500 14th century French Knights vs 500 Sengoku period Samurai. Open field, even ground

Don't respond. It's pretty good bait because it can be read either way.

That's how it's like in Game of Thrones?

That's a valid question though!

I don't watch that, but there's plenty of times knights dismounted.

Cause knigths would sometimes fill the role of heavy infantry

i would say the knigths

they hade heavier armor and most of their weaponry was made to deal with heavy armor
meanwhile samurais where used to deal with ligthly armoured opponents

puncture/concussive weapons good vs everything

cutting weapons only good vs ligth/no armour

not to mention the fact that european weapons would often have a cutting edge a puncturing point and a concussive point

>pic related

At that point, French had the best artillery ( even hand-held ) of the world. So no.

>14th century
>open field
>even ground
Perfect cavalry charge conditions. Perfect massed battery conditions. The Japanese have nothing to truly counter this.

France wins by a longshot.

It just happens you can't name them.

...

I'd like to see those bang sticks get through solid steel

Instances of dismounted 14th century knights
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Boroughbridge
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dupplin_Moor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Halidon_Hill
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Neville's_Cross
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crécy

>14th century
That's Sengoku Jidai, mate. France's equivalent at the time would be the armies of Francis I, that were already using pike and shot.

Whole 5 instances wow they were such frequent foot soldiers. Kill yourself.

You asked for evidence and there it is. Deal with it.

You are literally retarded. I bet you're an American.

I'm not, and clearly all you're capable of is insults in the face of evidence. I have clearly won.

Few instances hardly mean knights frequently dismounted dumb americunt.

Several battles of the 14th century showing Knights fighting dismounted is evidence enough to support the original claim that sometimes Knights fought dismounted in the 14th century.

Grow up.

The original claim wasn't ''sometimes'' it was ''a lot''.

Actually the samurai in the Sengoku period used spears as their main weapon, as opposed to the bow the early samurai used. Their swords were mainly used as a back up weapon.

I'd say the knights win because of their much heavier armour.

can you please just shut the fuck up already. He provided you with evidence and it's a well known fact knights often dismounted

They would easily flank and trample them shitless you weeb

Segoku period Samurai sometimes had plate armor, and had sophisticated armies with Matchlock rifles and shit. Why not make it more equal and have it be 16th century Knights?

>often
>whole 5 battles

kill yourself

Because at that point the French had artillery

So did the Japanese.

Nip artillery was just shitty chink cannons and only for the siege of Osaka did Tokugawa get some European cannons.

Well I didn't know that regardless you can't compare them at that point because indirect fire was a much larger component of battle

It's not about being equal, it's about pitting the most typical of each against each other.

You are shitting up the board something fierce.

>a high level of discourse is expected.

>14th century French using swords and crossbows fighting the 16th century Japanese using matchlocks
>everyone says knights would win because they don't want to sound like weeaboos

They'd probably hug each other and agree to oppress peasants together.

These guys knew their social equals across cultures m8.

Was he supposed to link you all of the battles in which the knights dismounted? Do you even understand that most of the references aren't even found on the internet but in books and it's impossible for him to link them? You are obviously either fucking stupid or a high school kid

He did even link the battles

I think we are assuming that the Samurai are not using matchlocks because otherwise it's a stupid question, I mean the OP already said that there are no horses being used by either side.

desu. after Crecy circa 1346 i'd say the French fought dismounted about 80% of the time, judging by Froissart's Chronicle

English pretty much always fought dismounted since Dupplin moor.

Japanese Matchlocks actually weren't that deadly yet. They used a slightly less explosive form of gunpowder than Europeans did at the time which meant that the new samurai armor incorporating plates could actually still stop it at a distance.

That said 1 guy with a matchlock against one guy with say a pike or polearm is an easy win for the gunner. 500 guys with polearms against 500 men with guns is a different matter, when 16th century French lads were discussing how many gunners and pikes they needed that was discussed. If the nips know their shit they would not fire beyond 50 yards so they could get off a single volley before melee combat commences.

My understanding of Nip matchlocks is that they also had too heavy and large bore barrel meaning that it was both more cumbersome and had lesser range.

From what I can tell they were nicely made although drilling the bore was indeed a rather difficult thing for them. Though, if anything, using weaker gunpowder allows one to make the barrel thinner and lighter. Still, they undoubtedly had the best firearms of all Asian countries. Except cannons, man those sucked.

Nope.jpg.

For starters: Middle Easterners & Indians knew how to make Flintlocks while the whole of East Asia stuck with Matchlocks for much of the 1600s-1700s. The fucking Afghans were making flintlocks that are so accurate despite its lack of rifling.

Problem with them is compared to, say, the Chinese and the Japanese, was their deployment of them is fucking retarded. The Nepali Gurkhas for example just lumped muskets with archers and javelins like Ancient-Period skirmishers: ranging ahead of the main army screening its advance. Only to be wiped out in disciplined volleys of Qing Musketeers during the Qing Relief of Tibet.

