ITT dumb shit weebs say

>If the Japanese only had a few more years to develop their industries in Manchuria, they could have kept up with American military production in WW2.

Weaboos have been nonexistant on the internet for the last few years
Antiweebs have been the most obnoxious faggots on the internet for the last few years

>the yamato is the best looking battleship

I prefer the term Japanophile
You can't deny the mystique and aesthetic appeal of classical Japanese culture

Koala b8 m8

I'd say a 15th century knight in full plate would beat a samurai most of the time

Anytime before that is fair game

a samurai with a kanabo would definitely stand a chance

How? That thing is heavy to wield and it's not like the knight is just going to stand there and let himself get hit.

You could say the same thing about any heavy weapon, you get hit by a big guy with something like that and it'll cave your bones in regardless of how superior your armour is

They had a number of weapons that could hurt someone through plate, even a naginata could smash in a steel helm, as they sometimes did in Japan. The blades on those things were made super thick so they could smash and cut.

But yeah the knight has better armor, Only the best of japanese armors would have provided anywhere near that level of protection

As for the tetsubo, They wouldn't have used a weapon that was so easy to dodge as to be useless

>Knights get wrecked by archers at Agincourt
>East Asia never went full plate because they were ranged meta fags
Really stimulated the neurons.

>american education.

I feel u :

Is Japan in WW2 often discussed between weebs? I thought they were more interested in modern animuh culture or the glorified shogun era

>if mongols rekt knights

Yeah, 40 000 Mongols vs 400ish knights and thousands of levies.

They sure showed their military prowess.

Also;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

>implying mongols didn't inflict far more kills than losses if you count all mongol invasions of Europe
>implying mongols didn't use a ton of shitty levies too
>mongols have the double disadvantage of not being on home ground and at the extreme edge of their empire
>if knights can't be used in meaningful quantities it also means they're shit

>I'd say a 15th century knight in full plate would beat a samurai most of the time
>most of the time
So a samurai could beat a knight then...

Only with a mace/flail, crossbows and matchlocks/artillery, Japan stands a chance.

They don't need that level of protection against knights if they could pull a Mongolian

A naginata is not going to penetrate plate armor. It might at best dent or deform the armor IF the strikes don't glance off. The person behind the naginata would have to aim at the gaps in the armor to inflict any real damage. The best scenario for a samurai would be to knock the knight down on his back with his weapon or grappling, then finish him off.

Unfortunately, a lot of weebs assume knights had little or no skill even though they started trained at a young age in various weapons for mounted and dismounted fighting. They also knew how to grapple and disarm their opponents.

This whole knights vs samurai shit is stupid. They're both skilled warriors, but overall knights had a higher technological advantage towards the Late Middle Ages with better steel and blacksmiths.

>Heian-era samurai
Would get destroyed no question.
>Early-Sengoku
Knight still has the advantage here.
>Late-Sengoku, Imjin war
Knights long obsolete in Europe. Samurai wins here because of the huge tech advantage from Spanish/Portuguese trade. Matchlock heavy armies + armored design inspired by imported European plate armor.

>Knights long obsolete in Europe. Samurai wins here because of the huge tech advantage from Spanish/Portuguese trade. Matchlock heavy armies + armored design inspired by imported European plate armor.

But...the European knights would already have access to the European equipment that you just mentioned. European armies also adopted pike and shot warfare during this time period.

Mostly in context of muh hotel waifu was the strongest battleship, 0 was the greatest plane of ww2 and nukes were war crimes.

Only to deny Nanking and lust after Mishima cock.

I mean he's not wrong. We live in an internet era where it's really difficult to tell whether someone is being serious, hiding behind layers of irony, sarcastic, or just plain baiting for (you)s anymore. It's hard to tell whether the original, non-self aware weeaboo really exists anymore, especially when you add the fact that Veeky Forums is essentially the weeb haven; there's no way you wouldn't adapt self-awareness after years here.

My own post was simply a play of words. If you say that the "knight" beats the "samurai", "most of the time", it implies that from time to time, a samurai will beat a knight so in effect "a samurai could (could!) beat a knight".

Oh and btw the naginata was equipped with a butt-spike that could very well penetrate the lighter part of an armor. Sure it's less than optimal but still. Also, if the visor is up as it would typically be the case in close combat, a slashing jab to the face would probably means the end of the fight, but that's bickering.

>This whole knights vs samurai shit is stupid.
This absolutely, but then why would you come to Veeky Forums for...?

>Heian-era samurai
>Would get destroyed no question.
Samurai in do-maru with a naginata against a knight with a mail armor and armed with sword and kite shield doesn't seem to be absolutely in the knights favor to me, it seems much more 50/50 than in later years in fact.

