Who'd win in a all-vs-all fight, a samurai, a Roman centurion or a crusader?
Neutral battlefield.
Go back to History Channel with your juvenile questions you monumental faggot.
>>365171
History channel documentaries are all fucking bullshit.
>>365161
I would say a samurai because he didn't need a shield like the two others manchildren
>>365161
First: Fuck off!
Second, define Neutral battlefield
Third: 20th century Knights vs. 8th century samurai vs. Roman centurions from Thrace? Clear this shit up
Fourth: Fuck off.
Fifth: How many?
I'd put my money on Sean Connery (Knight) in a tuxedo with a 9mm pistol desu senpai.
>>365176
So is your thread, hence why I suggested you fuck off.
>>365202
Well then become a janitor and delete my thread faglord.
>>365210
>no financial compensation
Thanks for the offer but no.
>>365183
>20th century Knight
>>365243
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_honorary_British_knights_and_dames
Sean Connery
Bill Gates
Clint Eastwood
Michael Caine
Patrick Stewart
They got Bond, Microsoft, Dirty Harry, Batman's accomplice and the starship Enterprise to back them.
Granted the Samurai get Tom Cruise and his wacky space Aliens.
Crusader.
Crusader.
Samurai can't do shit with his plastic katana while the Roman Legionnaires were only ever effective in groups.
The Crusader, who has much better armour than the other two (Crusader has armour which is fit for the standards of the 15th century while the Roman Legionnaire's armour is several centuries outdated, japs had generally shitty equipment that wouldn't be able to endure even one strike from the iron that the Europeans produced)
The knight easily. Plate armor+crossguarded longsword or polearm=greatest melee infantry of all time
The roman would likewise handle the samurai with ease. He's not only the worst-equipped and worst-trained on that list, he's the most futuristic one out of the three and still wildly overmatched. No shield, no penetration damage?
Im not only convinced the samurai is the worst warrior on that list, id go so far as to say that samurai are historically some of the worst warriors to ever be put on the battlefield, only lasted so long because they fought nothing but other stupid asians and were an ocean away from the mongols. Murrika came in with 4 ships and held their entire country hostage.
Now china, thats a fucking warrior culture right there. Thousands of years of steppe threats, the most advanced military in the world until the gunpowder era(which they started)
Shut the fuck up about samurai already theyre so goddamn pathetic, reckt by drunken portuguese sailors. Japan is an artificial nation, by all right of history they should be wiped off the map if not for the good graces of whitey
>>365337
The samurai is history's worst idea.
>>365337
Hi, nice to meet you. How can I help you?
I hate these questions.
First of all it could go either way each time more or less. You'd have to do the exact same fight 1000 times to get reliable results.
Secondly the testing method is terrible, what are we comparing here, the fighting skill or each person, or the equipment of each person?
You'd effectively need 3 clones born and raised in the 3 different settings, so that they're identical people, the only difference is their training, and then you'd have to do a series of fights in identical equipment to find the best trained one.
>>365333
Crusaders didn't wear plate armour.
Probably the crusader. Romans were notoriously bad at fighting cavalry, and having a shield would be useful for deflecting arrows or yari thrusts.
Of course, if the samurai has a pistol, he'd have the advantage. There's a reason reiters replaced lancers everywhere but polan.
>>365378
Easy, the last one standing is the winner.
Fighting it that simple, if live you win, if you die you lose.
Crusader, they're more fit to one on one combat, and his equipment better than these two.
>>365378
We should define what a Crusader is then, the ones than conquered Granada were Crusaders? The Knights of malta were Crusaders?
>>365414
The outcome would not be the same every single time.
>>365225
You are here anyway. Why not become a janitor?
>>365346
>>365354
>>365356
Sorry I shouldn't have been so harsh.
But really you need to narrow the respective soldiers equipment down to the decade - 50 years.
1542 samurai had bows, 1552 samurai had matchlock guns.
Teutonic Crusaders in the 14th and 15th century had cannons, guns, and plate armor.
Really try to narrow the time down to a decade or around half a century to get an idea what kind of equipment these guys would have.
Realize no that battlefield is neutral, the Roman infantryman would want to fight on broken ground if he has to go up against mounted soldiers such as the crusader or samurai.