Sorry man I was comparing them to China, Korea and SE Asia. Don't think the nips ever got beyond Thailand.

India kinda registers as a different kind of Asia but that could just be me.

Yeah, to be honest I don't think they'd fight it out in pitched combat. It would end up being several duels, in which case the samurai would win. Their practice and combat style are great for 1v1

Now, let's say they just saw each other and were like "It's on, Nip!" and "私は仲間で是非" then the knights would win. They would take their lances and shove em down those no-shields' mouths. In the combat, you'd have two or three knights just taking down single samurai.

The honor code would evaporate quickly among the Japs, but the damage to their numbers would already be done

Korea straight up copied Japan's musket tech.

China's musket technology is nothing special, but was actually innovative as they came up with a lot of doodads such as long range breech loading muskets called Taqiangs (Big Musket literally), and experiments with double barreled ones. But their real strength was artillery. They had the best in East Asia. Largely because they hired Jesuits to design them.

Ah yes... Korea

That shit wouldn't even come close to piercing a knight's armor.

This was AFTER Korea was JUSTed by Japan. When Japan fucked off after the bilateral ceasefires, Korea nicked Muskets from captured Japs.

Since Joseon Korea for some retarded reason had no Muskets prior the Japanese Invasions.

Being From the US is not indicative of Stupidity, stop shitposting

The initial strike of Japan blows my mind to be honest, Souel captured in a month.

Absolute madman

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimizuka

>The monument enshrines the severed noses of at least 38,000 Koreans killed during Toyotomi Hideyoshi's invasions.[7][8][9] The shrine is located just to the west of Toyokuni Shrine, the Shinto shrine honoring Hideyoshi in Kyoto.

>Japanese chroniclers on the second invading campaign do not fail to mention that the noses hacked off the faces of the massacred were also of ordinary civilians[13] mostly in the provinces Gyeongsang, Jeolla, and Chungcheong.[2]:pp. 475–476 In the second invasion Hideyoshi's orders were thus:

>“Mow down everyone universally, without discriminating between young and old, men and women, clergy and the laity—high ranking soldiers on the battlefield, that goes without saying, but also the hill folk, down to the poorest and meanest—and send the heads to Japan.[14] ”

>One hundred and sixty-thousand Japanese troops had gone to Korea where they had taken 185,738 Korean heads and 29,014 Chinese ones, a grand total of 214,752.[4]:p. 230[15] As some might have been discarded, it is improbable to enumerate how many were killed in total during the war.[9]

Koreans had it coming t.b.h,

Compared to China and Japan, who were busy fighting themselves & nomadshits, Korea spent much of the late 15th and much of the 16th century in golden peace.

Though Korea did have a bit of a problem with piracy. Shit dont prepare you for ground war though.

Weren't most of the soldiers literally entirely unarmored guys with bows?

No.

The Korean infantry bore some armor, usually a chestpiece only of lamellar, leather, or buff linen.

The problem with Korea is that in terms of military tactics they were merely the Ming Army ...of early 1500s. Except with a few Korean tweaks such as emphasis on archery (like, THE WHOLE FUCKING INFANTRY was archers). Though the Korean infantry took some pages off Qi Jiguang's infantry playbook: "A treatise on military efficiency."

...which is bad for Korea because Qi Jiguang invented those tactics in 1560 when he had
1) Shitty pirates as enemies and
2) Had 0 budget and was told to start an army from scratch since the Ming had bigger problems than pirates (i.e. MONGOLS). In addition to the shitty quality of Southern China's firearms production, he was forced to make tactics that did not really include firearms.

Though it was unparalleled in East Asia for its focus on drill and the efficiency of small unit tactics dreamed up by Qi. Which is what made it famous in the first place. NOT for large scale combat.

Anyway, so the Koreans were working with a very outdated, ill-interpreted military system for ground combat which is made further bad by the fact of the Joseon Golden Age.

Cavalry wierdly used flails.

>The Korean infantry bore some armor, usually a chestpiece only of lamellar, leather, or buff linen.
Source? Period artwork shows Korean soldiers in cloth surcoats.

>Though the Korean infantry took some pages off Qi Jiguang's infantry playbook: "A treatise on military efficiency."
Only after the initial invasion was repulsed by Ming intervention.

Southern Chinese instructors were instrumental in retraining Korean soldiers during the ceasefire.

>...which is bad for Korea because Qi Jiguang invented those tactics in 1560 when he had
Qi Jiguang's militia never actually faced a proper force prior to the Imjin War yet Korean sources note they were superior melee combatants.

Korean soldiers simply could not match their discipline and ferocity.

One thing to note is that the Koreans relied on an outdated chain of command and their commanders had no experience against Japanese infantry/low morale.

>Sengoku period
The samurai. They have better guns.

>Source? Period artwork shows Korean soldiers in cloth surcoats.
Actual archaeology? They just look like surcoats in art similar to how Brigandine does too in Chinese Artwork. But IRL they were padded linen jackets that can be effective versus cuts not so much a full forced stab or a shot from a gun.

