Who Would Win in A Fight. Knight or Samurai?

THIS EPISODE OF DEADLIEST WARRIOR...

>>33859707
Depends.

>>33859742
>2 / 0 / 3 / ? [
on what?

>>33859750
Different thing.

File: i am growing stronger deus vult.jpg (32KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 540x540px

>>33859707
Knight without a doubt.
Simply put they have better materials and better armor and weapon designs. Knights have better training, and are not susceptible to slashing (which is what samurai's weapons are designed to do). Not to mention the physical advantages of the European knight, being size and strength. Also the fact that full scale war would weigh heavily twords the knights due to their fighting styles, gravitating twords grapling and crushing enemy defenses as a group.

File: 1470731722001.gif (932KB, 700x343px) Image search: [Google]

932KB, 700x343px

Knight, always.

Regardless of the era, european knights possessed better armor and weapons. Assuming skills are matched the knight should win most of the time

>>33859761
dude please give solid answer i need for research

>>33859707
I know that this shit is bait, but i'm gonna reply anyways.

What kind of knight?
What kind of samurai?
Where are they fighting?
It's a duel or a battle?
They know the tactics/cultures of their enemies?
What kind of weapon are they using?
Weight/height?
With or without armor?

Pirate

>>33859782
Ok, lets say the samurai catches the knight taking a shit. Unless he accidentally sudokus it'll go in the samurais favor.
If the samurai slaps the knights girls ass at a bar he gets maced in the face.
Or if for some reason a knight and a samurai materialize in a field for reasons unknown to them they'd probably try to establish some sort of communication to wonder what the fuck is going on.

>>33859707
Who would win in a contest of autism, a "deadliest warrior" fan or a die hard weaboo?

Really depends on the knight and samurai but even the lowliest of knights had decent metal armor coverage compared to the lowliest of Samurai.

Plus one goes around armor because even leather and Aketon or what ever its called was resistant to slashes and decent against piercing.

File: 1487868310768.jpg (506KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 2048x1536px

>>33859707
A full plate knight would shred a Samurai to shit.

As much as fedora fags love to show off their jap swords\katanas, they're actually of poor quality compared to the European Longsword. The Katana is a slashing weapon, slashing does jackshit to full plate. Meanwhile, Samurai are lightly armoured, and large portions of their body is only covered in cloth. A Longsword would easily slash\stab through that.

>>33859707
A chivalrous nobleman vs. a sandal wearing goldfish tender

why is this even a question

OP here
both the warriors are the best at what they do,
both in their best Armour and best weapons
in a grassy field with nothing but grass for next 2 miles
perfect weather.
now tell me who the fuck dies

File: 1262173632768.jpg (398KB, 640x1800px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 640x1800px

A question for the ages... of empires.

>>33859875
Thanks you blessed Gunny Sergeant Ermey.

>>33859902
Knight 99.99% of the time. That 0.01% of the time he has an aneurysm or is struck by lightning.

Real question

Who would win? Untrained idiot in full knight armor with longsword, or the world's most legendary samurai

>>33859902
Samurai.

See >>33859875

and watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFbQXpRvL2Y Skip to 2:40. That's all the samurai will be able to achieve, while the Knight can literally thrust once, engulf the Samurai's blade with his metal arm under his armpit, and kill the Jap with one stab.

I've been doing Iaido for 15 years. Japs swords are fucking shit. Knight wins every time.

>>33859927
Real question

Who would win? Untrained idiot in weaboo outfit with mallninja katana, or the world's most legendary knight, William Marshall?

OP
thank you everyone for participating, i will be able to write a decent essay of this

Samurai were primarily archers, though...

>>33859902
Anyone telling you anything other than that this is settled with polearms or wrestling & daggers is retarded. Someone's either gonna catch a halberd/yari or a rondel/tanto and frankly there's literally no way to tell who it's going to be which is why there isn't a pasta response to this question despite it being asked a million times every year.

>>33859902
Nigga, respond what i asked in >>33859792
They know how his enemy fight?
Is a duel or are they fighting in the middle of a battle?

This shit is important, if they don't know the culture of their enemy, then the knight would win, mostly because the japs were used to fight against each others but not other kinds of warriors. samurais used to think that everybody had the same culture, so when they fought against warriors from korea for the first time, they got wreck'd really hard. Old fashioned samurai used to introduce themselves to their enemies even in the middle of a battle (and said battles were in some cases just a shit ton of people dueling at the same time), so they expected their enemies to introduce themselves aswell, but instead, the korean warriors just started fighting as usual, and killed a bunch of samurais while they were still introducing themselves.

Also, japanese weaponry and armour was shit in comparison to european ones (mostly because they never fought against other kind of warriors, so they never updated their gear, and also, their iron was shit).
So yeah, with that little info, most likely the knight wins.

>>33860021
Still doesn't matter, an arrow will bounce of European plate metal.

>>33859707
Ask stupid questions, get stupid answers.

>>33860051
Forreal? A seven-foot composite bow can't launch an arrow with enough force to penetrate any point of a knight's armor?

I'm asking because I don't know, not to be an asshole.

>>33860120
Yup.

See the battle of agincourt, English\Welsh longbow men shot arrows at full plated Knights at range, and it did no effect. The arrows only killed those in light armour. I.E Chainmail, leather padding, gambesons. When the dismount heavy infantry arrived at the chokepoints, the Longbowmen fired at ranges of 20-30 meters and, apparently, barely penetrated breastplates. Rather only doing damage to lightly armoured areas, like the leggings, sides, neck and rear.

>>33859707
Id vote in your pole OP, but there is no option for "Die in a fire OP, we had this same thread yesterday"

>>33860120
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej3qjUzUzQg
Damaging good plate armour was really hard, that's why they invented the warhammer and the mace, if you can't penetrate/cut it, then just use blunt force.

>>33860187
Blunt force was negligible to anyone wearing a Gambeson. The extra padding would negate hard impacts to levels where it'd only bruise, rather do any significant damage.

>>33860120
"any" point?

yes. there are weak points in any armour - there are records of knights being pinned to their horse by longbow arrows that went through the cuisse (thigh) plates, the leg, and the saddle beneath, into the horse. limb armour was generally quite thin - 1.2mm or less, and as such if struck square-on, it is relatively easy to penetrate.

but the main body, the cuirass, and the helm, bevor (throat) and the fauld (hips) are all designed in such a way that even hit perfectly square on, a bodkin arrow will only penetrate a little - enough to cause minor injury at worst.

the limbs are more likely in event of a square-on hit, but if its not perfectly square, then they will deflect an arrow very effectively - it would have to be a lucky hit to get the angle right.

>>33860214
>Blunt force was negligible to anyone wearing a Gambeson

[citation needed]

>>33860215
>being pinned to your horse in battle
Death before dismount.

>>33860214
This might be true to some point, but taking a hit with enough force would still tire you or even worse, knock you out of balance, and if you lose your balance in a battle, you're pretty much dead.