Prove the samurai would win

modern versions that are far lighter

>OP said 1 v 1

So Samurais get to use arrows but knights don't? Fuck off with your moving the goalposts bullshit.

Nope

The weaboo butthurt is hilarious

Samurai pushes the knight into the sea. Knight drowns. You happy?

Anyone that thinks the samurai has a chance watches too much anime.

Fucking pig iron.

desu desu if it was a true katana forded over 1000 time with grorious nipponese steer the samurai wourd just srice through the knight and his armor in one effortress swing.

>looses

Yeah, bet you're a real deep thinker dipshit.

The fact is that Europeans had already moved on to gunpowder and guns when the peak of the Samurai occurred. So what you faggots are really imagining is a time machine where you take a Samurai from like 200 years in the future and bring him back to the height of the traditional European Knight.

The fact is that if you ever put warriors from the same time period together the European would win. That is a fact.

Even the knight is not the stupid, he would not have used all of his energy straight away. Also the samuria while he does have lighter armour (samuria Armor is about 25kg and a knights battle armour would have been about 40kg) the European knight is alot taller and stronger. He would also have alot of practice with the armour. The samuria would likely have been just as tired as the knight after a while

knights weren't the best fighters
they were the nobles or their children
they didn't see much action, but were useful in causing the enemy to close ranks to repel a cavalry charge. This made them easier targets for archers or catapults etc.

OP here
The knight would win 99% of the time

There are two different images of knights people think of. There is the noble, and there is a man in armor.

I think in this case we are talking about an armored European soldier, not necessarily a noble. When you see a man in European style armor most people would call that a "knight", regardless of his nobility status.

knight, any sword would struggle to penetrate a breastplate or other piece of plate no matter what shape it is, so the katana would need an exceptionally lucky hit to do anything at all.

Where as the knight in this era mostly used bludgeoning weapon that relied on knocking the opponent senseless from inside the armour like poleaxes, maces or warhammers meaning the samurai's armour, while effective would offer less defense than the knights armour allowing the knight to bull rush and close down the more nimble samurai.

>also samurai armour was reported to be reliably able to stop early musket shot, so don't naturally assume its lighter, its just less common as the japs had less steel than Europe.

>If we give the Japanese a few hundred years to catch up in technology the Japanese would totally destroy the European.
>Europeans rekt

FUCKING retard alert. The knights from a young age were trained to correctly use a bow, sword, mace and shield as well a ride a horse. The knight would have been to tourneys jousts ect. When nobles had a dispute they were encouraged to fight it over in a duel. Knights got plenty of training. Not to Meantion Europe was constantly at war so the knight would seen plenty of action. Knights would have also dismounted to fight the enemy of foot if they had to. Or if they were in a seige they would have been on foot. They got far more training in the art of war then samurai did fool

kek

/thread

The knight could win by just falling of his horse landing on the samurai, literally

Kek

only thing that has gone lighter might be the aluminium chainmail

the training given to knights was token at best
it was so the peasants thought they were the best fighters so the peasants wouldn't rebel.
the jousts etc were for the better fighters to rise in ranks and for the nobles to bet on, be entertained by.
and why would a knight fight on foot when he has 1000+ peasants to do that

>most knight didnt fight, peasents did.
>japan didnt see much conflict while training samurai due to isolation

to be honest the knight would kill the jap in a short amount of time but if not after a while he would get tired

Its all about situation

*sorry about bad english
>korean

nice

Let's assume they meet one another and end up having a reason to fight.

Each one has armor to protect them, but the knight has the defensive advantage. Offensively, over a long period of time, the samurai has a mobile advantage, with his armor not draining his stamina as quickly.

Hur dur, plate mail makes you invincible hur dur.

A samurai had bludgeoning weapons. Ya fuckin' durs

I'm willing to bet those are historically accurate armor sets. Medieval reinactors are incredibly detail oriented. They aren't interested in modern imitations of shit. They pride themselves on making historically accurate pieces.

Aluminum armor would be laughed at by other reinactor nerds.

it doesnt matter you guys, everyone knows that the greek spartan would beat both of them at the same time anyways

I choose the strongest Spartan Hoplite ever, and/or other Greek Hoplite, because dat fighting spirit.
Just upgrade their bronze euipment for steel and yall fuckers would be on the ground with a 12 ft. Spear in your chest.