Oh and one cancerous thing about Joseon Military System was that everyone buys their own equipment.

But shit horses and no lances, if both mounted the European heavy horses, lances and heavy armour and charge tactics (than only the Takeda ever tried) would make mincemeat of the samuray, unless they were going horse archer style, but the Natal japanese" horses" were a sorry excuse of war ponies, than were classified as giants when they reached 1,5m.

Last time I checked this particular artifact postdates the Imjin by a few hundred years.

Feel free to prove me wrong,I can't remember where I found the date.

Chinese artwork depicts brigandine with rivets.

This particular Ming scroll depicts Koreans with surcoats. The scroll also erroneously depicts unarmored Ming and Japanese soldiers so I can't vouch for its veracity.

>The Korean infantry bore some armor, usually a chestpiece only of lamellar, leather, or buff linen.

I just got my info from the osprey book on it so I might be wrong.

PS, was that the book with the Mandarin Duck some 12 men squad with paupers holding bamboo branches?

Osprey is shit.

>Oh and one cancerous thing about Joseon Military System was that everyone buys their own equipment.

That has generally been the norm for the past 5000 years of history in Europe and the Middle East at least.

I know but I tend to use it as an introductory reading for which it's pretty okay.

Not shit, is a good way to learn history and get cool pics about warrior,, but of course it has some glaring inacuracies, mistakes and all that.

I'll rescind my opinion. Osprey is really hit or miss. Depictions of Yuan/Ming Chinese is JUST tier.

Not in East Asia.

WELL, relatively. China state armed their soldiers but welcomed Private Military Organizations into their armies for added muscle, and these guys bought their own weapons & armor. Japan had no centralized system but did have a feudal system and lords arm their own troopers with their own equipment.

But

I know nothing about pre 1500 Ming so could you point out all the flaws?

For starters whoever drew the image mistook the woodblock print as cloth not lamellar armor.(The author also fails to depict the spaulders and phoenix winged helmet)

Early Ming retained the traditional hanging lamellar though by the 1500s the rank and file adopted textile based armors(cotton,brigandine etc.)

How many of the rank and file infantry actually had matchlocks as opposed to Bows, spears and swords?

>You're so stupid, you're clearly American!
>I'm not American
>S-stop lying, y-you Americunt
Wew lad

Matchlock was used in conjunction with handguns,light artillery and rockets.

Each garrison would probably have its own ratio though firearms gradually replaced bows/crossbows.

Ming inventories lump all firearms together or at least Records of the Four Border Garrisons/Three Passes does.

As far as I'm aware ranged soldiers usually carried a one handed saber and armor wasn't universal.

uh

There's no exact ratio of matchlock vs x firearm vs bows vs melee weapons.

Are you implying once the Knights reach them they won't just slaughter them?

The samurai don't have anything to pierce french armor, so the French win, especially if they have horses

Cancer

OP said Sengoku period

Is it true that Japanese never really fought with formations by out flanking opponents and what not but simply had each fighter duel one by one? I thought it was only during the Heian period.

>14th century French artillery and firearms would beat 16th/17th century matchlocks and cannons

>Samurai don't have anything to pierce armor

>Sengoku period Samurai
>Not the best warriors of their time
I get that people want to shit on weaboos but the Sengoku era Japanese had some of the most advanced battle tactics of their times aswell as matchlocks, plate armor and cannons

They would completely shit on middle ages knights(most of them wouldnt even be fully plated)

Thats why i picked the sengoku period samurai, but i think it would be a very even battle with knights just coming out on top from superior armour

I remember it being during the Sengoku period, but it was not strict. During a war of upheaval, rules kinda go out the window. Even ethical ones

Knights in an absolute bloodbath.
They are both snooty nobles, albeit trained from birth nobles, but only one would have experience fight real enemies.
Samurai were trained, and used all that training to fight each other, developing the perfect weapon to use against unarmored civilians that made up the bulk of the opposing forces.
Knights meanwhile were armed to the fucking teeth and used weapons that could pierce opposing knights armor, or at least bludgeon them to death inside it.
Assuming all knights and Samurai are carrying average gear, more knights are going to be carrying armor piercing/ blunt force trauma weapons than the samurai are, and on top of that Samurai primarly fought with slashing weapons anyway and that would be essentially ineffective against the Knight.
Knight wins

>Their practice and combat style are great for 1v1
And so is that of europeans.

>highly armored
Plate armor wasn't used by knights until the late 15th century.

anything thats mounted & gunpowder > all other

Unless the French have 500 vegetas, the 500 sangokus win

14th century knights had semi plate, mail and padding. Very well armoured

Oh if we can take shit from any time, well then i guess the french just drive over the samurai with tanks and shit

>Oh if we can take shit from any time

OP specified 14th century for the knights, but "Sengoku period" (which didn't end until circa early 17th century) for the samurai, so nope, the Frenchies are shit out of luck in the firepower department.