417
Also a cool fact: On contrary to popular belief(thanks hollywood) humbs up meant die, thumbs down meant live.
>>707162353
you have some dorito dust on your fingers.
>>707162485
You've got a syphilitic platemail cock in your mouth.
>>707162428
So its just a matter of equipment. That's always what it comes down to. Give the samurai similar arms and armor and they stand a chance.
>>707154474
Which would also explain jap's being small seeing as they were vegetarians for over a thousand years. But then again chinese werent...
>>707162530
Syphilis came to Europe after rifles entered popular use, after the period when plated knights were common.
Samurais were shit-tier soldiers and would have lost to the majority of militaries world-round of the same age, excluding peasant tribes.
Good for nothing but intimidating peasants.
>>707162582
Japanese ate a lot of seafood as well, being an island and all. Its kind of what they got all the time since it was what they could get in abundance easily.
>>707154617
Japs had strong bows, but not strong enough arrows.
>>707162652
Hows that drippy cheese dick taste?
>>707162711
low-quality shitpost, newfriend.
>>707162652
I'd actually say that the samurai were top-tier soldiers, since their armor was only so protective and had many weak spots, the person in it had to be a good fighter. This fight posed here is not about skill or talent, its about arms and armor, which if its inferior, one is likely to lose.
>>707156596
>Oh, goodnes, oh
>one has dropped thy GARGANTUAN codpiece for ones GIGANTIC genitals
>>707162833
Careful. Cheese is high in fat. You shouldn't fill up on it.
>>707157391
This
Also weighing more is not really a factor; they'd be closer to 6 lbs instead of 3
In fact lets tweak the fight a bit. 3 knights in well-forged strong armor with well-forged strong weapons find a band of 3 opposing knights in poorly-forged armor and wielding poorly-forged weapons. They knights in the poor armor have had to compensate so far with better skill, but the superior weapons and armor of the other 3 knights can rend their armor and break their weapons, so the more skilled knights lose.
>>707162946
>defending the samurai against european knights unironically
>calling someone else a fat cocksucker
Priceless
>>707157391
2 handeds are less manouverable. Not because they're heavier, but because the center of gravity in your body is different. You can compare it to dogs running on tracks: have you ever seen a dog without a tail run faster than one with a tail?
You use your empty hand to help balance, and more balance is more speed.
>>707163072
I didn't say you were fat. I was just saying your steady diet of cockcheese is fattening and moderation would be healthier than inhaling dicksludge 24-7
This thread is stupid.
>>707162652
Syphilis was present in the 15th century. The height of full plate armor.
>>707163436
Fuck this. Like the other guy, I'm out. Not linking my own posts because fuck this I'm out.
>>707163522
Enjoy the cock
really depends what era the knights are from. If its from the early ages they would only be wearing mail and maybe light plate which then i would give it to the samurai any other age then the knights win
>>707163575
I'm back. Everything else is shit too. Oh and I guess your fat faggot ass didn't know I wasn't for either side. Both of them become obsolete, you know.
>>707164192
Hurr durr muh samurai, hurr durr muh knights. I'll take a cowboy with a S&W 500 and a 22 any day. Blow a fuckin' hole through that armor and their chest in a single shot.
>>707164192
That was quick. Your boyfriend is a lucky man.
>>707142018
Katana are made for fighting against wooden armor
Samurai would have a better chance if they all used bows instead
Knights. Zweihander meta too stronk. Warhammer meta too stronk. Pike meta too stronk.
Sorry samurai bros, your getting raped.
your samurai sword is no threat to my moustache
Stay mad eurocucks.
>>707165172
i didn't know this was a cringe thread
contributing
>>707157391
It started because of vidya logic that dictates, anything that hits hard must not be quick
>>707165381
You've been contributing throughout the entire thread.
>>707165534
wat
you know you have to be 18 to use this site right
>>707165881
>switches to maximum overcringe.
jesus dude you win alright. I can't outdo that.
>>707144020
Bloody skinwalkers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UntxiF3qtbg
>>707166077
:^)
I sexually Identify as an Neckbeard. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the Earth tipping m'fedora to beautiful m'ladies . People say to me that a person being a Neckbeard is Impossible and I'm fucking retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a plastic surgeon install anime in my veins , 30 mm fedoras and Meme o' missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me "White Knight" and respect my right to meme from above and tip m'fedora when necessary . If you can't accept me you're an SJW and need to check your privilege. Arigato for being so understanding. tip
HAHA! Filth. A Japanese warriors weapons are nowhere near strong enough to pierce steel plate armor. The knights (if they have longswords) will win 100%. If they have single sword and sheild. They will win. A Japanese warrior (im stretching it with the warrior) does not have the armor nor weapons to defeat a European Knight