Yes they aimed for the gaps, But the naginata was also a crushing weapon. and a warrior would not hesitate to take a shot at say the helm or wrist or knee even if it was armored.

yoroi was also made of steel and if it could damage that it could probably damage plate.

A samurai COULD rek a knight.

>Asia for Asians (Japanese)

> >implying mongols didn't inflict far more kills than losses if you count all mongol invasions of Europe

Well yeah, slaughtering entire populations of civilians.

>implying mongols didn't use a ton of shitty levies too

They didn't.

>mongols have the double disadvantage of not being on home ground and at the extreme edge of their empire

So?

The crusaders had the same exact problem and nobody gives them a pass.

>if knights can't be used in meaningful quantities it also means they're shit

They were used in meaningful quantities, just not enough against the largest military power in human history up until that time and the largest Empire in human history up until that time.

If the samuri has one of these BING BING WA-HOO

a chain mail isn't going to protect against a kanabo or naginata.

>inb4 plate armor
knights didn't use plate armor, they used mails.

> a chain mail isn't going to protect against a kanabo or naginata.

That is why mailed dudes had shields.

Also, against slashes it will.

> knights didn't use plate armor

Being this retarded.

being clad in sheets of nigh-inpenetrable metal makes you pretty much immune to most injuries the samurai could inflict with regular samurai weaponry

>The crusaders had the same exact problem and nobody gives them a pass.
Because the crusaders weren't attacking a place as distant as Yinchuan and have sea ports available to them?

> Because the crusaders weren't attacking a place as distant as Yinchuan and have sea ports available to them?

Mongols were attacking from an already conquered Rus, so they technically traveled less distance than a crusader would.

>Well yeah, slaughtering entire populations of civilians.
Perfectly good strategy.

Then why were knights using warhammers?

...

What do you think counts as regular weaponry?

You think a nagimaki wouldn't hurt with plate? how about a kuma-te?

Depending on the time and area, not all "knights" were entirely clad with plate or mail. Besides, you can break mail with a strong thrust and stab at the face while the visor is lifted (which is, the normal way of fighting in close combat). Some suit of plates weren't protecting the thighs which were one of the main targets of the old styles as well.

Also, late 14th, 15th centuries knights aren't the medieval staple, it's just part of the period.

Not to say that overall, the european gear didn't tend to be superior to the japanese one, but to think that the knight in full gear (not all knights then) is some sort of impenetrable tank is wrong. Besides, grappling will always work somehow, which is why it was taught to every class that would fight in heavy armor.

Knights did use warhammers, but they're not the fantasy bullshit you see on TV or in games. They were usually one-handed unless you're talking about something like a bec de corbins, but that's more like a polearm.

Warhammers can also be used with one hand and a shield. i.imgur.com/i11qe5h.jpg

The tetsubo is used with two hands and while they would certainly be effective against armor, it seems like it would be very difficult to get an actual hit on the knight. Like I pointed out earlier, the knight is not going to just stand there and let you hit him. He will parry the attack or void (dodge) it, close distance, and fuck you up with a longsword, mace, axe, or whatever weapon he has. Bigger, heavier weapons are not always better unless we're talking about pole weapons like the Japanese naginata or European halberd.

> not all "knights" were entirely clad with plate or mail.

Yeah, they kinda were.

Even the damn low ranking sergeants are often described as covered head to toe.

Usama ibn Munqidh describes one crusader sergeant as being adorned in impenetrable double linked mail and how he cannot be wounded.

> while the visor is lifted (which is, the normal way of fighting in close combat).

That is not the case, some would raise the visor while others would not.

Many depictions show visors being down while in close combat and many helmets did not have movable visors at all.

> Some suit of plates weren't protecting the thighs which were one of the main targets of the old styles as well.

lol what?

Even the cheapest munition armors had tassets, even low ranking pikemen had tassets attached to the breastplate.

> Also, late 14th, 15th centuries knights aren't the medieval staple, it's just part of the period.

That is just a ridiculous statement.

The medieval period lasts until 1492 and everything within that date is medieval.

> but to think that the knight in full gear (not all knights then) is some sort of impenetrable tank is wrong.

This is correct though, the samurai could indeed win against any period knight, just not likely.

You speak as if the samurai was some brute when he was just as well trained as the knight.

While the technique of the testsubo hasnt been preserved like the spear and nagnata there is no reason to believe the samurai who used it, wouldnt know how to deal with nimble opponents with lighter weapons.

