Samurai vs. Medieval knight: who would win?

Samurai vs. Medieval knight: who would win?

Attached: 1583054324413.jpg (412x356, 62K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Katana was not built for that, would snap or bend on plate mail. Knight win easy.
I'm a fucking weeb too, I want the samurai to win but there's no way he ever does.

The one with armour that isn't made of paper

Knight would doodoo on chun kings chest


Knights are talking shit again...

Attached: Speak softly and carry a big stick.jpg (1280x720, 144K)

The one who strikes first.

Depends on the period. A late 15th century Knight in full plate harness with couched lance, warhammer/mace, a sword of the period (designed to get through armour - type XVa, XVIIIb, et cetera), and a destrier, who has trained since boyhood is death incarnate and incredibly difficult to kill. I think once full plate armour, couched lance tactics, and the breeding of big warhorse are developed the European Knight or man at arms is going to play with a samurai of the same period. Prior to this, I would consider a samurai the equal of the European Knight until around the mid 13th century - evenly matched.

Pic related. Imagine that guy charging at you with his lance couched or a flanged mace swinging at your skull. You're going to die.

Attached: e0a97feec544216b977c30b6339f1941.jpg (336x600, 44K)

knight weapons were made to break other weapons and japan had really shitty steel which is why a katana needs 2000 folds just to cut into an apple. couple this with thicc big boi armor and sadly the samurai loses. also samurais mainly used bows amd later rifles the swords were rarely used and were a badge of office as they counted rice.

Medieval knight is too clunky and slow. Samurai would run rings around him then drive katana deep into armour joint.

>knight weapons were made to break other weapons

Wrong. Knightly weapons were primarily made for negating or piercing armour. Pollaxes, maces, warhammers, et cetera were made for defeating armour through percusive force. Swords of the 14th and 15th centuries were geared towards half-swording and thrusting through gaps in plate armour (mainly points of articulation such as the armpits) and secondarily to cut lightly armoured adversaries. Rondel daggers were also primarily for thrusting through gaps in armour. The main weapon on the Knight in this period was the lance which put the full weight and charge of a heavily armoured man and big warhorse (destrier) into the point.

At no point were knightly weapons developed to break other weapons - that's retarded D&D/Hollywood bullshit. Go read a book, please.


this is bullshit, how about this: zhou dynasty crossbowmen vs. contemporary european tribes circa 700bc

This just isn't true. 30kg of articulated plate isn't much of an encumbrance to a reasonably fit and strong man, especially one who has been training in it most of his life. It doesn't feel heavy because it's distributed around your whole body and attached to an arming jacket and straps. A well made suit of gothic plate or Italian white armour is not going to make you "slow and clunky", neither on foot nor on the back of a warhorse.

Pic related. Notice all the strapping, it's not just hanging off your shoulders and weighing you down - it would be attached in a very sophisticated way that mitigates most of the weight of the armour.

Attached: john_hawkwood02.jpg (289x458, 33K)

A medieval knight's armour was actually lighter than modern infantry armour.

Right - clunky and slow... and I'll add terrible peripheral vision and have to basically turn around to see the samurai sneaking up behind him

lemme ask what we're all thinking: who would win, herman goebbels or an african infant

Close range with a high velocity crossbow and that plate is worthless. I would bet that chain is better defence against arrows and does just as well against sword points. The only advantage for plate would be against broken ribs / bones from clubbing

Yeah, the guy wearing wood and straw has such great mobility.

Yeah retard thats what you do when someone sneaks up behind you, turn around, unless you have god damn eyes at the back of your head, also, the vision field of those medieval helmets is better than it seems

How do you know to turn around when a lightly armoured guy sneaks up behind you without armour clunking the whole way in?

The first detection would be his dagger in your eye slit.

>the vision field of those medieval helmets is better than it seems
Couldn't possibly be. You need to turn around to see any more than perhaps 60 degrees straight ahead. Poor neck articulation and narrow eye slits makes a knight an easy target once he dismounts

Why are you thinking the samurai to be lightly armoured? Samurai wore what resembles segmented plate. That shit is anything but silent.

