Stop shilling this stupid game and these stupid videos

samurai would just pull a mongols vs hungarians thing and do horse archery

I guess Its just my opinion but I think double edged is a lot more reliable and can be used for more

>It's well known that pretty much all Samurais lost their duels vs the Portuguese/Dutch/Russians.

that certainly isn't established by the sources Ive seen. especially with the Russians (pic related). Its meme history

>Samurais rarely fought other Samurais and mostly just fought Japanese peasants whom weren't even allowed to own weapons for most of Nip history.

This is just nonsense, samurai mostly fought others samurai, professional mercenary and other people wealthy enough to afford proper weapons and armor. ashigaru were not even a thing for most of Japanese history.

Untill the edo period there were few restrictions on weapon ownership and every village would have been armed as a group if not individually.

The Japanese martial arts had at least as much depth as whats in European fighting manuals

Do you know what was the average draw weight of japanese bows? go look it up

modern Japanese bows for kyudo are not medieval war bows. Most of the figures for those are speculation since period sources measured bow strength in how many men it took to string one.

The speculation Ive seen ranges from about 70 to 120 pounds

What makes you think the shitty firearms gooks used could penetrate plate when Europeans used it until the napoleonic era?

realistically, a knight's sword like an oakshott type XVIII would have a better or easier time penetrating a samurais armor than a samurai katana getting through a knights armorr

>the average draw weight of japanese bows
they were literally horse archers before they used katanas, look that shit up

They were armed with both, and there is evidence of distinct styles of swordsmanship dating back to the Heian era

>oakshott type XVIII
The prettiest.

>the nip wins if he uses a European weapon

Did Knights lose to Horse Archers in the 1st Crusade?

>I will give you that for most of their history they had superior tech, but fighting technique? that's pretty speculative
It's called experience. European knights fought with various enemies, samurais for most part murdered only themselves, it's hard to obtains some experience when you are doing the same thing for hundreds of years.

>Would the Samurai easily beat the knight in a battle because he has tons of money?
Samurai didn't bother with money, they had koku and their consorts dealt with the money.

That is what we call a gross over simplification.

Yes, knights fought enemies from outside Europe on occasion, that does not mean their fighting arts were not mostly a product of home, like those of the samurai.

Nor were the samurai unaware of weapons and fighting systems form the continent. On the contrary such knowledge was highly valued in influenced many many fighting systems.

If you actually took time to compare the two you would know they both used sophisticated fighting techniques and had well developed systems to teach them

Knights were not geared peasants you utter retard.

They were landed nobles.

Also, they had crossbows and guns.

Crusader knights vs Turkish horse archers;

"In 1279, 200 horsemen from the garrison of Margat used this tactic against the 5000 Muslims who were trying to prevent them from ravaging the neighborhood of Crac des Chevaliers. The Hospitallers, knowing it would be suicidal for them to confront this force in the open, therefore allowed themselves to be chased until they had almost reached Margat itself before turning on the Muslims and routing them with the loss of only one mounted sergeant." - Unknown Crusader Castles, page 72, Kristian Molin

Crusaders rode larger horses(still smaller than today but larger than most) while a lot of easterners(especially the pony riding Japanese) rode slow and weak smaller horses, allowing the heavy western cavalry to actually catch up and butcher horse archers in a number of occasions.

Knights were mainly peasants who sworned loyalty to nobles.

Yes, there were nobles who were knights but those are the minorities, usually holding the leading roles due to their social status.

Guns don't enter Europe until mid 14th century. The video is talking about 11th century, time period when all three warriors could theoretically intersect.

As for crossbows, some knights did use them, but majority in the 11th century did not. Knights, the "honorable" ones, considered bows and crossbow weilders as weak. This has been the running theme for Europe since antiquity. Kinda opposite of East Asian mentality where bows/crossbows are considered qualities of a high class men.

> Knights were mainly peasants who sworned loyalty to nobles.

lol no.

> Yes, there were nobles who were knights but those are the minorities, usually holding the leading roles due to their social status.

No, basically 99.99% of knights were nobles.

Only on rarer occasions would lower class men rise up through the ranks and be knighted.

Knights came from peasants who joined the military and gained bit of land/money for their exemplary services. Knights are not nobles. Nobles are the Royal families who hire knights for their protection. The lower class who join the military for the riches get land/money in return for their services. They also serve as vassals to the Lord who employed them and gave them the land.

The act of nobles joining the ranks of knighthood is a later era creation. When the knighthood rose to prominence due to their service activities, this made their social status rise up. Nobles who wanted to provide their worth would join the knighthood to show off their nobility and prestige as response. They were virtue signalling.

Um, no.

Kights or men-at-arms were mostly the sons of higher ranking nobles or landed gentry. They needed alot of money to buy and maintain horses and armor. A nobles knights were often made up of relatives and men who he had known since childhood

...

Nobles do not outnumber non-nobles.

As I said, they were mostly land owning peasants who are employed as military. It's literally the evolution of housecarls and the pseudo conscripts Europeans of the time used. Lowborn military families who served their Lords were the backbone of knighthood. The knight code of honor even reflects the similarities between it and the housecarls duties.