Realize too that the cost of putting a single crusading knight on the field could well be enough to support multiple samurai and perhaps a couple of Roman legionaries.
Another thing to remember is that all these soldiers were part of a combined arms army and might work less efficient without support troops.
>>365443
Youre thinking too strategically.
Think individually. The crusader is: a bigger person, definitely taller. Much stronger from wearing heavy armor and using heavy weapons, not to mention master of one handing AND two handing a sword. His weapons do pierce and blunt damage, the samurai has no armor penetration. Even the roman has better luck getting through armor with his thrusting sword, and the shield is a huge benefit. Romans used the shield offensively, its the perfect weapon for breaking a guy's nose with a quick bump when he's got two hands on his weapon and isnt applying any defensive techniques
Romans were masters at killing warriors who were just like the samurai. Theyre actually very similar to the gallic sword culture, and we all know how the romans handled them [spoiler]modern estimates in the hundreds of thousands[/spoiler]
>>365443
>Another thing to remember is that all these soldiers were part of a combined arms army and might work less efficient without support troops.
Yeah, that's what I said in my previous post (>>365328) about the Roman Legionnaire. Otherwise I do agree with your points. Thing is, judging by the picture that the OP posted, the Crusader seems to be a Knight of Templar, and the Order existed until the beginning of the 14th century, which would mean that he would not have any access to guns, yes?
And by also seeing the Samurai the OP posted as an example I don't see any holster for a gun, so I'm assuming he doesn't want any guns involved in the fight.
>>365161
Samurai has too little armor and too little firepower, but excels at melee abilities, agility, lightweightness.
Knight has too much armor, powerful sword, but it's heavy and moves slowly, making combat somehow difficult. It's more of a tank than an infantryman.
The Roman centurior combines medium weight armor with medium agility and promptiveness. He's like the middle man.
If a samurai were to face a crusader knight, the crusader would try and inflict a deadly falcon cut (fully vertical sword blow from up to down) to the samurai, but the samurai, with agility, would doge the attack and give the crusader a sweep kick, knocking the knight down and rendering him montionless. From there, the katana would be bathed in European blood.
If the samurai were to fight against the centurion, the centurion would have got one of his arms cut loose and bleed a lot, but the samurai would have been bashed by the shield and then knocked to the floor. From there, the blade pierces the Japanese throat. The centurion dies from bleeding 30 minutes later.
A crusader against a centurion, the crusader wins. The crusader inflicts the falcon cut, the centurion tries to block with the shield, which is broken. From there, the crusader kills the centurion.
If the three were to fight each other like its a bar fight, like, free for all, I think the samurai would start by kicking the crusader in the belly then trying to apply a zatoichi musahara cut (diagonal, up to down, left to right cut for right handed swordsmen) on the centurion, who would block with the shield, bash the shield against the samurai, knock him down and then the centurion would stick the blade on the samurai's throat. Meanwhile, the crusader just got up while nobody noticed it and then he falcon cuts the centurion from his back, breaking his cranium and making a big mess for the bartender to clean.
>>365499
>Romans used the shield offensively, its the perfect weapon for breaking a guy's nose with a quick bump when he's got two hands on his weapon and isnt applying any defensive techniques
It's a bit hard breaking someone's nose when he's hiding behind an iron helmet.
>>365499
>heavier weapons
That's simply not true.
>>365508
I was just stating an example, works equally well at severing someone's head from the neck with a good smash, locking someone's weapon into the ground and then stabbing them, basically its the perfect shield against an opponent two-handing a weapon or poking you with a spear or shooting you with an arrow, the three things the samurai will use. The roman legionary is the picture in the dictionary next to "bane of samurai." Its the roman's most favored situation, some idiot with a spear, cutting weapon, shitty armor, and no shield. Thats tuesday for pullo
How about this:
Instead of fighting, they all decide to do something constructive and learn with each other to improve their own fighting techniques. Why can't we have happy endings anymore?
>>365514
Id say things like halberds, hammers, picks, pikes, and greatswords are harder to wield than the katana, yari, and naginata.
