I'm curious.
>>30326431
Jews fear 'em, so they're a-ok in my book.
>>30326478
Hi /pol/.
>>30326431
Professional warriors. Specializing in horse archery, swordsmanship, and matchlock firearms. Feudal funding but not always land owning.
No tradition of ransom, code promotes suicide to prevent capture.
Comparatively light armor emphasizing mobility over protection.
>>30326533
>being this new
>posts /pol/
Why am i not surprised.
>>30326719
Finally a real answer.
>>30326719
>Comparatively light armor emphasizing mobility over protection.
This myth needs to die.
FIrst and foremost, samurai did ahve iron armor.
Secondly, at no point in European warfare was armor mobility restricting.
a 15th century knight can do cartwheels just as well as a half naked barbarian from the 1st century
>>30326799
Even if the knight fell off his horse?
>>30326840
If he fell off his horse, he could have broken a leg. so maybe.
If nothing is broken, yes. he can get up. a harness is articulated enough in the waist, knees and feet to get up.
>>30326882
I've gone and forgotten my video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc
>>30326719
Comparatively light armour because iron was relatively rare compared to Europe and due to some cultural quirk was used more on killy than protecty
Possibly the most over-romanticized of the peasant mowers currently.maybe not of all time, but currently.
Samurai, knights, Vikings, Spartans etc. Different decade different faggot
>>30327261
Personally I'd love to see a series that depicts the Samurai as they were.
Is the movie Seven Samurai an accurate depiction?
>>30326916
1:07
"I told ser percy to lie upon the castle floor and he did, the absolute madman!"
>>30326760
What do you expect? All the faggot redditors that get bored come here Then bitch like faggots
>>30326431
Excellent mafia-esque landlords who generally lorded over their peasants, overtaxed and repressed their citizens, and did little to no fighting while enjoying all the honor and benefits of a landed noble.
So yeah, basically just the same as the knights of Europe.
>>30328077
>did little to no fighting
>there wasn't more than a few years between different wars in Europe at any given time
Granted people think of men at arms when they say knight, but still.
And in japan before the unification in early 1600s every clan in japan was sending Samurai to fight each other. though again iu'll admit most of the samurai culture appeared a good hundred years after they put down the sword as a whole.
>>30326431
Not bad warriors, but overrated, mostly due to the fact that anime jerks off to how awesome and honorable they think they were.
That said, they were pretty good with the bow and spear, but their sword techniques were nothing special.
>>30327371
James Clavell's Shogun was pretty great. In the first hour you have a samurai pissing on a Dutchman and stabbing a peasant who looked at him funny.
>>30327371
Not a series, but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW9WBzo6fAk
>>30326719
It may appear light because it was made for ubermanlets, otherwise comparable styles to the Euro armor have similiar "density".
>>30326799
First, plate armor restricted mobility WHEN IT WASN'T FITTED.
Fitted armor matches the wearer's shape exactly so it can have as much flexibility as the wearer. However, this means a custom job for every knight, done by master armorsmiths by hand. Samurai armor, by contrast, was often passed down between generations.
Second, keep in mind that european military history is more than just knights in full plate armor. Most of the combatant weren't even knights. A lot of them were peasant levies, men at arms, or seasonal soldiers who have jobs as craftsmen or farmers. Most ran around in chain armor if they could afford it and boiled leather and gambesons if they couldn't.
>>30330444
Daily reminder that nobles weren't often killed in battle, and in some cases troops would be punished for killing a noble.
>>30328430
To be fair, they often had to charge head long into musket fire in their armor so there's less emphasis on defense.
>>30330473
But the armor was plenty capable of stopping the rifle fire at certain distances.
In terms of early firearms, you see this a lot. IIRC, the guns were mainly used to spread fear, and have a peasant class that could be sent into battle for cheap, and trained quickly.
>>30330473
what if it was 5.56mm
I like the Samurai movie where a white guy fuck's the samurai's wife
>>30330490
Actually, firearms were meant to soften up pike blocks before rolling it over with another pike block. You needed guns because arrows wouldn't always penetrate a steel cuirass.
>>30330459
This was true...up until the burgundy wars where Charles the Bold of Burgundy got his army of mounted knights destroyed by pikes. Twice.
As I understand it, they didn't even try to take him hostage the second time, just stabbed him in the groin a lot and cleaved his face in half with a halberd.
And that was a duke, as high as you can get without being royalty.
>>30330552
So basically The Last Samurai
>>30328338
I recall the film 'Ran' seeming a pretty good depiction of samurai to my uneducated eyes.
>>30330606
No, I meant the documentary real life
>>30330577
Well, Firearms in the Sengoku era. As I was taught, was mainly to spread fear and have a way to give the mass of Ashigarus something to use.
Of course, I don't know much about how battles were fought in that era, outside of the few famous examples.
I'm pretty familiar with the tercio, pike and shot style of warfare though.