From surviving examples of the weapon Ive seen, someone use to Japanese staves and pole arms could probably use the weapon with surprising grace and flexibility using common techniques

I don't mean that at all. Samurai were very skilled, but what a lot of people in this thread seem to misunderstand is that European knight weaponry, steel, and technology were on average of better quality, especially in the Late Middle Ages.

The techniques and strength required for the use of a tetsubo is probably vastly different than that of a pole weapon like a naginata.

plate armor started to become more common when knights started to fall away.

also do you really think a shield would protect much against this?

Your right but naginata and nagimaki were also very heavy.

A warrior could take a very wide grip on such a weapon, comparable to what he would take with a bo or pole arm, which would give him the ability to generate alot of power while maintaining control over the weapon

Actually pole weapons are not that heavy. Halberds typically run between 3 - 4 kilograms and since it's a lever and held with two hands, it's not going to feel heavy. The naginata is probably lighter.

When the talk is about "knights" and what you have in mind is the 15th century example it's just that, an example, not all knights had perfect armors and by the way, it wasn't uncommon for the back of the thighs not to be fully protected by plate. The full "impenetrable" plate armor is much more a 16th century thing that a medieval one, not to say that medieval armor was faulty, but not all knights were "impenetrable" by any means. For most of the periods, the knights were mostly sporting mail armor, and coat of plates not full plate ones.

Samurai had guns during their own feudal era, but for a fair comparison, it's a given that they aren't taken into account especially since 1543+ is very late feudal era and not representative of the whole.

And then visor wise, it's extremely limiting to fight visor up, some perhaps did it (I wouldn't take illustrations that also depicts people in mail being cleaved in half and Theseus sporting full plate armor to be exactly practical descriptions), but overall it's a detriment to fighting in close combat where breathing and awareness are more important.

for a weapon which is in continuous use that is very heavy. a weapon cant weigh to much or else all you can really do is hold it in front of you.

The damage you can do with a six or eight pound pole arm is very great, trying to block such a blow with a sword could sprain your wrist or worse. In fact trying to bock in that situation would be nearly suicidal.

The tetsubo is this case is quite a bit shorter than a naginata with a long grip. This is to give you control over the weapons heavy head.

> plate armor started to become more common when knights started to fall away.

Erm no.

Knights had their heyday in the 14th and 15th century.

They weren't really fazed out until the 16th century.

Heck, one of the most famous knights in history died in the 16th century;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Terrail,_seigneur_de_Bayard

> also do you really think a shield would protect much against this?

Yes, yes it would.

Also, if it is a centergrip shield, a swing from that thing would only pass along the movement of the shield and the defender would then strike from the side.

> not all knights had perfect armors and by the way

Yes they did.

Basically all of them had full armors.

Even sergeants and low rank mercenaries often had full armor.

Fucking 16th century pikemen are often described as adorned in full armor apart from the hands and feet.

> by the way, it wasn't uncommon for the back of the thighs not to be fully protected by plate.

The inner thighs yes, but that is useless for an offensive opponent unless the knight is facing him backwards.

> For most of the periods, the knights were mostly sporting mail armor, and coat of plates not full plate ones.

Yes, mail was predominant in most of the early and mid period, but mail is still excellent armor and mailed dudes carried shield.

> Samurai had guns during their own feudal era

So did knights.

> And then visor wise, it's extremely limiting to fight visor up

Nope, the eye slits were usually quite close to the eyes so you see quite well;

j.gifs.com/O7R55r.gif

> but overall it's a detriment to fighting in close combat where breathing and awareness are more important.

It is, but having your face covered is also an advantage, so it is a personal decision.

>The damage you can do with a six or eight pound pole arm is very great

If you actually hit someone.

> trying to block such a blow with a sword could sprain your wrist or worse.

Ridiculous, you can simply parry the swing, you do not block polearms with the sword.

...also the knight has like 50 types of polerams to counter that.

> In fact trying to bock in that situation would be nearly suicidal.

Ridiculous statement.

But the nukes WERE war crimes. You don't need to be a weeb to know that.

I am going to assume you have never trained with pole arms or even held one. You dont understand that they can be weapons of both overwelming power and finesse as needed,

Parrying is of course what you do, it it isnt easy, or particularly natural compared to trying to block, Nor is it fool prove, as even if you parry a polearm there are lots of things the guy with it can do to counter you.

Trying to block a polearm with a sword can be very dangerous depending on how its being used. Your block could straight up fail, or you could sprain your wrist leaving you severely compromised for the rest of the fight.

A weapon like a naginata or poleaxe is a weapon of weight, they were designed to do damage regardless of what protection the other guy had. Combined with the basic limits of human anatomy you can take someone apart without cutting a gap.

You dont know what full armor means in this context, you can look at surviving examples of the armor and see the gaps, which while not universal were common on European armor, like on all armor.

