Which do you like more? Knights or Samurai
Fighting styles, armor, how they acted outside of combat etc.
(politics please go)
>>46033
>that image
>Vikings on the same level as Knights and Samurai
o i'm laffin
>>46033
>samurai or Vikings
>ever being able to take on an European knight
Nope, not happening
>>46140
Knights destroy Vikings and Samurai. Vikings are better suited to killing priests, and anyone who thinks Samurai are a match for knights needs to turn in their fedora and stop binging on Total War Shogun 2.
In 1 on 1 melee, I think a knight would most likely defeat a samurai. While the samurai were faster and more agile (incredible draw speed), the katana could not penetrate medieval iron/steel armour. The longsword was also a more versatile weapon, capable of stabbing, slashing and even pummeling with the hilt. Having a shield would also be a great advantage, both defensively and offensively. Some samurai bore shields, although it was usually considered cowardly.
Otherwise, it's hard to say really. Both were skilled in both horseback fighting and archery, so either of those situations is a bit of a toss-up.
>>46665
Samurai actually used spears senpai
>>46554
This. Both knights and samurai held similar positions in society more or less, both were often trained from youth in combat.. The knights equipment, size advantage, and similar level of training/fitness means the knight wins most encounters. I'm 6'2 and I've had the displeasure of being in physical altercations with guys even 2 inches shorter than me and it wasn't funny how I felt like I could manhandle them.
>>46665
The katana was actually a sidearm iirc. The Japanese armies mostly won with bows, polearms, and muskets.
Rennaissance knights.
The begining of the end for the knights and also the most stylish knights of them all.
>>46033
Samurai have guns.
>>46820
>And a full length katana thrust could pen a plate breastplate
*tips fedora*
>>46776
Pavia really would have been a sight to behold. All those gendarmes in full plate with horses in full plate. The impending crushing impact of those heavy horse would break anyone's nerves
>>46820
Katanas are made for slashing and would not be a traditional weapon for a samurai to bring to the battlefield. The knight can also stabb you back, so it's hardly a making good case for the samurai.
>>46962
>there will never be a LOTR budget production about it
>>46782
after around 1540
>>47359
And by then knights as an important battlefield asset were starting to fall by the wayside anyway, which makes me wonder how samurai would fare against pike and shot formations.
>>46033
this is it boys. this is the thread /his/ was created for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWiaRhQDZFE
What Knight? What Samurai? Are we doing different versus periods like 13th century Knight vs 14th century Samurai to make shit more even?
While Knights were almost always superior in armor and armament to their counterparts in Japan at the same time, "Knight" and "Samurai" is some vague shit that can mean guys wearing Viking-grade early middle ages armor to full blown plate and iron/steel lamellar armor.
>>46776
you could say the same about samurai, at least on the helmet department
>>47030
>Shooting a clearly defeated Knight
Are they retarded? Capture and ransom that guy. Killing Knights in any period is like throwing Nazi Gold in the ocean. Whhhhy.
>>46033
I'm getting that For Honor game just to play as a knight and fuck with the one buhgillion folds weebs who will worship the samurai.
bring bring, nikka
>you will never be a European Knight smashing weebs dreams and slaughtering samurai
>>47563
Because it looks cool.
>>47666
FOLDED 1000 TIMES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo
btw it's really hard to give credibility to these videos i'm posting. you can't actually make test with historical items because they could break apart and be lost forever. so it will always be copy vs copy
>>47666
>you will never be any kind of romanticised warrior and die in some kind of winter war mourned by your beloved maiden
>>46140
>what is hundreds of years of raiding europe
apparently not
>>47563
Why did the enemy soldiers shoot the king of Sweden during the 30 Year War instead of taking him hostage?
Knights had better
-nutrition
-fighting style
-steels in arms and armor
-technology in all time periods
Basically it's a joke.
Samurai were beta chink manlets. Even my grandma could defeat them.
>>48937
Something Vikings were very good at doing was lightning raids on squishy civilian targets with lots of wealth and taking what they could before the big armies could reach them.