>>365538
Because the roman and crusader have literally NOTHING to learn from the samurai
>>365499
And you're pulling tropes out of your ass.
You don't become strong from wearing armor per say, training in it improves your fitness or stamina which is more important.
>not to mention master of one handing AND two handing a sword.
That really depends on the decade the crusader is from. Besides, not every crusader would be a master at fighting with a sword, some would be so so.
>His weapons do pierce and blunt damage
Yes but you make it sound like you learned it from a video game.
>the samurai has no armor penetration.
Pretty sure the yari has 20% armor pen. Matchlock comes close to 90%
>with his thrusting sword
The Gladius getting through plate armor with it's tip? Maybe if you got herculean strength, otherwise you will need a more tapered point to even have a shot at it.
>and the shield is a huge benefit.
True but there is a reason it was abandoned by other soldiers.
>Romans were masters at killing warriors who were just like the samurai.
What kind of Samurai?
The one with a gun?
The horse archer
The yari wielding pikemen?
The heavy cavalry one?
>>365501
I believe that photo is just a 19th century guy posing in Samurai armor, that shit was all the rage back then and even normal citizens could dress up.
The gun I was talking about were matchlock guns introduced by the Portuguese around 1543
>>365506
He has more armor than the centurion and he would have a horse at some points in history.
Samurai armor isn't really that much lighter than what a typical crusader/knight would wear though.
Wait this is bait right?
>>365540
Why?
They're not heavier.
>>365538
Do you suppose Apache helicopter pilots could teach British redcoats circa 1770 a thing or two?
>>365598
strength and stamina are both important. Id give both to the european
The crusader will usually have a big wooden shield, some type of polearm, and a sword/dagger as sidearms. The samurai is still outmatched, the european wields weapons in one hand, and so he has huge strength training every day-usually with wooden weapons to get even stronger- and has the muscle mass to wield two items at the same time. Its perfectly reasonable to assume these skills were far more common in europe.
The gladius will have trouble with european armor, but a samurai's? There are plenty of weakpoints for that sexy thrust after he knocks your ass to the floor with his shield and greeko-roman wrestling skills.
Stop bringing up guns, it's deflection
The jap is outmatched.
>>365718
*greco
>>365718
>strength and stamina are both important. Id give both to the european
We could deduce they might be a bit stronger due to body size but how would you determine stamina? I mean across the board the stamina of various individuals can differ greatly even if they all belonged to the so called warrior class.
>The crusader will usually have a big wooden shield, some type of polearm, and a sword/dagger as sidearms.
The Norman knight of the first crusade, Knight Templar present during the fall of acre or the Knights Hospitaller or Rhodes and Malta?
Besides a polearm + shield is not really feasible unless the said polearm is a spear.
>The samurai is still outmatched
Which samurai? If he's a good shot he could pick off a guy at 50 yards with a matchlock musket.
>the european wields weapons in one hand
Not polearms
>and so he has huge strength training every day-usually with wooden weapons to get even stronger
You got any kind of source on that?
>Its perfectly reasonable to assume these skills were far more common in europe.
Like why? That's just guessing at this point.
>There are plenty of weakpoints for that sexy thrust after he knocks your ass to the floor with his shield and greeko-roman wrestling skills.
He's going to knock a crusader or samurai from his horse?
And on top of that he's going to drop his weapons and start to wrestle with guys in armor, who developed wrestling moves specifically for armored people?
>Stop bringing up guns, it's deflection
Then narrow it down to a century or decade or we might as well be comparing the Ford T-Model to the Toyota Hi-lux... Or maybe we can have fictional characters such as The Mountain (from GoT) fight Neanderthals because such a discussion would have the same level of reasoning.
If you want to compare multiple things then provide some sort of frame within which they had to compete or else it's just a useless debate in which you can reason both ways as I just demonstrated.
>>365764
PS,
Maybe the centurion is a really good thrower. Perhaps his javelin brings down the horse of the crusader resulting in him breaking his neck or becoming trapped under his horse.
>>365598
>Samurai.
>Heavy Cavalry.
Hue. At most the only ones than were heavy cav were the Takeda importing horses from the Mainland. native war beast were pony-like and weren't suitable for charges.
>>365820
Yeah I meant those ones.