>15th century plate armor same thing as Napoleonic armor

A noble is not just a guy with a title and a peasant is not just a non noble.

anyone descended from a noble family, no matter how minor or distant the relation would be distinguished from a peasant

> Knights came from peasants who joined the military and gained bit of land/money for their exemplary services.

lol fucking no.

A knight was primarily a mounted warrior, how the hell would a peasant afford a warhorse for fuck sake haha?

> Knights are not nobles.

Yes they are.

> Nobles are the Royal families

No, nobility is a step below royal families you retard.

Royal families are the actual rulers, the nobility are the landowners within the domains of rulers.

Fuck you are imbecilic.

> The lower class who join the military for the riches get land/money in return for their services.

Yes, but they do not become knights you retard.

> They also serve as vassals to the Lord who employed them and gave them the land.

No, those are the nobility.

> The act of nobles joining the ranks of knighthood is a later era creation.

No.

>Samurai
>More money
BRUH WHAT

Fuck knight vs. samurai argument, that shit is pointless.

But seriously: Samurai are wealthier than Knights?

The mass Samurai tend to be poorer than knights largely because Knights are required to OWN A FUCKING WARHORSE.

The origins of knights were pretty much a scheme to raise large numbers of cavalry during the latter part of the early medieval ages.

The origins of the Samurai was pretty much from a scheme of the Yamato-period emperors to raise willing professional fighters because everyone was scared to fight the scary Emishi barbarians in the North. When that was over the Generals who settled in new lands either tenanted the professional soldiers who followed them or released them from service, many became wandering swords for hire, and thus laying the foundations of the warrior class' latter supremacy for having monopoly on force.

The Knight was meant for cavalry, the Samurai basically a warrior class of feudal Japan's professional fighters- however they be so equipped. They could be anyone from the wealth scale from a dirty cunt with just a battered cuirass and a sword to his name to a fully kitted out mounted samurai with bows & arrows, swords, and a spear and a nice full set of armor.

tl;dr = Samurai = professional fighter. He could be poor or rich but assuredly most were poor footsloggers. There's a reason why there was a big argument in Japan whether or not to grant Samurai status to the Ashigaru footsoldiery when those assholes professionalized in the 1500s.

Ever heard o paid military service?

You join the winning team in the war and you get reimbursed for your work. This is how people got rich in wars.

Bushi at least tried very hard to distinguish themselves from others including court nobles who fought in battles, arguing it was somehow part of their blood because their families specialized in it.

orignially samurai perfered to be called bushi and samurai were the lowest rank of the bushi class

mercenaries and sergeants at arm were not knights, they were not consider the equal of knights either on social grounds or the battlefield

> Ever heard o paid military service?

Paid military service does not include knighthood you dense fuck.

Anyone with horse and proper armor could be considered a knight in the early days. The word knight literally means a servant in multiple European languages. Knights were by large composed of peasants who got rich from joining wars and later pledged loyalty and service to their lords. Knights did slowly gaining nobility social standings, but they were honorary nobility, which means if their sons don't serve the Lord they could lose their knight noble status. This wasn't the case with real royal nobility whom were related by family connections and blood.

In some respect samurais and knights are similar, both are professional military getting rich off of wars and gaining social status. In samurais case, they eventually became the sole power in Japan whereas it wasn't the case with Europe. As the emperor and their noble still controlled the powers and the knights were merely elite shock troops.

Also the video was discussing the 11th century factions. So during that time a samurai was pretty much the elite cavalry force. The infantry of the time were mainly peasant conscripts and were not considered samurais. The few centuries afterwars saw huge shift in fighting styles and organization of samurai class. From horse archers to infantry swordsmen to ranged gunner.

>The infantry of the time were mainly peasant conscripts and were not considered samurais.

False, during this period militias were small and any man fighting in service of a lord was considered a retainer if not a landed warrior

For Japan and samurai I mean

> Anyone with horse and proper armor could be considered a knight in the early days.

lol no.

> The word knight literally means a servant in multiple European languages.

Really?

In what languages?

> Knights were by large composed of peasants who got rich from joining wars and later pledged loyalty and service to their lords.

False.

Wrong.

I'm pretty sure the game takes place in the 12th century, meaning guns aren't invented quite yet

why are perople even arguin?

Its the KNIGHT hands down.
Extremely superior armor
-lighter (no joke look it up)
-way more sturdy ,katanas couldn pierce them even (katanas are for slicing and heavy armor u can only bash in or go into the gaps)
Better swords.
Heavier Horses
Bigger Stature
More advanced group tactics
More Armour piercing arsenal (swords werent even that often used)

-maybe less time in training (speculative)
-notweaabo approved

>euros can only win by using cavalry, an asian invention

What's your point?