That, and knights weren't actually much of a thing until the Viking era was already coming to a close.
>>48937
Vikings were lightly armored raiders. Hell they'd probably have a hard time against a hoplite.
>>50297
I dunno, they would probably be much bigger guys than the Greeks.
>>46733
You had me until the last bit then I realized you're a fat, sweaty neckbeard and I stopped agreeing with you
>>50390
For Euripides.
>>46085
it's the three meme warriors
If both were at the height of their power, the samurai would win hands down. Why? Because samurai fucking used guns.
>>51234
Knights had no specifically assigned weapons to use. They would usually buy their own weapons, and after the introduction of gunpowder to Europe, some of them certainly would have used guns.
Average height of samurai:five feet tall.
Imagine how much of a reach that chink has.
>>51683
That's why they used bows and rifles. Range always win if it punches hard enough.
>>49387
Heat of the battle and probably failing to really put two and two together and realize who he was.
Taking him hostage would have probably cut the war short and forced Sweden into White Peace.
>>51234
>What are Hospitallers.
>>51877
He apparently told them who he was and then they shot him as a reaction.
>>51234
Wrong.
The majority of gunpowder wielding infantry for the Japanese were ashigaru, your typical conscripted peasant.
Besides, by that point Europeans were smart enough to realize knights were an antiquated class. Can't fault them because it took the Japs another couple hundred years to figure that one out.
>>52098
Wow. Never heard that tale, from what I've read he just got shot in the back during a cavalry charge and died due to wearing leather armor instead of plate.
Really though, that's just fucking stupid and why you don't conscript blind zealots in a faith war. Chances are they'll fuck it up.
>>52279
I'm gonna guess they were mercinaries and didn't give any fucks.
>>51369
>>51933
The age of chivalry ended when guns started becoming prominent in the battlefield. No heavily armored mounted soldiers are not knights. What makes the distinction? A knights value was for individual martial prowess that made them worth more than the average peasant levy or man-at-arms. The gun ended the value that they brought to the battlefield.
The same argument could be made of the samurai but the samurai were quick to adopt the weapon and meld it into existing traditions.
>>52561
No, a Knight is a title and part of the aristocracy. They still very much existed in the Early Modern Period, and the Hospitallers had guns.
>>46554
>tfw like shogun 2
>tfw still know samurai would get thier asses handed to them by knights
>>46033
The knight is the only non-meme warrior here.
>>46820
>implying knights wouldn't have padding under
>implying you could thrust a katana in the the plate far enough while the knight is attacking you
>>46782
So did knights
>>52279
No zealots, it's the other way around. They were mercenaries, they don't care about ending the war. In fact, if they stop to think about it, they want the war to keep going.
>>53348
Shogun 2, in excessive doses, will probably convince the weaker-minded that samurai were the best soldiers the planet had ever seen and could have probably taken on the modern day United States Marine Corps. If it sucked, it couldn't.
>>51234
At that same fucking period, knights had better produced ones, unless you're going to give me bullshit about how we're doing Samurai in the 16th and 17th century and knights in the 14th. Regardless, a knights breastplate could easily stop a pistol ball (they would test it this way, hence the term bullet proof) and at long distances, a musket ball, at least armors in the 15th-17th centuries and against arquebus or wheellocks
>>52561
Are you fucking serious? Cavalry existed well in the 19th century and only died out when machineguns were more effective. Knights were the first ones to use gunpowder weapons. Armor and traditional knight tactics may have fallen out in most scenarios, but even then, cavalry always liked to wear breastplates since there was the threat of bayonets and sabers, there's even that famous curaiss at the battle of waterloo. Need I remind you of cavaliers during the 17th century who were virtually the same as a knight but with modern armor, gunpowder weapons, and in higher number. You defined knights as ones with "martial prowess" but that's double bullshit because knights often used crossbows, handcannon, and arquebus, and skilled mounted troops existed well past the medieval period.
>>46033
Katanas are still in use today because they can slice clean through most light armor.