>A samurai had bludgeoning weapons. Ya fuckin' durs

Europeans never used war hammers?

And why is the protection of the armor always seen as a drawback and a drain on stamina? If that was the case why not wear no armor and be super fast? Over thousands of years of melee combat the suit of armor was created. Obviously for a reason.

Well hello there satan

I have friends in the army who runs around with packs weighing up to 150 lbs, they can run around with that for hours. So I do believe the weight of the armor was something they surpassed just by walking with the armor on every day.

Yeah bronze totally cuts through steel

I'm not saying the the knight would win in a fight, but it is a very common misconception that plate armor was too heavy to move in. Knights in plate armor were more than capable in movement

Well I give the strongest European knight titanium armor that is as strong as steel but 1/4 the weight and a pulse laser rifle from the year 2567. What now nigger?

Bamboo is strong like steel and it's flessible

Yeah and steel's fuckin' heavy, even when you do train in it. You can't hold the sprint button down forever. And when you've got metal on you, it ticks away ever so slightly more, which in CQC over a long period of time, can be noticeable and exploited.

Deus vult

What? No you idiot, I just made their weapons of equal material strength. I'm just saying, if a knight/samurai had steel, and so did the hoplite, so the have equal material advantage, the hoplite crushes.

Doesn't matter how hard it is, the fact a 6' tall metal man is walking at the samurai would realistically make him resort to different tactics.

But the armor was obviously worth it or it never would have been worn.

My point is that armor was something evolved over centuries of people studying and perfecting melee warfare. And they kept moving towards more and more armor until guns suddenly came into the picture and armor went away completely because wearing enough armor to defeat bullets wasn't practical.

So while you guys claim armor would weigh you down and tire you out, it was clearly deemed a worthwhile compromise by people who dedicated their life to perfecting melee combat technology.

And I'm saying that is absolute bullshit and you are just pulling shit straight from your fucking asshole, so was I with the pulse laser rifle shit.

You are talking about something that never fucking existed, and so am I.

Someone get Deadliest Warrior back this must be decided

I play that on a daily basis and pirates are the fuckin best

sorry satan, but the sets in the vid cover about half of what the set in OP's pic does, and they look a lot thinner
this may be because modern metals and techniques make thin stuff strong enough, or it may be so they can run around, and play mock battles.

The samurai would need to exhaust the knight or get him on his back somehow. The knight wouldn't be as immobile as some anons are suggesting, but I believe the samurai would have greater agility.

This scenario brings to mind battles fought between the mongols and medieval armies. If I remember correctly they avoided attacking the knights directly and would draw them away from the main body of their army, unhorse them using hook like spears and kill them on the ground.

I know this is a 1 on1 scenario, but the samurai could try to use similar tactics. Avoid engaging the knight directly, tire him out, maybe taunt him and let him get clumsy. Getting the knight on his back is the samurai's best chance. Or if he can pull of a miracle and stab the knight through the eye gap(s) in the helmet.

knights rode horses, and had peasants to do the fighting

I'll give the jap fag an energy shield and light sabre

The katana is a cutting weapon, not a stabbing weapon. You need to stab through armor, not cut.

A Katana is a horrible weapon against mail and plate. A european longsword is both a stabbing and cutting weapon.

Knights would dismount and fight on foot if they had to. If the knight encountered the samuria in the duel the knight would likely follow his chivalric codes and get off his horse

in a 1v1 a pike/spear would be a huge advantage
the spartan spear would go through plate armour

Based Skallagrim answers this question in detail.

youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo

in OP's pic there is no horse

A bronze spear is not going to pierce steel. The point will just bend when it hits the steel.

No the knight would win.
Europeans where alot taller and stronger then em little Asian twats, even more today the back in the days.
European had superior arms and armor.

Only extreme skill on the samurais part could possibly stand a small chance against a standard knight in full battle gear.

OP here
There is also no mace or shield but the knight was often equipped with them. The picture was not intended to set the scenario

OP here
Though the samurai were very skilled the knight also received alot of training. He would also have been to many battles because Europe was constantly at war

I laughed hard at this.

lead tipped bullets go through steel

Even the best specimens among Japanese swords are vastly weaker than the standard broadsword common to medieval due to some really shitty natural iron reserves (effectively dredged up iron sand), so already the knights have an edge in weapon quality (that quality also having been achieved 200 years before). In fact, Katanas are so weak that a generic european Broadsword could irreparably damage/break in half one by hitting the back.