This depends on so many factors that it's impossible to answer without making generalizations and lowering the IQ of the entire board.

why would you space between every line? fucking autist

>lowering the IQ of the entire board.
It's low enough already so that the loss will not even be noticed.

Does the arquebus not count as regular samurai weaponry?

> I am going to assume you have never trained with pole arms or even held one.

You assume wrong.

> Parrying is of course what you do, it it isnt easy, or particularly natural compared to trying to block,

I see you never held anything in your hands other than an console joystick.

> Nor is it fool prove, as even if you parry a polearm there are lots of things the guy with it can do to counter you.

So the enemy then counters that...

> Trying to block a polearm with a sword can be very dangerous depending on how its being used.

That is why it is not done, like ever.

> Your block could straight up fail, or you could sprain your wrist leaving you severely compromised for the rest of the fight.

Real life is not Skyrim, you do not block stuff the way you imagine it.

> weapon like a naginata or poleaxe is a weapon of weight, they were designed to do damage regardless of what protection the other guy had.

Yes, but you have to properly hit the enemy to do damage.

Plate armor was especially designed so strikes glance off and impact is absorbed if it doesn't.

> Combined with the basic limits of human anatomy you can take someone apart without cutting a gap.

Ridiculous statement.

You need to accumulate speed to deliver blunt trauma, it is not like cutting or chopping.

To deliver speed you need more movement and the swing has to be wider, meaning your attacks will be far more telegraphed.

> You dont know what full armor means in this context, you can look at surviving examples of the armor and see the gaps, which while not universal were common on European armor, like on all armor.

Yes, gaps at the back of the thighs, utterly useless to an opponent that is in front of you.

The other gaps are so miniscule with most plate armor that even counting on them is moronic.

You will not hit someone in that 3cm wide armpit gap while he is all over you all over the place trying to bash your brains in.

>I see you never held anything in your hands other than an console joystick.

Ive trained with polearms for years

>So the enemy then counters that...

Oh and that's always easy...

>That is why it is not done, like ever.

Ever is a strong statement but the point is that it is more natural to block than to parry.

>Real life is not Skyrim, you do not block stuff the way you imagine it.

Ive blocked plenty of shots with swords and other weapons.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GWQKe1peO24

The man here sprained his wrist here.

>You need to accumulate speed to deliver blunt trauma, it is not like cutting or chopping.

To deliver speed you need more movement and the swing has to be wider, meaning your attacks will be far more telegraphed.

Granted you need more wind up with a heavy weapon but it isnt so easy to get within the arc of such a hit, further more a skilled fencer knows when to do such a technique

Yes, gaps at the back of the thighs, utterly useless to an opponent that is in front of you.

>The other gaps are so miniscule with most plate armor that even counting on them is moronic.

>You will not hit someone in that 3cm wide armpit gap while he is all over you all over the place trying to bash your brains in.

Those are some very big assumptions, getting into an armpit is not as hard as you imagine. nor is a shot to the inside of the legs which were often exposed as well

knights beat samurai
do you even rock paper scissors

> youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GWQKe1peO24

Well that's your problem, you expect westerners to do the same exact moronic thing as that guy.

In western arts, you never do that, you either evade or you parry, or sideline the strike.

Because heavy blocking is retarded.

> getting into an armpit is not as hard as you imagine.

lol, good luck;

i.imgur.com/gmeH2JC.jpg

> nor is a shot to the inside of the legs which were often exposed as well

How exactly will you reach the back of the thighs during the fight lol?

Not to mention that often those gaps were covered by very strong mail;

i.imgur.com/gvnjbWU.jpg

>Well that's your problem, you expect westerners to do the same exact moronic thing as that guy.

That was a demonstration of the force you can generate with the naginata, not how you use a sword to defeat one.

i.imgur.com/gmeH2JC.jpg

i.imgur.com/gvnjbWU.jpg

Was not universal, nor does it dismiss my point that you can get into those gaps (when not protected by chainmail)

With all that impenetrable plate and mail I suppose that european man-at-arms and knights never managed to kill each other because, going for gaps was undoable as your opponent was all over the place trying to bash your brains in (and probably failing since plate armor is undefeatable) but then...

Whilst I do agree with you on people overstating the invincibility of "knights", didn't a lot of them die from falling of their horse and getting stabbed in the eye?

>Knights became obsolete in Europe past the 1500s
No they fucking didn't.

Socially, knights became very powerful this time around this knighthoods by then were eventually the equivalent of being a noble.

Militarily, the Knights were still around as heavy cavalrymen since those niggers still had a very important fucking role in a 1500s 1600s battlefield.