>>54062
Yeah right. Those short PoS. They are sabers without the power
>>53775
>At that same fucking period, knights had better produced ones
No they didn't the quality of Japanese produced arquebus is well documented and superior to their Portuguese and Chinese counterparts.
>Regardless, a knights breastplate could easily stop a pistol ball (they would test it this way, hence the term bullet proof) and at long distances, a musket ball, at least armors in the 15th-17th centuries and against arquebus or wheellocks
Irrelevant if we apply that in the context of armies clashing. The samurai fell in love with the gun and mass produced the shit out of them to the point that towards the end of the Sengoku era there were more guns in Japan per capita than all of Europe combined.
>>54367
>the quality of Japanese produced arquebus is well documented and superior to their Portuguese and Chinese counterparts.
>implying i'm even referencing Portuguese
Go find me a properly made German or French one, oh and post these comparisons
>Irrelevant if we apply that in the context of armies clashing
That's 100% relevant, it doesn't matter how many arquebus you have, if it can't hit the knights with cannon far out, then you're fucked. French armies were prided by their combined arms, so expect to be fighting the best cannon of the time. If we go back even to the 14th and 15th century, they were still the best in cannonry.
>per capita
Oh fuck off
>>53775
>Are you fucking serious? Cavalry existed well in the 19th century and only died out when machineguns were more effective. Knights were the first ones to use gunpowder weapons. Armor and traditional knight tactics may have fallen out in most scenarios, but even then, cavalry always liked to wear breastplates since there was the threat of bayonets and sabers, there's even that famous curaiss at the battle of waterloo. Need I remind you of cavaliers during the 17th century who were virtually the same as a knight but with modern armor, gunpowder weapons, and in higher number. You defined knights as ones with "martial prowess" but that's double bullshit because knights often used crossbows, handcannon, and arquebus, and skilled mounted troops existed well past the medieval period.
Are you fucking kidding? Are you seriously trying to compare heavily armored shock cavalry/infantry with their successors as if they somehow fulfilled the same roles. Cavalry after the knights existed in a completely different function and role, so what if they had similar equipment that's like saying that a snake is the same as fish because they both have scales.
>>54551
>That's 100% relevant, it doesn't matter how many arquebus you have, if it can't hit the knights with cannon far out, then you're fucked. French armies were prided by their combined arms, so expect to be fighting the best cannon of the time. If we go back even to the 14th and 15th century, they were still the best in cannonry.
Well we're not talking about the French are we, we're talking about generic samurai army vs generic european army of the same time period. When you have an extremely high ratio of guns in your arsenal as was the case with Japanese armies at the time, the odds tend to be in your favor.
>Oh fuck off
No
>>50525
>agrees with someone
>doesn't like their perception of the guy
>disagrees because of it.
WTF?
>>50390
>I dunno, they would probably be much bigger guys than the Greeks.
What makes you say that, modern ethnic stereotypes? A middle class Greek Hoplite would likely have been better fed in his youth and thus taller than a viking who worked as a dirt farmer and occasionally hopped on a boat to steal fancy cups from monks.
>>55135
>Well we're not talking about the French are we
The French are about as generic European as it gets
>the odds tend to be in your favor
Not guns, cannon. Cannon decided battles, guns were effective in formation but all of that was absolutely shat on by cannon. Hence why cavalry was needed.
>>54943
You must think knights only did cavalry charges, which is entirely fucking wrong and you're an idiot. And no, cavalry after knights and cavalry into the 18th century still did cavalry charges, hence why heavy cavalry existed despite there being no real difference to light cavalry. That doesn't even change the fact that I was pointing to armor usage mostly.
>>46033
>knight,viking, or samudaiu~ worth a fuck.
The based yeoman could rek them all.
>>55743
A medieval Scandinavian probably wouldn't be out being a Viking raider if he was a dirt farmer.
>>55831
>You must think knights only did cavalry charges, which is entirely fucking wrong
Did I say that? No that's your poor reading comprehension and you putting words into my mouth.