Only around for a few decades though.
Kek
The samurai would just shoot them with a gun baka.
>>365921
And the Knight could shot with his pistol while he rides in full plate and be nearly bullet proof.
>>365936
I thought we were talking about a crusader.
I don't see any knights in OPs post.
>>365945
Crusaders are still around, the Hospitallers are still they own near nations organization. What would you call a Crusader then? what time limit?
>>365953
>Crusaders are still around
Yes, running Hospitals. So the crusader could attack with a scalpel or something.
>what time limit?
This is actually something for OP to prescribe, but I would say at their prime.
>>365980
After the conquest of granada? It's one of the biggest hits of the crusades.
>>366021
I don't think that the reconquista counts as crusade.
>>366040
Isn't the whole stick of the crusades to get new lands for Christiandoom/reconquer older lands than were part of it? If the Reconquista wasn't a crusade the whole Baltic crusade or the teutons weren't one either.
>>366049
I'm getting the logic behind your post, but they are pretty much regarded as different things.
>>365764
>muh cavalry
Your entire argument. We're obviously talking on-foot, pre-gunpowder.
You want a source on european training with wooden weapons? Really? The point is, a culture that trains in one hand weapons is going to be stronger than a culture that trains almost exclusively with two hands because its harder to hold two things in each hand than one with both. Thats common fucking sense; not even getting into the fact that europeans were just bigger men in general.
The romans had some pretty dope shock cavalry in the late era, id take a cataphract over a mounted samurai anyday
>>366127
>We're obviously talking on-foot, pre-gunpowder.
That wasn't really obvious from what the OP said. Samurai and 'crusaders' are typically mounted feudal warriors.
Pre-gunpowder would mean pre 1340s for Crusaders and pre 1540s for Samurai.
Neither were really foot soldiers by this point but whatever.
>You want a source on european training with wooden weapons? Really?
History tends to work with sources yeah.
>The point is, a culture that trains in one hand weapons is going to be stronger than a culture that trains almost exclusively with two hands
You do realize a one handed sword is typically lighter than a two handed one do you? For someone making an appeal to common sense you seem to lack it.
>The romans had some pretty dope shock cavalry in the late era, id take a cataphract over a mounted samurai anyday
Well the OP said centurions so I am assuming that's infantry too then.
you are comparing soldiers with huge time differences between them, metalurgy advanced a lot from the roman times and even on foot a crusader would wreck him
>>366158
So you assume cavalry for two and infantry for one, instead of making the clear jump that obviously it would be a fight on foot considering its the one thing all three can and did do. And dont bring up the legionary cavalry thing where a cohort would mount to make the cavalry look bigger because thats obviously a rare thing and not the legionary's forte.
Youre avoiding the only discussion worth having, because it obviously puts the samurai at the biggest disadvantage.
Europeans often trained with wooden weapons for the specific purpose of strength training. This is common knowledge.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo
Y'all faggots need to watch this and then never make threads like this ever again.
>>366158
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waster
Both japan and europe trained with wooden weapons but japan only had wooden katanas basically and europeans had a big variety of wooden weapons of all sizes. Obviously the european goes through more intense physical training because his training involves two heavy wooden objects held in each hand. The whole point of kendo is to maximize the power and speed of a two handed strike. I think the style of warfare and the genetic differences are more than enough to assume the european will usually have the strength advantage.
>>366176
I could have assumed that but i'd like to point out OP is a faggot for not specifying anything we need to know if we want to make educated guesses.
>Youre avoiding the only discussion worth having, because it obviously puts the samurai at the biggest disadvantage.
The samurai is at a disadvantage in a 1v1 scenario on foot if we take contemporary guys, simple as that. I just want the OP to provide some useful info because it's a bullshit discussion to begin with and even more so without dates and environment.
>This is common knowledge.
That's not common knowledge. A lot of things being called common knowledge were usually myths (IE. Medieval people didn't bath, Scientists were burned at the stake, Katana managed to cut through gun barrels)
Vegetius says legionaries of old trained with wooden weapons striking at a pell. I have not read a medieval account specifying this, nor would such an account mean every knight/crusader/men-at-arms trained like that.