The idea that a Knights armour is too heavy is also bullshit. It weighed maybe 60 pounds at most, which is less that a standard marine carries nowadays. So mobility and stamina is a non-issue.

As for skill, well, that's not really relevant- what is relevant is the tactics. First and foremost, european broadswords are incredibly proficient in piercing as well as slashing, and against opponents with armour, piercing is a vastly more efficient method of fighting. The samurai's tactics, in contrast, are tremendously limited- either they have to use their Yari (inferior to european Halberds), use artillery (similar to english longbows), or use a weapon that has almost no ability to pierce against opponents with armour that is of higher quality than their blades.

do you all even Masamune?

neither do you. the fuck do you mean "pure" steel? the japanese were aware of carbon process you idiot, folding was just a forging technique

none of you peanuts realise plate armor doesnt cover all of the body. there are always weak points at the joints, reinforced by chainmail or leather. theyre still vulnerable at those points.

samurai aren't in it for brute force but precision and technique. they could handle a knight 1v1. brute force will likely win on a battlefield though

this is like saying the CEO of enron pumps most of the oil by hand
though they may have been at lots of battles they had peasants to do the fighting

you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means.

Both lose to sandnigger damascus steel in the long run

Fuck off Saladin

sandniggers came later
like most arab inventions they are of greek origin

A Samurai is using a blade with an effectively blunt end against a Knight equipped with a sword built for thrusts and stabs. If anyone is going to be clever and find areas to get passed armour, it's the knight.

Welder here... You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. Go read a book on metallurgy.

Try thrusting a spear at 1000+ feet per second.

We did. The Mejii restoration and the strengths gained by the Japanese shortly thereafter during the first days of the Japanese Empire saw their technology at least on par with, if not exceed Europeans equivalents. The Zero was the greatest warplane EVER BUILT at the time it was constructed, as it was a Duraluminum killing machine that could be launched from a carrier deck (something no other country had In spades).

In the end, the Wapanese were beaten back not by Europeans, but by superior American Naval Tactics.

Damascus steel is dated before the height of European knights and way before the Japanese got beyond cheap knockoff Korean swords, and there's no record of the Greeks or Romans creating anything remotely similar in quality. Sorry bruh but the Damascans made better swords.

...

Depends upon too many factors
>setting
>time period (earlier knights probably would have lost, later knights probably would have won)
>skill of both combatants
>supporting combatants
>etc

Assuming both warriors were equally skilled and it was a 1 on 1 fight, it would come down to time period

Early "knights" were little more than leather capped chain mail clad ruffians, and the samurai would stand a better chance.

Middle era knights wore some plate armor, but mostly just to protect their head/hands/legs, and it would be anyone's fight really.

Late era knights (or what most people know as knights, romantically) would almost certainly beat a samurai in 1 on 1 combat, the samurai would have to somehow get to a point where the armor joins, usually around the shoulders or a small part of the neck/face or back of legs, but they are all very small targets and very easy to miss in combat.

So it depends upon the era, but the night in OPs pic would win for sure.

Samurai: Warriors who trained from childhood and honed their skills for many hours a day.

Knight: Mostly noble born who wanted to hide behind the lesser shield wall of human shields and their armor. Never had to live a hard life or train from childhood.

Yeah, no brainer. Samurai 10 out of 10 times.

I am a professor of Japanese history. I minored in medieval warfare. I can intrinsically tell you you are mistaken.

See For more information

> what is a lance

Shut up. We'll decide when for honor comes out.

I too, an a professor in Japanese history. What a coincidence.

Just because it is hard for quick samurai to get cuts into the armour...doesnt mean the knight will win....why do you think samurai cant deflect and defend?

You're both talking about 2 different knights. There's a big difference between the high ranking noble who is expected to lead troops and look good in armor and the man that has risen through the ranks because his ability to kill surpasses his peers.