>And no, cavalry after knights and cavalry into the 18th century still did cavalry charges, hence why heavy cavalry existed despite there being no real difference to light cavalry.
Not the point I was addressing. Knights were unique from their successors in that not only could they perform cavalry charges but due to their heavy armor could fight on foot at the vanguard of the army and get into the thick of the fight, cavalry after the knights could not perform that function.
>>56078
>Did I say that?
>Are you seriously trying to compare heavily armored shock cavalry/infantry with their successors as if they somehow fulfilled the same roles. Cavalry after the knights existed in a completely different function and role
Heavily implied.
>cavalry after the knights could not perform that function
Dragoons.
>>55857
Actually he would be a Viking because he was dirt poor and the only possibility of bettering his lot in life was to go on long raids and acquire loot to build a better life.
>>56181
And I suppose he could afford all the supplies he'd need to be a Viking raider, and the jarl would let him leave in the first place.
>>56155
Dragoons, before they evolved into generic medium cavalry, were skirmishers they didn't get into the thick of the fight because wide adoption of firearms made the role served by knights obsolete. Just because they were mounted infantry doesn't mean they were the same as knights.
>>56308
No he would put in his share of supplies along with the rest of the men on the voyage and he most likely wouldn't need to have the jarls permission because the jarl was not a lord he was a leader elected into the role by the community.
If you answer anything other than a Knight, you're a dumbass.
Vikings are fierce, but Knights would beat them.
Knights>Vikings>Samurai
>>56573
>were skirmishers they didn't get into the thick of the fight
Literally incorrect, are you honestly trying to say that Dragoons never actually got into the thick of the fight? Because that's just bullshit and you know it. See Poltava and the Russian Dragoons.
> the role served by knights obsolete
I literally just finished saying that knights did many different roles, hell, we're being idiotic with this general usage of the term "knight."
>Just because they were mounted infantry doesn't mean they were the same as knights.
No shit, but you just said cavalry couldn't get into the thick of the fight.
Knights and cavalry of the middle ages did numerous roles, including massed charges, scouting, dismounting and fight on foot, and running down routed opponents. All of these duties were replaced by different forms of cavalry, be it light cavalry, hussars, cavaliers, heavy cavalry, etc. My original point was that cavalry still wore breastplates since it was moderately effective at stopping muskets either at long ranges or by deflecting, plus sabres and bayonets
If a bunch of illerate english/welsh longbowmen can completely wreck the greatest knights in Europe, I'm sure a highly trained horse archer can
>>57449
>illerate
Are you sure you're not the "illerate" one here?
>can completely wreck
It was the mud more than anything. There are numerous factors, most don't have anything to do with the competence of the English who had just finished being chased around the countryside
Didn't Samurais use these naginatas better than Katanas? Katanas were just cheap weapons that got associated with samurais.
Source: Shotgun 2, naginata description, might have been katana description.
>>57449
Well, obviously a samurai horse archer CAN beat a knight. Just like British bowmen CAN. But through most examples you find, knights dominated the Medieval European battlefield, and only failed in cases of tactical incompetence. Just because they lost Agincourt doesn't mean they're totally worthless.
>>55843
I like your style
>>56924
So what you're saying is that dragoons replaced knights as the vital lynch pin of battles because that's exactly what you're saying.
>>59420
Holy fucking shit you're a cock gargling faggot, I literally just fucking said their roles were divided and, here is the key part, still in use. Tactics shifted focus, almost entirely, no fucking shit, but the usage of cavalry has generally, I put emphasis on generally because there were differences, been the same.
>exactly what you're saying
I see you can read as well as you can spell
>>53774
t.b.h. man regardless of physical prowess and fighting style/ruthlessness, katanas are fucking shit compared to real swords.
>>57836
yes f.am
Look, I'm a huge weeb but it doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out that European technology was just superior to Japanese at the time. The weapons are roughly the same, swords are swords, a knight's shortsword is just as useful as katana. A longbow is roughly as good as a Yumi, and the knight's Halberd or whatever polearm is roughly as effective as a Naginata. Even if you want to be pedantic, you have to admit that these weapons are roughly similar enough to not determine the outcome of the battle.
