So let's put the debate of the ages to bed for good.
Who'd win in a fight, a Japanese samurai, or a European knight.
Rules of the fight: Each of the fighters have a large primary weapon like a sword, a small back- up weapon like a knife and a ranged weapon like a bow. Fight takes place on foot in a colosseum like arena. Fighters use the weapons and armour of a samurai or knight respectively.
Who wins, /k/?
>Each of the fighters have a large primary weapon like a sword, a small back- up weapon like a knife
>Fighters use the weapons and armour of a samurai or knight respectively.
Then wouldn't they be using a lance and yari as a "primary" weapon with the backup being a sword?
knight. by far. every part of a knight's armour is a weapon in itself compared to a samurai - the face mask of a samurai could not withstand a punch by a knight's gauntlet even.
Knight puts crossbow bolt through samurai armor
Samurai breaks sword on knights armor, Knight breaks bones through Samurais armor
Samurai feels honor is insulted by being put in a death match, commits seppuku
it's not even close. European knights have better armor, are larger, and have a sword better suited for armored combat, and the training to face armored opponents.
the europeans (the english, really) have the best longbows around, but a knight wouldn't use a bow. An archer would.
all around the europoor is better in every single way for 1v1 armored combat
>all around the europoor is better in every single way for 1v1 armored combat
even unarmored with just swords the europoor smokes the jap, being taller and stronker. katana butterknives cant stand up to pic related.
Samauri's armour is worse, samaurai's sword is useless against plate armour, samauri's bow is useless against plate armour, spear is only useful at joints.
Knightt's sword can thrust through samauri's armour
knight's halberd can pierce samauri's armour
knight's mace can smash samauri
Europeans are bigger and stronger than asians so theres that, skillwise they might be the same although different styles
Oh, too bad the samurai never had gunpowder weapons then.
This stupid debate is comparing two different periods of time.
If gunpowder is put into the mix, then the Samurai win, hands down. They had matchlock technology.
Without gunpowder, the edge would go the the knights, but its not like the samurai would be helpless. They would just have to fight the knights like other people who had to fight the knights did, knocking them down and sticking a knife in the eye slits, or whatever. Also adopting armor piercing weapon, like a spiked mace or something.
>but its not like the samurai would be helpless.
no, that is exactly what it would be like if we took a 1480AD knight and samurai and let them fight. not even a contest.
Also, europeons were ALWAYS ahead of japs in firearms tech.
My borderline weeaboo self wants to say samurai but I'd say knight simply for the fact that European late-medieval armor while being bulky were just solid as fuck while samurai armor tended to be pretty terrible
>I CAN#T TELL MY ASSHOLE FROM MY MOUTH
ah, just another john snow detected.
>Also, europeons were ALWAYS ahead of japs in firearms tech.
Europeans yes, Knights, no. Again., we are comparing two different periods of time, the europeans had already abondoned the armored knight by the time the samurai and matchlock muskets was around.
The knights had hand-cannons at best. The samurai had matchlock muskets, not just importing them, building their own too.
If gunpowder is allowed, the samurai would wipe the floor with the knights.
English longbows were much stronger than Japanese bows at the time, but armored knights didn't use them. Archers were typically a group onto themselves. Depending on era the samurai would just get shot, since europoors had guns during the time of samurai.
>Europeans yes, Knights, no. Again., we are comparing two different periods of time, the europeans had already abondoned the armored knight by the time the samurai and matchlock muskets was around.
Why would you post such untrue garbage? what do you have to gain?
>This stupid debate is comparing two different periods of time.
The Knight, or the heavily armored rich ponce existed well into the early modern era, being used in the 30 years war.
The Samurai was used in combat in a similar situation during the invasion of Korea.
Both had guns in their armory. But the Knight has such a good armor design it can survive getting shot with 17th century fire arms.
> people rich enough to afford armor at all arent rich enough to afford ellaborate AND effective armor.
>it can survive getting shot with 17th century fire arms.
That's not really anything special.
even this is better than samurai armour
>But the Knight has such a good armor design it can survive getting shot with 17th century fire arms.
But you can amass a lot of guns for the price of just one suite.
The problem is that without a horse the knight will tire himself out by simply moving on the battlefield. And that then if you kill his horse he is a bit useless. You can armor the horse but then the horse will tire out.
>Intentionally missing the point
I never stated that full plated armor is on the same level of agility with lighter armors. Only that knights weren't like the average /k/ poster as evidenced by that scene with the ladder. Hurr durr, knights were slow and uncoordinated is a meme.
I srs hope you missed the point on purpose.
WTF are you babbling about. I wasn't comparing, you potato. I just responded to anon saying that knights were bulky and provided actual proof that it wasn't so. You, my son, have no reading comprehension.