We do have a few tiny bits of info which cover training but they don't specify whether the weapon is wood or metal. In fact training with a polearm made out of wood is not always a good idea since those can be lighter than metal ones.
And now he began to test himself by jumping onto a courser in full armor. At other times he would run or hike for a long way on foot, to train himself not to get out of breath and to endure long efforts. At other times he would strike with an axe or hammer for a long time to be able to hold out well in armor, and so his arms and hands would endure striking for a long time, and train himself to nimbly lift his arms. By these means he trained himself so well that at that time you couldn't find another gentleman in equal physical condition. He would do a somersault armed in all his armor except his bascinet, and dance armed in a mail shirt...
https://www.youtube.
com/watch?v=y1HkuGUaNBY
Relevant
>>366179
This is pretty much what I have been saying so far.
>>366217
Why are you even responding? He's either baiting or clinically retarded, either way not worth the time.
>>365161
The guys known for employing advanced gun tactics
>>365161
A roman centurion, because by virtue of his rank you're implying that he has considerable experience and skill both as a soldier and as an actual fighter, whereas the average samurai and crusader are going to be averagely skilled, obviously.
>>365161
Crusader knight.
The Centurion was more of a line trooper, not for 1v1 combat, and the Samurai was a merc more accustomed to using spear and bow on lightly armoured inferior targets.
The Templar there would have armour sufficient to dull the Samurai's blades, the ability to foil his spear, and get the edge on the Roman.
What do you mean by Samurai?
For fucks sake Samurai range from 8th-19th century.
If it is the classical samurai (no guns) than probably the Crusader.
Reminder that Rome had already fallen by the time Japan got its shit together.
Reminder that the Crusader wears NO plate armor, besides his helmet
The only one with an armor disadvantage is the centurion
>>365333
If Samurai were so bad, how did they successfully fought the Mongols?
Centurions were expected to lead from the front and be skillfull, brave warriors. The rate of attrition for Centurions was quite high compared to the normal legionary. The Romans had a fine martial culture and valued single combat. Contrary to what many believe the Romans fought in a relatively loose formation that gave room for each Roman to fight compared to the packed Macedonian pikemen. The Romans were skillfull swordsmen and had many awards for individual bravery.
>>365333
your post is nonsense, and since when were they wrecked by Portuguese sailors? from what accounts Ive read they did pretty well in melee conflicts with European sailors, not that there were many of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lHxPl5ZJpg
>>368812
Waffen SS vs vietcong
that sounds amazing.
>>368318
They didn't.
The samurai got stomped in every engagement and were saved by the weather.
>>365328
>The Crusader, who has much better armour than the other two (Crusader has armour which is fit for the standards of the 15th century while the Roman Legionnaire's armour is several centuries outdated, japs had generally shitty equipment that wouldn't be able to endure even one strike from the iron that the Europeans produced)
This is utter nonsense. First of all, this is not a 15th century armour but clearly a 13th century armour. In that time period, European equipment wasn't yet significantly better than what the Japanese had. Not to mention that the samurai in that picture is clearly wearing 15/16th century equipment, so he'd actually be comparable well armoured as the crusader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TNjKg18VPo
>>368861
wrong, why dont you read some of the more recent work on the subject?
There's really nothing that I can add that hasn't already been said. What about the equipment? The time period? The conditions? All three of these warriors existed within different times and under different conditions. It would be far more advisable to compare the individual Roman centurion against a Celtic swordsman; they lived during the same time period and had the same level of technology. This is not to compare their battle tactics, merely the individual warrior's strengths. With a showdown like this, it's really hard to say.
That being said, I think people are forgetting that historically, samurai literally fought as individual warriors, even upon the battlefield. I forget what era, but it was very common to just choose an enemy and duel him.
>>369092
>That being said, I think people are forgetting that historically, samurai literally fought as individual warriors, even upon the battlefield.
While this happened it was not universal, or even necessarily the norm for most of their history
The thing is crusaders aren't nearly as heavily armored as the Knights that people ITT confuse them for. Secondly, they weren't all as highly trained as either samurai or centurions. centurions are pretty awfully unarmored though.
>>365161
pic related
>>370100
BIG
The one who can fight better, duh.