What it comes down to is armour. Knights are in full steel plate or chain, while Samurai are in a mixture of iron, bronze and leather which is just heavier and shittier. This should be enough for the knight to be winning for often than losing.
>knights face when chink brings a butterknife to a sword fight
>>59767
>a knight's shortsword is just as useful as katana
I disagree, but agree with everything else in the post
>>59791
Youre right.
The short sword is a far superior weapon especially considering the crossguard
>>59598
You're a fucking moron and you have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader. No fucking shit roles changed tell me something else that an amateur historian doesn't know. Fact is due to change in technology the multi-role capacity that the knights were able to perform went out the window and there has never been a cavalry replacement for that role since, instead cavalry was specialized into different classes each playing the function that the multi-role capacity that knights possessed. And I'm just not talking about acting as cavalry because knights often fought on foot and they were often front line units on the vanguard who were crucial at deciding the tide of the battle, a type of sustained engagement that their successors were not suited to play.
There it's that fucking simple what I'm trying to get across, I literally cannot dumb it down for you anymore. If you can't understand it well that's your fucking problem not mine and you shouldn't have dropped out of grade school.
>tfw even on /his/ mindless anti-japan sentiment runs rampant and knight worship and general Euro-centrism is strong.
>>60057
What the fuck do you expect from a board that's just an extension of /pol/ if you want genuine conversations about history with less eurocentric bias then go to infinity chans board.
>>46033
Knights because their armor is better suited to nullifying a wider array of common japanese weapons.
Spear, bow, sword, they're all shit against tempered steel plate. Against a full suit of plate armor and shield you use a mace or a hammer or you go home in a box.
>>46782
They bought their first guns from the Portuguese
>>60057
SENPAI rly?
>samurai tries to fight honorobrury, sticks to a good form
>knight literally just charges him with his sword and shield, uses the most ruthless tactics, will kick when the fucker's down
>samurai gets stabbed in the ass while bowing before the fight
LITERALLY nothing about the samurai that would give them the upper hand in a fight against a knight.
>worse armor
>worse sword
>pussy fighting tactics. honor has no place in a fight to the death
>etc
sorry weeb faggot.
i much prefer samurai TB.H but i know the truth.
it's like saying whites are better than blacks. you know they we (whites), yet you'd really love to believe it.
>>60087
>eurocentric
Are you seriously upset that people are talking about Knights in a "who was better warrior?" thread? With Knights being listed in Op's post?
>>46776
If you gotta go, go out looking fabulous!
>>60057
that's just the tryhard and contrarian 4chan culture.
You can't have a board on this website without it existing. If something is popular among plebs people here will automatically think the opposite. Most 4chan users would have identified as atheist years ago. The Reddit became relevant, and atheism became the popular circlejerk it is today. So the fedora meme was invented, and identifying as atheist is laughed at here, even by others that are actually atheist but dont want to be associated with euphoric neckbeards and reddit normies. Anti-weebs doesn't really come from the same place, they just desperately don't want to be like real weebs who are delusionally infatuated and obsessed with Japan. Even on /a/, who are really bunch of NEETs that consume japanese culture and language everyday will angrily ridicule anyone that begins to sound like they like Japan too much.
The two of these come together when it comes to christian knight fanboys. It's common for euphoric redditors to cite "muh crusades" in an argument on christian brutality, and it's common for real weebs to think of Samurai as god-men who could slice through a stupid knight with his 1000 folded katana and okami's blessing. So your typical /his/-fag goes "I dont wan't to be a euphoric neckbeard, or a weeb, the only option is to suck on the dick of knights". So they do.
>>46033
Knights would win in open formation combat
in wooded or more dense areas where mobility would matter,samurai might have better chance
depends on terrain really, look at the simple archers of england.
plus both used different combat doctrines, hard to say really
>>60237
nigger i dont even like knights it's just the truth you angry weeb. samurai would get btfo.