>>30326431
Warriors that hold themselves in extremely high regard while being no more than barbarians. I mean what other "warriors" chopp up parts of POWs to test their weapons strength while literally deifying a lord that just wants a couple more ricefields and is willing to murder anyone, civilian or soldier alike just because he can?
Samurai shouldn't be idolised under any circumstances. If you want cool zealots, Hussites are far better.
>>30330692
Doesn't sound different from any other warrior class from any culture at any point in time, ever.
>>30330708
While you have a point, few were as barbarically brutal as samurai.
>>30327458
It's good.
Other good examples are Ran, Harakiri, and Shogun (US TV show).
Shogun is a historical fiction. It portrays the time period perfectly, but the characters and story are fabricated.
>>30330739
Ran is pretty good, I second that.
>>30326431
west a best
>>30330719
>samurai
>brutal enough to please Tengri
pick one
>thread was captioned 54R in the catalog
Nugget time.
The warrior castes have always been greedy fuck ups. Look at the U.S. and letter agencies/police departments now
Thank god for the 2nd amendment. We need to lift those regulations senpai
I have some respect for them
My friend restores armour for collectors and museums so it's interesting to see how they created their armour.
But I much prefer the IJN from WW2
Always admired the Onna-bugeisha, warrior women, often the wives of Samurai. Trained in the use of the naginata and expected to be capable of defending the household.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onna-bugeisha
>>30328338
All of Clavell's books are GOAT, best depictions of the far east ever made imho
>>30326760
Is that underarmour undershirt underneath his hakama?
>>30330918
>Always admired the Onna-bugeisha, warrior women, often the wives of Samurai. Trained in the use of the naginata and expected to be capable of defending the household.
Why is this not an anime yet?
>>30330918
I always wondered what onna-bugeisha was. But not enough to google it obviously.
>>30330992
Yes. Underarmour is a Japanese company who fold their threads 1000 times to protect against heat, water, wind, and earth.
>>30330957
I just finished King Rat. Pretty good.
>>30330444
>Chain
>restricting
>peasants having enough money to afford enough even poorly fitted plate to hamper mobility
>boiled leather
>not more expensive than chain armor and a hell of a lot smellier
Wow, you sure told me.
also, no. very few times in history was there ever an organized army that was made up of peasants. you might see the levy raised for a defense, but never in the army.
What you're thinking of is a Man at Arms. these folks were the people who lived and trained with the knight. the knight did not bring his peasants because his peasants were needed in the field and to defend the home. A Man at arms is what people normally think of when they think of knights. Men trained by the knight and equipped by the knight. they would have older armor, but still have perfectly fine and fitted armor. after all it was their job to fight.
But this is in response to a Knight vs. Samurai post, so yes. we're talking about actual landed Knights.
>>30330490
How early are you talking about? Because bullet-proof armor was made specifically in response to early guns, which then made anti-armor guns known as muskets, which then prompted the all or nothing armor scheme of cuirasses.
>>30331562
Early to mid Edo period.
I remember reading that the armor of a samurai at about 25-50 yards would stop a round fired from one of their tanegashimas.
I can't for the life of me remember where I read it though
>>30334182
Depends. if it's of the nanban style of armor, (which is what the Portuguese brought over and the Japanese incorporated it into their own designs ) it very well could stop armor. but if it's any of the butted mail they liked to wear under their robes or lacquer and wood armor, there will be no stopping a bullet.
>>30334277
>it very well could stop armor
lel, should be bullets.
Also, i failed to read mid edo. so Dutch designs could have very well entered armor style. because after the 1600s everyone but the dutch were barred from entry until Commodore Perry busted that bitch open
Samurai are like Vikings and the Mongols.
Murderuous savages who only destroyed and never created anything. Only the Vikings and Mongols have worse reputation because they haunted the West much more, but just ask the Koreans and Chinese what they thought of the Samurai when they invaded their shores repeatedly to ransack their towns like lowly pirates, and could only be beaten back with concerted efforts.
"Warrior people" always inspire much admiration in people that are well off. But Warrior People are actually nothing more than savages that are too dumb to become productive members of society, and instead wage war against either each other or invade other countries.
They are pretty much like ISIS. Only that ISIS is better as they have at least created a state. Samurais actually created nothing.
>>30334832
>Vikings
>not primarily farmers and traders. with an occasional taste for piracy.
>>30334855
>occassional
>>30334865
forgot this.
>Who would actually win
My vote is on knight
>>30334865
>King organizes Raids every other summer or so
>this somehow means that the landowning farmers and their retainers who are asked to come along don't have shit to do otherwise
These people don't live for the raids. they're just ensuring there's enough food for the winter months and shit. aint got time to fuck around with Frisians on the weekends.
>>30334881
>strawman
>>30334916
>have to go to raids to ensure you can live through the winter
This is just the best evidence of the subhuman ape-tier development stage of the Viking people. So shitty agriculture that they have to take from other hardworking people.
That's just a step above Mongol tier, who had no agriculture at all.