>Poor neck articulation and narrow eye slits makes a knight an easy target once he dismounts
I can see you're trying, but you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

Sneak up behind a knight in the middle of a battle? When they're probably both on horseback? Wut? And if they're not in battle, why would either a Knight or a samurai be wearing armour?

Knight easily. The knight is trained to fight armored opponents, the Samurai is trained to massacre peasants.

Just not true. The only thing getting through hardened, tempered plate armour itself is percussive force such as from a pollaxe or warhammer. A crossbow bolt would have to penetrate the plate itself, the mail underneath, and the padded arming jacket underneath that. A crossbow man's hope against an armoured late medieval knight is by chance shooting through a gap in the armour (which is not likely), and by the time you are in range to shoot your crossbow the Knight will be charging at you with his lance couched on the back of his (also heavily armoured) destrier. Hope you're an exceptional shot, really lucky, and so brave that a mass of armoured horseman with lances charging at you doesn't make you shit your pants and run.

These guys were VERY hard to kill. They dominated the battlefield for five hundred years. Taking a knight out would not be easy.

>knight an easy target once he dismounts

I don't know if you're trolling or really that dumb . . .

English knights fought dismounted all the time, and generally preferred to do so. A knight in full plate with a pollaxe or long, thrust-oriented sword is not going to be easy to kill. You're deluded if you think a knight would ever be an easy target.

I bet you think .22's can't kill people unless they're unlucky.

good post

Sword was a sidarm. Knight would have a fucking huge spear or halberd as primary. Samurai is fucked, if he gets close enough to strike, he will break his sword on the knight.

Dumb post. A sword was a sidearm for samurai too. Pole arms and bows were the primary weapon of samurai until the advent of reliable firearms.

Nope, I'm telling you that nothing but a gun will penetrate tempered steel plate. Not a sword, not an axe, not a spear, not an arrow nor a bolt. The arquebus and musket could directly defeat plate armour, up to that you need to precisely attack gaps in the armour at points of articulation and guess what? Points of articulation on plate are protected by mail and padded armour. Heavy cavalry in full plate armour dominated the battle field for a few centuries until the age of pike and shot (and even then, it had some uses for example the French gendarmes in the 16th century) - it worked, quite simply. There was no silver bullet for a big man, on a big horse, with full plate, lance, advanced weaponry (flanged mace, warhammer, estoc, et cetera), and a lifetime of training and physical culture.

1v1 - Samurai
100v100 Knight

me on the right

Samurai would just shoot the night.

Attached: Samurai_Snipers.jpg (450x368, 34K)

Imagine how fatigued a knight would be after a 10 hour strategic siege of Samurai after Samurai Tokyo drifting their horses around them shooting them over and over with arrows just mocking them and laughing.

Attached: 1df5ea211f627153e128fc0876f630b9.jpg (400x500, 52K)

where do you think the samurai got his guns?

Medieval knight.. what century? 8? Samurai. 14? Knight easily


Sucks for you, getting killed by based Bobby B.

They are faster and have better movement in battle. Knight would be to slow.

The samurai's weapon would have a hard time penetrating the steel armor of the knight.

Someone didn't read the bread...

Oh, I read it. I just don't agree.

Soymurais, more like

Ok then, how are they faster? What does "better movement" even mean? Far as I'm concerned knights and samurai are both warriors who train for most of their lives, but at least late medieval knights have significantly better arms and armor.

Your talking bollocks mate

One on one combat the chap wearing steel armour and a nice kite/heater shield beat the samurai every time. Katana type swords can't stab and that's the only way your going to finish the armoured knight in maille quickly.

Yes you can try and break his bones but with a light sword? Nah fam.

However, considering samurai often use bows don't they? Yeah that might even if out? But even then we have sources from the crusades of knights in maille being described as hedgehogs by the Saracens because their arrows could not disable dudes. But knights don't shoot boys. It's not good sport. Although, the pope did say it's fine to use crossbows against non Christians...

Either way, one on one combat knight winds nearly every time.