>europeans invented guns

Knights aren't known for archery though, whereas samurai are. The samurai can't beat the knight toe to toe, but If the samurai just manages to shoot and kill the horse he wins, Sure, the knight would have a shield, but that wouldn't be enough to fully protect the horse. The armour won't withstand a powerful bowshot either. Once the knight's horse is down the samurai can use his height and speed advantage to easily finish off the knight.

The samurai's horse would probably be quicker too, given that they're lighter horses carrying less weight (yes, samurai armour was on average slightly heavier than the knight's armour but the samurai still weighs about 30-40 pounds less on average just due to the difference in height and build between the two ethnicities.)

Samurai vs Knight is a hell of a lot closer than you make it out to be.

> ut that wouldn't be enough to fully protect the horse.

Even without any horse barding, it is difficult to wound or kill a warhorse with an arrow, even with musketballs those beasts would often just continue charging.

> Sure, the knight would have a shield

Which basically negates arrows completely.

> The armour won't withstand a powerful bowshot either.

Except it most probably will.

> The samurai's horse would probably be quicker too, given that they're lighter horses carrying less weight

The opposite, their horses were smaller and had shorter legs.

Also, if knight gets crossbow, that entire scenario is void.

Also, samurai quivers had only 6-18 arrows usually, so when the samurai runs out, he has to engage in melee or just leave.

Some vikings had fucking Samurai style composite scale and linen full suits, would stand up pretty well against the japs

>foul weather gear
>straw sandals and socks
lmao did everyone just accept trenchfoot as a way of life?

Guns > Plate armor

The good skallagrim already made a response
m.youtube.com/watch?v=o_pCM6gFXXE

I cant believe how many butthurt "muh vikings"-boos came out the woodwork. Jesus christ.

>a hand cannon is the same as a gun

...

The gun was introduced to the the japs by the yuro's
horses weren't introduced to the yuro's by the japs

What's next, the Samurai wins because his cuirass is superior to mail?

>Which basically negates arrows completely.
Real life is not Game of Thrones and people can't dodge/block arrow shots like in the Matrix.

>people can't dodge/block arrow shots like in the Matrix.
That's why they use armour and shields

B
T
F
O

youtube.com/watch?v=l2-QuTLkZOQ

My only critique is that Japanese specifically targeted each others horses. Since compared to a armored warrior the horse was much easier to wound

What's the next step of your master plan?

Yup, there is little dispute knights had great armor, especially in the later period, I wouldn't even be surprised if they had something less elaborate in the 11th century, since by the time that came around samurai were directing rows of pikemen

>implying was bow hit

Yeap.
See this way:
"Richers" vs "middle class" vs poor snow niggers.

>there's no real answer to the debate and it always ends with speculation

There was one time this happened. They weren't "knights" though.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles

>Citation needed
>Citation needed
>Citation needed

and didn't an user explain in another thread the idea of a thousand men in 18 sampans was ridiculous?

>a thousand men in 18 sampans

it was a series of engagements, so the suggestion isn't that all 1000 dudes were fighting at the same time, there was apparently a land engagement featuring trench-works

Yes, and that did not always work, because horses are difficult to wound.

Also, even when dismounted, the samurai would then be forced to engage evenutally since he only has 6-20 arrows left and the knight has a long kite shield.

I mean the battle definitely happened and the Spanish one, but the whole thing reads like the wanking of some Spanish empire fanboy.

You have to ask how a pirate gathered a force large enough to make him a minor daimyo, and in the number of boats given. It was not unheard of for the winners of battles back then to exaggerate the size of the opposition

10 boats did not hold six hundred men

I've always felt the samurai was at a disadvantged in this scenario, but a dismounted group of warriors would have been easliy dispatched by a groups samurai and their retainers.

The tactics of the time made any infantry action other than massed formations or entrenchment ineffective. Mounted warriors could retreat, or surround and attack at will, this is demonstrated in battle records of the period: infantry heavy units could never engage the mounted units an win except when the terrain favored them

>it was a series of engagements, so the suggestion isn't that all 1000 dudes were fighting at the same time,
The wiki article is trying to conflate a series of events by distorting the narrative.

The first engagement is a naval battle between a single galley and a single Japanese ship with a crew of 200 men(the largest Japanese ships only had 60 fighting men).

The second engagement is 18 sampans(180 men) attacking a single ship with the native crew leaving the Sant Jusepe(60 fighting men,unknown number of sailors and native crew) beforehand and giving the estimate(1,000).

Between a knight and samurai; how about a middle route? An armoured slavic noble

they tended to wear Mirror armor, which is also commonly worn by various asian warriors

On a side note, there records of Japanese armour that took inspiration from Portugese armours of the later periods of the medieval and renaissance

>took inspiration

They imported bullet proof breast plates for the most part

They would if there is enough foot archers.

> On a side note, there records of Japanese armour that took inspiration from Portugese armours

Not only that, they directly imported it and payed huge sums of money for it, because it was so much better.

They certainly did, though the real advantage was the bullet proofing,

Hail damage

>Melee sword
Ah yes as opposed to the common ranged sword
mfw

Sword throw modafaka

tbf when someone spouts shit like "rudimentary shields and axes" i'd be butthurt as well