>>60187
So you're actually taking the things said on this thread seriously? If that's the case your education has failed you. I suggest you stop getting your knowledge of history from tv and movies, and go pick up a book.
>>60279
this anon is right , samurai would need very specific situations to win.
Knights with their heavy armour would need alot more effort to be killed. Considering the weapons they wielded it wont matter how sharp they are, the mass will cut a samurai like swiss cheese.
>>60279
take a samurai and put him on a european battlefield and he's dead in 5 minutes.
take a knight and put him on a japanese battlefield and he's dead in 5 minutes.
The two fought war so very differently that neither party would survive. It's facile to compare them in this one on one style, especially because neither side would agree to the conditions the other wants, and in a "real" fight situation determines everything.
>>60237
aint that the sad truth.
At least people here are willing to accept the not debatable fact that Japan had a major gun fetish.
>>59935
>an amateur historian
Oh and you're some expert? Clearly by the fact that you literally just restated what I just fucking said.
>instead cavalry was specialized into different classes each playing the function that the multi-role capacity that knights possessed
Oh and what did this whole shitfest start from
> Are you seriously trying to compare heavily armored shock cavalry/infantry with their successors as if they somehow fulfilled the same roles. Cavalry after the knights existed in a completely different function and role, so what if they had similar equipment that's like saying that a snake is the same as fish because they both have scales.
Jesus fucking Christ are you even awake right now?
No. Fucking. Shit. Knights. Could. Fight. On. Foot. Why are you so adamant on telling me something I already fucking know? The vast number of engagements for a knight were on horseback, with a lance. It's like you've never even glanced at the wikipedia page of the middle ages, the cavalry charge was massively more effective as opposed to engagements on the ground.
>they were often front line units on the vanguard who were crucial at deciding the tide of the battle
What fucking era? You've been so entirely fucking vague and lack any form of placement in your statements, the late middle ages, early renaissance saw the heavy usage of formations, particularly pikes. The 14th-15th century with the Hundred Years war saw almost exclusively cavalry charge based engagements, but also heavy usage of cannon and less focus on infantry battles. The early medieval period still had a focus on mounted warfare, especially when they could afford horses. For fucks sake, Chevalier and Cavalier are almost synonymous. So why the fuck are you trying to argue this bullshit point, so fucking what if knights could fight on foot and later cavalrymen couldn't, did you miss the several hundred times I said "generally." Do I need to fucking leave a list of annotations for your autistic ass?
>>60164
>worse sword
I support knights, but this is an irrelevant point. Knights didn't just have arming swords and samurai didn't just have katanas. In fact I'd go as far as to say that both weapons would have been fairly rarely used by either warrior on an actual field of battle. Samurai preferring spears and bows while knights preferring maces/hammers and lances.
Swords were sidearms used when the primary was rendered inoperable and neither a knight or a samurai was retarded enough to try and slice/stab right through a breastplate with one.
They loved to take that shit out and whip it about when their opponents were lightly armored or completely unarmored though, boy did they love to do that.
>>60422
>No. Fucking. Shit. Knights. Could. Fight. On. Foot. Why are you so adamant on telling me something I already fucking know?
No you clearly don't fucking know because I have to keep repeating it to you but now you're comprehending this fact which means we're making progress.
>What fucking era? You've been so entirely fucking vague and lack any form of placement in your statements, the late middle ages, early renaissance saw the heavy usage of formations, particularly pikes.
Well I thought it was pretty fucking obvious but I guess I have to state it for you the period up to the Late Middle Ages before they gradually lost importance due to the rise of pikes and guns.
>So why the fuck are you trying to argue this bullshit point, so fucking what if knights could fight on foot and later cavalrymen couldn't, did you miss the several hundred times I said "generally."
Because you don't get the fucking facts that heavily armored knights of the Medieval era are not the same as cavalrymen of later periods.
>Do I need to fucking leave a list of annotations for your autistic ass?
Pot calling the kettle black.
>>46033
What era of knights? What era of samurai?