The knight has access to better armor and a shield.
Assuming two fighters of equal skill and health, I've got to go with the knight.
First we decide the equipment.
Primary (on foot):
halberd vs yari/naginata
Secondary (on foot, 1h):
Long sword vs nodachi (idk mi not a weaboo fagot)
Dagger vs kogatana
heavy crossbow vs daikyū
Now all that equipment would be lying around? or they have to carry that shit around?
Then we can go deep into armor slots and vehicle loadout
>False premises in the OP
Based on the kinds of armor shown in the picture, we are comparing a 16th century knight with a 16th century samurai.
The primary weapon of the knight, when on foot, would have been a pollaxe or maybe a shortened lance. The primary weapon of the samurai, when on foot, would have been either a musket or a yari. Both would have only used swords as backup weapons.
The knight has armor and melee weapons of better design and manufacture. He is also likely to be markedly taller and stronger. The samurai, having lived through the era of Sengoku Jidai and possibly the invasion of Korea as well, has much, much more experience in actual battles of all kinds. His armor is not as protective, but it is easier to put on (doesn't require 30 minutes and a squire) and is much less stifling in hot weather. The samurai's musket is not very reliable and only gets one shot but it is accurate enough to hit the face of a playing card at ~50 feet and deadly if it connects.
I would give the advantage to the knight in this situation if both combatants started on horses, as Japanese horses were pitiful compared to European ones. I would also give the advantage to the knight if we were comparing a different time period (8th century knight vs. 8th century samurai, 11th century knight vs. 11th century samurai etc). When comparing a 16th century knight and 16th century samurai though, it boils down to the choices that each of them make. Both have significant advantages, and both can win if take a course of action that allows them to maximize those advantages.
Armored knights were still in use well into the 17th century, by which time they had flintlocks. Not to mention that 17th century plate could withstand a musket shot. So no, weaboo fag, samurai would not win.
>The samurai's musket is not very reliable and only gets one shot but it is accurate enough to hit the face of a playing card at ~50 feet and deadly if it connects.
>Pre barrel drilling technology and matching bullet casting technology
Is this B8 or are you just stupid?
>Armored knights were still in use well into the 17th century
>implying reiters/cuirassiers were hereditary noblemen trained from birth to be soldiers
>not knowing the difference between knights and men-at-arms
>Not to mention that 17th century plate could withstand a musket shot
>implying that the munitions armor issued to reiters/cuirassiers could stop musket balls
>implying that anyone other than a king or a duke is going to have armor that could stop a musket ball
Get your facts straight, or you will just enable the weeaboos to make you look stupid.
Yes. BUT just as average European today is way bigger than back then, same goes for slope-eyed island monkeys. Average nip today is a lot bigger than back then. Why? Both groups have better living standards nowadays than back then.
The Samurai would win since even when both are butt naked the Samurai still has vision slits.
yeah, the 19th and 18th century where when europeans were SMALLEST. before that they were taller.
in the early middle ages the Germanic people had an average male height of 6 foot.
a simple field harness was quite affordable and ubiquitous in the 15th century, it was called knechtischer harnisch (a servant's armour) in the german lands. you didn't need to be a knight to own full plate.
no, 200 years ago they were roughly the same height and build as they are now, just slightly smaller. Think 5'7" instead of 5'10." Excavations of mass graves at Towden showed bodies with the build and bone density of modern professional athletes.
the tiny people are a byproduct of the industrial revolution and living on a diet of tea, potatoes and refined sugar.
also bear in mind that when half of the population dies before the age of 5, the ones who don't are made of pretty stern stuff.
Smoothbore firearms were actually much more accurate than we in the modern world often give them credit for.
That said, hitting a playing card at 17 yards with a long arm is hardly a mighty feat.
>He thinks a smoothbore musket with a 40+ inch barrel is unable to hit a target 16 yards away
Found the nogunz.
Smoothbore weapons have no problems with accuracy within 100 feet and have a maximum effective range of 300 feet.
This. There's even that lulzy story from murrkan war for independence. Late in the evening, a few drunk murrkans take a pot-shot at a redcoat that was on the opposite side of the river some <too far to accurately shoot at> feet away. Brit drops down, murrkans go 'ha ha, cool dood, he's roleplaying to be dead, what a bro' and GTFO to continue drinking. Next morning they see the redcoat still lying there. He died.
I prefer the story about the two armies camped on either side of the Hudson trading insults. Suddenly a guy from either camp jumps into the river and starts swimming across. The two meet up in the middle and embrace each other. Turns out they were brothers.
Never heard of that one. There's the lulzy one from US civil war with a general calling his troops pansies and fags cause they're afraid of the other side's snipers and seconds later getting brained cause he got shot through the eyeball.