memes aside, could a samurai or samurai regiment take on a knight(s)?

>>2791164
A bunch of peasants could take on a knight(s). Whether they win or not is entirely dependent on their use of strategy.

Questions like this are retarded.

One, "samurai" and "knight" are vague terms that can be completely different depending on what time period we're talking. Samurai existed in the 1800's and had rifles and cannons. Yea that can fuck up almost any knight ever. Samurai can also mean a horse archer from the 1300's, a 17th century bureaucrat, or a spear wielding warrior from the 1500's. See the variation here?

Secondly, it depends on a great number of variables but anybody can win a fight on any given day. People in reality don't have power levels.

>>2791164
Depends. Which side has guns?

File: 13_2.jpg (565KB, 1600x1314px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1600x1314px

>>2791221
Both?

This isn't dragon ball z, the regiment with good information, knowledge of the terrain and high morale wins

Also should've specified a given time period.

>>2791164

They fought in quite different manners, but assuming you mean some kind of cage fight where the Samurai can't use horse archery then the edge goes to the knights because of their armor, which the Samurai would have serious problems penetrating.

>>2792530
False, katanas can cut through anything

Watch more anime and hollywood movies idiot

>>2792635
DATS RITE. MUH 1OOOOOOO FOLD NIPPON STEEL!!!

No, it could not.

For whatever reason, the Japanese never developed full plate like the Europeans, so I think that would put our hypothetical samurai at a disadvantage.

Samurai armor was stereotypically a mix of plate and chain, vaguely similar in style to aventale helmets.

Other than that, I think it's far less clear who had better equipment. Katanas are not the wunderwaffen that weeaboos claim, but I doubt they're the dogshit that the detractors claim.

>>2792667
>whatever reason

They are ethnically inferior

File: IMG_0704.jpg (338KB, 500x707px) Image search: [Google]

338KB, 500x707px

>>2791164
Yes European knights were a meme. They couldn't even defeat muslims

>>2792688
Samurai vs Muslim warrior

Who'd win?

>>2792667
>for whatever reason

Bad metal and inferior metallurgy

>>2792697
Muslims because their swords are more curved than the katanas, samurai would need to have 360 degrees angle katanas to even hope to walk away safely

Instead of comparing samurai and knight in a fight, I think it would be best to see how the european armies from the middle ages could fight against the japanese.
Let's take the french army, known to have the best cavalry in Europe. Did they have a chance against a japanese clan like the Takeda? How many men a daimyo could gather? How did they fight?

>>2792530
>Samurai only used Katanas

When will this meme ends

>>2792647
How did you fall for that bait, it couldn't be more obvious.

>>2791164
you need to be more specific. A knight from the 9th century, 11th, 15th? What period is the Samurai from? What part of europe is the knight from? There are all kinds of variables that could give one or the other better fighting ability or different equipment.

>>2791164
A knight from any time period could easily defeat a samurai from any time period.

>>2792667
samurais are trained horse archers, knights never really had an answer to that

>>2791164
In a one on one duel, no.

In a full scale field battle, yes.

In a siege with euros defending, no.

Siege with euros attacking, no.

>>2792934
That wasn't even bait it was just a joke

>>2793008
One on one duel unarmored though... Samurai probably wins.

>>2793339
Why?

File: the samurai fear the serbs.jpg (42KB, 640x504px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x504px

>>2791164

>>2793339
haha yeah no, fucking samurais were like 150 cm and 20kg, a white europe knight would slay him

File: cfd75099bf72f34b9508cd488ba7eb1b.jpg (35KB, 372x535px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 372x535px

>>2792966
>A 9th century knight can easily defeat a 19th century samurai with a fucking revolver

Yea, that's not happening.

>>2792919
Spears on foot aren't good against plate, either. This whole thread is just an enormous mass of assumptions though.

>>2793705
>knight charges you with his horse
>spear his horse
>knight falls and breaks his shit up, if he isn't in a coma already
>gets his head bashed in by the samurai

Even untrained peasants beat an army of knights

>>2793339
It was fashionable for Portuguese fops to go to Japan and duel samurai to the death for shits and giggles. The practice was banned because so many samurai got #rekt.

>>2793724
Are we assuming that the knight is on horseback and the samurai is on foot?

>>2793729
That's internet meme garbage. No primary sources have been presented for the duels or the results and I have tried for find them.

From what I've seen katana can cut through flesh, cloth and leather easier than a sword since its designed for making clean cuts

>>2793379
Not all samurai's there were tall ones as well.

>>2794166
Yeah katana was well suited to japanese warfare with poor armor, unarmoured and with equal size and training Samurai with Katana would beat a knight with any regular sword. Samurai also had greater emphasis on 1v1 duels.

>>2794177
Poor armor, there armor wasnt as good as plate but it was equal to most others in east asia, and even ashigaru had a basic breastplate and helmet.

The katana was'st even the main sword on the battlefield anyway, it didnt catch on until the late sengoku because it was an easily deployed backup weapon. Tachi and nodachi were more popular, they tended to be both longer and heavier.

>>2791207
This

>>2793679
Revolvers were weak against armor

>>2791164
This kind of threads shows that /his/ is completely retarded. Which knight? Using what? From what country?

Are you all "Le history is fun" fags whose mental image of a knight is some guy in full plate armor with a huge sword?

Knights and Samurais aren't some sort of special unit with good stats like your stupid shitty games. Do you fags think they were some sort of designated type of troop?

If so fucking kill yourselves.

>>2791207
>people in reality dont have power levels
What if youre autistic