I could understand if this was because of natural disasters crippling agriculture, but I always thought that the Nordics are subhumans who cant into technology and culture.
>>30334911
Knight.
You cant half-sword with a Katana.
And a Katana isnt even going to cut the shitty armor of the Samurai themselves.
>>30334911
Exactly from what decade is each warrior taken from, what are their weapons, how is the terrain they're fighting on? How experienced are they, are they fighting on foot or on horseback? Alone or as part of a bigger group?
Without all of that, you can't really tell who would win.
>>30335028
>live in a place that's shit for farming.
>it's your fault if you don't make enough to sustain your rising population
Farmable land is rare in Scandinavia. you were especially important if you had a farm unlike the rest of Europe where owning a farm was only a step above a serf.
Stop being an asshurt nigger.
>>30335077
Knight in all points.
It isnt even funny anymore.
The Samurai has literally nothing to even hurt the Knight in full armor with.
While the knight would simply aim low, cut off that Samurai's both legs with a swipe of his longsword, shield bash him on the ground and bash his face in with the pommel of his sword.
>>30335085
If they cant live in Scandinavia, they shouldnt multiply themselves like apes.
Better yet, people who cant sustain themselves should just kill themselves.
>>30335122
>shield bash
If we're talking about a landed knight in full plate and also dismounted. he more than likely wouldn't have a shield. and would probably have a poleaxe or something.
>>30326478
>>30335146
>ape ape ape
>i'm better than everyone not in my situation
yep. asshurt nigger.
Why did the Japanese ever forgot to use the shield?
They had them, when they were still fresh immigrants from China.
>>30335189
Because that's how their form of warfare evolved. although they did set up large shields to defend against archers.
peasants stuck with spears and shit while the nobles had for the most part horses, lances and bows.
in all honesty the Japanese sword worship didn't appear until after the end of large scale conflict.
>>30335189
>dat Ge attempt
Did they ever evolve to the Ji like in China?
>>30330875
What do letter agencies have to do with a warrior caste or class?
>>30331126
What about wood and metal?
>>30326840
the only time that was a serious issue was when wearing tourney armor, armor designed for competion rather than war that was designed simply for a joust, with extra reinforcement and reduced mobility
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_armour#Jousting
>>30326840
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC_squo6X4&
>>30326916
>1:14
>That reverse grip
Weeb
>>30335225
From what I hear, during the height of the Samurai's effectiveness, Samurai often downplayed their swordsmanship ability, or practiced it quietly where nobody was watching.
Because if you were a master swordsman and bragged about it, you might as well have been saying "I suck at shooting distant targets with a bow and can't ride a horse to save my life, ensuring I will have to defend myself in close combat against a horde of angry infantry"
It was later on when they started to lose their military effectiveness in the light of gunpowder weapons that they built the cult of the katana because romanticizing their own private martial arts nobody else was allowed to learn was the only way to stay elites in the eyes of the underclass.
As for the differences between knights and samurai, they both filled the same role.
Armored rich entitled guy in the service of whatever nobleman owns the land whose main job is to ride around looking impressive and kicking disgruntled peasants until they stop starving through force of will.
Why are feudal societies in general were so shit?
There are only few examples on earth, but non-feudal bureaucratic ruled empires were that much better.
Sure, they had corrupt local officials and land-owning gentry instead, but at least there was a central authority who maintained peace and stability.
Though they usually sucked at war, since they lacked the warrior-classes that were inherent to feudal societies, and their standing-armies were usually shitty equipped in their later reign due to official corruption. But all that was a result of their peace and prosperity these bureaucratic empires could generate in their lifetime, making such decadence and decay even possible.
>>30335804
I'm not much of a scholar but I'll say my piece.
>Little incentive for the average citizen to strive to achieve anything special. You were born a dirt farmer, you will live a dirt farmer, you will die a dirt farmer, so will the next ten generations of your family, just like the last ten. So why bother to try to improve anything or do better?
>Completely arbitrary leadership. The person in charge is decided by genetic lottery and often lived so completely disconnected from the needs and struggles of their own country that they had literally no idea what life was like. "Let them eat cake" is a perfect example of this mindset.
>Absolute unchecked power that changes hands too often. There's no momentum to the leadership. The current king can on a whim undo and reverse everything the previous king did and there is no other leadership body to ensure a continuity of government. Add onto that the layer of religious authority who may or may not be corrupt adding arbitrary rules and demands on top of things.
There were things like plagues and famines that they simply couldn't deal with at the time, but to my understanding those were the major issues. A nation of people with no incentive to actually try to better themselves because they're forcibly kept in their place from cradle to grave, ruled over by randomly chosen leaders who might be smart or complete fuckwits, it's a luck of the draw. And even if you do get a smart person in charge who knows how long until some other royal fuckwit tries to kill them and take their stuff for no greater reason than 'he had it and I wanted it' and constant wars over seemingly petty issues of pride and stubbornness.
They were shit because there was no motivation to ever make them not shit.
Now get back to your field, peasant.