>>60299
you seem upset
want to talk about it?
>pick up a book
lol
>>60620
>Well I thought it was pretty fucking obvious
Yes and you're a fucking retard who can't make a straight forward point and would rather babble about semantics than actually say something worthwhile. Usually when you use a term that has spanned 400 years you might want to specify, but since actually making a point or argument is past your ability, I won't hold it against you
>you don't get the fucking facts that heavily armored knights of the Medieval era are not the same as cavalrymen of later periods
I was pointing to the fact that, when simplified, knights served similar fucking roles. You're only retort seems to be "knights fighting on the ground" which wasn't even their main purpose. If you honestly think it was, I implore you to actually read a book and I won't bother to reply afterward
.
Let's go back a bit
>Cavalry after the knights existed in a completely different function and role
Your only point to this was them fighting on foot, that's one point (assuming you ignore dragoons), the rest are, for all intensive purposes, the same, unless you'd like to actually make an objection to this.
I should also add that your definition of >individual martial prowess that made them worth more than the average peasant levy or man-at-arms is a load of contrived tripe you pulled from the deepest crevice of your ass and has zero backing in actual history
tl;dr you're a fucking idiot
>>60479
The difference is that a Knight can still kill a dude in heavy plate armor with his sword without ever actually cutting him.
>>46665
>While the samurai were faster and more agile (incredible draw speed)
Why would they be faster and more agile? Why wouldn't they have their sword drawn already when they're going into a duel?
>>46820
>And a full length katana thrust could pen a plate breastplate.
No.
A breastplate cannot be penetrated by a katana.
inb4 that American "documentary" where they penetrated a "breastplate" made from thin sheet metal. A historical breastplate wasn't anything like that.
Does this look like something you could easily penetrate? This is hardened and tempered steel.
>>46665
who do people think that one sword is faster than another?
someone post the gif of the guy sprinting and doing cartwheels in full plate
did you know that Samurai armour was actually heavier than full plate? while providing less protection
>>54367
>the quality of Japanese produced arquebus is well documented and superior to their Portuguese and Chinese counterparts.
It was more advanced than the cheaper variants but by that time Europe had already way more elaborate mechanisms, for example the wheel lock and rifled barrels which would have easily been affordable to the military elite.
Take a look at this for example. It's a German wheel lock musket from the 16th century, featuring a rifled barrel.
>>61479
Also people seem to always fail to realize that all medieval armor was comprised of multiple layers.
>>57836
>Katanas were just cheap weapons that got associated with samurais.
No, swords have always been precious and highly revered throughout most cultures - and they were by no means cheap.
However, in warfare, swords have always been side-arms. Secondary weapons.
Still, one should consider that a sword was always by your side. It would defend you in civilian life, as well as in duel situations. Also, it would be the weapon you'd have to rely on when you were in real trouble, e.g. after your spear had broken in two and you were dismounted, when you were ambushed by enemy troops and you were unprepared, etc. - all that made swords special weapons to people.
>>61415
>can still kill a dude in heavy plate armor with his sword without ever actually cutting him
Halfswording is useful but ideally you're not taking a sword to a fight against someone in plate. If you want to get into "if" and "buts", a Wakizashi could and would serve the same purpose as a dagger and pierce joints and poorly armored areas.
Getting into ifs and buts though is an argument that never ends. Just stick to what the two would likely fight with and don't go off into unnecessary tangents. A knight likely wouldn't have brought a sword to a fight with a guy that had greaves, cuirass, helmet, gambeson and arm guards anda samurai probably wouldn't have even bothered unsheathing his slicing sword against someone covered in metal even more than he was.
Neither would have likely been using a sword if they had any say in the matter.
>>61607
>a Wakizashi could and would serve the same purpose as a dagger and pierce joints and poorly armored areas.
This was in fact how these weapons were used. During the Japanese civil war period in the 16th century, as Japanese armour became heavier, it was common to carry a special type of sidearm next to the sword called "Yoroi-doushi" (armour piercer) whose specific purpose was to puncture the gaps between armour plates. It was a very thick dagger, with a triangular cross section, resembling the European daggers used for armoured combat of the 15th century.