Bollocks again. I've been wearing maille every weekend for the past ten years. Can run rings around new guys. If your slow you are dead. Don't talk bollocks

Knight. Samurai always have a chink in their armor

Kek, I see what you did there.

Somebody always goes full tilt on Cred Forums LOL.
These guys are in 38kg of kit and sprint/run. (yes sport and yes missing chain mail)
But they're nimble as fuckery despite their kit, which is 1390-1410c.
Katana is like hand-and-half sword, so shields fuck them up - two weapons vs one. Shield does count as a weapon - watch the video.
google punch shield blade too.

Singular weapons are good too, especially if you have a later period full plate kit (and so don't really need a sheild). Hell, in your vid the dude was kicking ass with his Danish axe. I mean if I had full plate I'd go with a pole-axe. I mean just look at the beauty. Axe+hammer with a spike on each end. But yeah, swords in both cultures were more sidearms than main weapons (at least without a shield).

Attached: Knightly-poleaxe-_010-large-polearm-for-ground-combat-upper-half_900x.jpg (900x1200, 63K)

Different time period, not a fair comparison.

Nobody fought for ten hours constantly. Anyone would be fucked.

yeah like the mongolians, they kicked the knights asses because of the light armour they could do the same.


no one really wins, but everyone really loses

genghis khans troops fucked the knights up because of the light leather armour gave them speed/manoeuvring advantage.

Anyone who thinks the Samurai would have a chance against a knight in full plate armor is either an idiot, delusional or trolling.

1) The knight's main weapon would be a pole weapon (not a sword). One solid hit and the samurai is done. Bamboo armor isn't made for that shit and flex tape can't fix it.

2) Even the gaps between plates would be covered by mail which katanas cannot go through, especially with a knight trying to kill you at the same time.

3) Knights were just as well trained and skilled martial artists as any samurai. They were trained since prepubescent kids to kill things and that's what they did.

1v1, the samurai is out of his weight class.
There would be similar tech disadvantages in a full scale battle, but knights have a poorer record of routing whereas it was rare for samurai morale to break.

That makes no sense unless you're talking about a 1 vs 1 fight and even then, plate armor is not that cumbersome. What videos of people fighting in plate armor. If you still would rather have leather armor because you'd be "faster" you're an idiot.

IMO Temujin fucked up everyone because he was a badass leader AND he had badass warrior-soldiers (IE not only was each warrior on par with knights/samurai 1v1, but they were also soldiers who knew how to coordinate).

HAHAHAHA So where did you pull this random bit of info from, sounds like made up BS that you want to believe.

The losing side of a battle usually routes when they realize they're going to lose. That is the same for the Japanese as for everyone else. Samurai wouldn't hang around after their peasant army routes.

Battles in feudal era Japan were mostly fought by mobs of peasants, Samurai were the nobles and were feared because they were literally the only people on the battle field rich enough to be fighting with something other than a farming implement.

Crossbow bolts can't go through plate. What planet are you on

Look it just history and a fact. Also if 2 people have the same skills, speed, etc the one holding a heavy shield and heavy armour is going to be slower then the one wearing light armour and a light shield you are the idiot...

>thinking samurai armor is "light"
Fact is European armor was plain better by every metric. That's why the Nips who could afford to buy it did.

Claerly you don't understand armor. Find me a video of a crossbow bolt going through a hardened steel breastplate.

Even a weak bow will penetrate mail using bokin points.

Saying something is history does not count a sighting a source you thick fuck. I disagree with you saying knights have a "poorer record of routing" you have 0 evidence for this. You just want it to be true.

No shit, but when the weight of the armor is distributed well like it is in fitted plate, it does not restrict movement and wouldn't slow the knight down significantly enough to make the trade of worth it.

If the trade off for speed was worth it, then why in the fuck would anyone wear armor at all?

Knight would have the edge in robustness of gear and physique, samurai would in skill and mentality

How so?

Attached: 800px-Ms.XIX.17-3_16v.png (800x1196, 1.46M)

Knights would not only destroy samurais in a battle but also destroy their wife's pussy with their BWC

Attached: 20200301_115940.jpg (472x354, 90K)