Both are knights, but would be completely mismatched if it came to an actual fight.

according to wikipedia they had iron tips
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dory_(spear)

They assume incorrectly that 1) A katana will be shattered upon first blow by a knight and 2) The knights armor has no weak spot that the samurai could exploit.

the zero broke in half if it was suddenly put into a steep dive

this pretty much
people would think that a mma fighter like mike tyson who is huge would win against anybody in a fist fight but a well trained shaolin monk could easily kick his ass because of how much they train
same goes for samurais

The quantity of ignorance i am reading here is unbearable. Please, before making stupid statments go and read something about the matter

>calls everyone in the thread ignorant

>contributes nothing to the conversation

Kys you shit posting underage b& weeb

Apparently all you contribute is swearing. That's a sure fire way to prove how useless you are to the debate. Be gone child.

impact area is similar, and the weight of a spear is much greater, so it doesn't need the same speed to have the same force

Armor provides an advantage that far out ways the disadvantage of having the added weight, but if the fight lasted long enough that extra weight could be deadly.

>being this much of a weeaboo

>implying knights weren't trained from childhood

>implying the samurai wouldn't immediately commit sudoku when facing European master race who's nearly twice as tall as him.

>implying you don't have autism and get all of your info from anime and Wikipedia

>mike tyson
>mma fighter
I hope this is b8

> hey why don't you contribute something instead of just talking shit

> uh- uh well I mean I know what I'm talking about, just because you called me out means that you're mean and have nothing to contribute too.

>made them easier targets for catapults
Medieval warfare is not age of empires
You don't shoot at infantry or cavalry with siege equipment
>except for the Roman catapults but these are an entirely different design and not really siege weaponry

You do realize you left out a shield and often a knight has more than a sword they often carried axes, pick and even pikes occasionally along their horses or their back side. A knight would win cuzz muh royalty

Ok, that's my contribute:
Masturbating over a warrior or the other is pointless, and this thread is bait. We can calculate percentage of success based on information that are not given. For what OP states we can even imagine 2 naked man fighiting and try to say the odds of the victory.

There are no starting data in this thread so everyone is basically arguing about a very confused situation, except those who are just putting more info in play.

At the end of the story everything comes always down to the skill of the fighters more then the technology, moslty becouse we are talking about a duel, not a battle

Roman Legion Master Race

And yeah, maybe volley fire from archers would be more effective, but siege equipment, no

>sudoku meme

Stopped taking you seriously right about there.

>taking anything on Cred Forums seriously to begin with

Like said, this whole thread is bait. Nothing here to take seriously anyway.

Theodoric tried aiming catapults at soldiers and it worked just fine for him.

For penetration velocity is more important than just force. For instance a 5.56mm nato (AR-15 round) and a .44 magnum have very similar muzzle energies, with the .44 actually having more. But the AR-15 will punch right through a bullet proof vest while a .44 will usually be stopped by the vest.

The AR-15 bullet is going about twice as fast and is much lighter. The high velocity has more of a sheering force and the slower bullet gives the material more time to bend and absorb impact. The faster bullet doesn't give the material time to bend and tears the material more.

You're buying into the myth. An mma fighter would more than a match for a karate trained monk. The problem with a lot of martial arts is they all have a lot of theory embedded into them. Like theoretically you could kill a dude by putting all your chi into one punch, but will it work in an actual fight? Probably not...

And mike tyson is boxer not an mma fighter. And I'm pretty sure mike tyson in his prime would murder the shaolin monk. He set the olympic record for fastest KO when he was 16.

Plate mail didn't use shields because you don't need them with that much armor

Japanese being great swordsmen is just a stupid and false stereotype. Plenty of other cultures would fare a lot better against them in 1v1 scenarios with no armor and only 1 sword; included, but not limited to, the average knight.
They were most likely leagues below the Spaniard/Criollo duelists that often went challenged each other to the death for stupid reasons.

Katana can penetrate plate armour. This is scientifically proven. A guy wearing a 50 lbs armor will be naturally slow as fuck. Easy to bait and counter hit. Samurai wins everytime without exception, assuming there isn't a skill disparity between the warriors. It is an issue of a bad match up.

the idea was that you brought out cavalry and made out you were going to charge
the enemy would close together to defend against the charge, thus making them easy targets for catapults, archers, ballistas etc.

thats what the french knights said at agincourt