>>61607
The thing is that by the quillons, a sword is still useful against plate armor instead of completely useless like a katana.
Knights. I'd take the guy who had more capable weaponry and was trained for fighting armored and unarmored enemies more than the one that can't.
>>61750
And a mace could still break bones and give bruises to an unarmored opponent that doesn't mean you're likely to have it if you know you'll be fighting one.
>>61844
A samurai was every bit as trained for fighting armored enemies as a knight, it just so happened his armored enemies weren't as well armored as a knight.
ergo his whole problem.
>>61844
that doesn't change the fact that you're better off using the weapon specifically designed to combat armor.
>>61887
You know what I mean. Greater access to materials makes for very interesting fighting styles for each different sets of armor and weaponry
>>57836
Wasn't the katana more associated with duels, bushido, ronins and all that stuff rather than war?
>>62109
Yeah, but so was the longsword. Spears, bills, hammers, maces and polearms were the weapons de jure for Knights and their associated militias.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIxEJxky0Ls
better, less autistic comparison.
Landsknecht or samurai? I don't know they seem to have a lot of weapons with parallel uses. Could Japanese gunners and archers take them on? I don't know how long your average Japanese pole-arm is compared to the pikes though.
>>62205
Well the Samurai of the same time period as the Landsknecht had gone back to close range sword combat for some reason. This is after a period of using very clever pike and matchlock tactics. Why they went backwards? I dunno.
But based on this, I gotta give it to the pimpin' Landsknecht. They got the range of the pikes and made smart use of muskets.
>>62184
Well yeah, you got a sword to let everyone know you were not a poorfag.
/k/?
>>62523
Interestingly, because swords were forbidden for anyone who wasn't a noble, messers came into favour in Germany. Technically Messers are knives...really big knives.
By the definition of the time, because the grip of the weapon was pretty much the tang sandwiched between a couple of wood blocks the messer was considered to be a knife and thus not illegal to be carried or wielded by peasants.
>>63062
I recall seeing a video about that. People do similar things today when hey modify a pistol into a bigger weapon that resembles a SMG just to get around weapon laws.
>>63062
I'm not too certain to which extent this is historical fact rather than myth.
First of all, there was no such thing as "Germany". Germany was highly fractured into mostly sovereign principalities, dioceses and free-cities where each ruler could do whatever he wanted. There are also plenty of depictions from Germany showing clearly common men being armed with swords. War knife type weapons, such as longsaxes, sabres, etc. also existed way before the late medieval messers. Not to mention that most of the fencing masters of Liechtenauer society, as well as Liechtenauer himself, were pretty much all commoners. The foundation of the German longsword tradition was codified by bourgeois men of common birth who gained their experience serving as mercenaries throughout Europe and as champions in judicial trials.
It makes for a nice story, but I'm not all too certain how much historical verity there is to it.
>>52182
This, guns were consisered dishonorable
>>51172
Fake
The force required to break a sword far exceeds human muscle capacity
>>63784
Doesn't that really depend on the quality of the sword? You can make a sword out of shitty potmetal like Japan did during WW1 that will be much more fragile then an average sword.
>>46033
Knights for lyfe.
>>63784
1/10
>you will never own a real suit of gendarme armour
>>64299
Imagine how much money the armor, horse armor, weapons and the horse would cost. Did they ever gain anything from going to war?
>>64740
Spoils, hostages, prestige and all that stuff.
>>46033
I personally like samurai more. They're still both armored thugs though.
>>64740
I've read that it wasn't THAT expensive for an average noble to acquire these things, even common people could afford armour in later periods
>>65003
The horse armour probably adds up the cost, then there is the textiles and plumes as well.
>>46033
>top hats vs fedoras
Since there's no material that great Nippon Steel can't slice through, i'd have to go with Samurais every single time desu senpai.
>>65873
It can't cut steel beams.
