Cataphract VS Samurai

How skilled were the Samurai? or as they call it, FEATS.

When Japan invaded Korea,what did they think of them?

What feats do the samurai have? Probably Power Attack, Mounted Combat, Improved Initiative and the like. Standard stuff.

>ERE cataphract vs Sengoku jidai samurai
>horseback
Cataphract hands down
>foot
Why is a cataphract fighting on foot, I would assume samurai though as they were bowmen first and because of just how heavy cataphract armour was

Samurai were manlet pederasts.
They only stand a chance against buck naked peasants.

I'd argue they did well against the Chinese and Koreans but that's not really a high bar to beat.

>Also consider the fact that Mainland Asian cataphracts carried maces, war hammers, axes, war picks (such as the famous sagaris), and armor-piercing daggers, and many other anti-armor weapons Japanese culture seems to have weirdly fucking disregarded.

What? the Japanese didnt carry anti-armor weapons? where does this shit come from? certainly not from a history book.

Yeah, there's the Japanese mace called Kanabo

Byzantines could and would dismount some of their men if the cavalry encountered the enemy and couldn't wait for their infantry to catch up.

The foot battle may or may go in the samurias favor. REALLY depends on which "cataphract", as their level of armor and type of armament varied wildly.

Scenario 1 definitely goes to the cataphract. Japanese horses were midgets

The samurai were arguably the worst class of Vietnamese soldier. The cossacks of Cambodia were far superior

Their only noticeable victories were defensive sieges.

They didn't have any way to deal with cavalry charges except massed arquebuses.

If anything, the Japanese under preformed against Ming cavalry despite their numerical advantages i.e. Byeokjegwan(5,000 Ming vs. 30,000-40,000~ Japanese) and Jiksan(4,000 Ming vs. 30,000 Japanese).

It's actually somewhat open to debate. If we assume the samurai would ride his horse at all-and there's reason to think he won't- and we assume he does his bets impression of a steppe warrior-and there's no reaosn to assume he will-the cataphract may well be unable to catch him.

He's not a knight, the weight of cataphracts weapons and armor is fucking significant. The heaviest of them may not have been able to gallop. At all. Trotting after a man firing a heavy bow at you when you're wearing mail is a risky proposition, especially since you WILL blow your horse sooner rather than later.

It's more likely that the samurai will lose than not, but nothing is a foregone conclusion in this match-up.

So Samurai wins if it does some very unsamurai things? I mean it's possible he'll do that but let's just stick to the most likely scenario.

The kanabo isn't very good at puncturing armor at all. Heck, as a weapon is very inneficient being a two handed mace than doesn't concentrate the power of the hit like a pick or a mace would.
Samurai war ponies were very little and weren't as resistent as steppe ponies. They were very strong for they size but they weren't fast. The biggest, baddest horse in all the sengoku was the Nobunaga one, than was a titan at 1,5m tall. The average height of the takeda ones meanwhile was around 1,3m tall, and the takeda were the only Samuray using charge attacks.
Meanwhile a catafract from any of the steppes traditions would wear a bow (even Poland hussars did), a heavy armors than made them immune to arrows (a simple combo of mail and padd armor for example, lots of time with lamellar ones) and had a superior choices of mounts, from Chargers not unlike Europeans one to infatigable steppe ponies.

Somethink like a Marwari or Akhel Teke horse it would be the most likely mount (going for a mid sized, long range and valiant horse ideal for war)

The kanabo isn't made to puncture anything, its made to give e percussive blow which breaks bones under the armor.

The samurai had a variety of little known weapons for dealing with armor, kama yari, axes, kumade, Nor are the old standbys like Naginata bad at dealing with armor. naginata and nodachi were used to smash as well as cut and thrust. and of course the samurai carried a variety of small weapons for grappling in armor such as peircing daggers and kama.

This idea that samurai couldn't deal with heavy armor is ridiculous.

It doesn't need to be fast, it needs to be able to gallop away for a short time and then maintain a trot or even a fucking canter, depending on how heavy the cataphract is.

I don't think you understand this, but we have byzantine tactical manuals that tell us that cataphracts horses tire incredibly quickly, and that they do not run much.

Second, they were not "immune to arrows", merely resistant to them. There's a REASON that the eastern romans put so much work into supporting them and bringing other types of cavalry to the battle.

The weight of their armor brings significant penalties. They're not knights, they don't have late medieval horses, and their armor is considerably heavier.

They were absolutely an effective force, and most of the latter cataphracts would win in this scenario, but you're deluded if you think it's a sure thing.

Why do these threads pop up? We all know the Japs are woefully inferior to practically every warrior in history with the possible exception of Stone Age tribes.

Seriously, if Japan and its people were located nearby Western Europe, they would've been conquered and assraped by the Greeks, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Frisians, Flemish, Vikings, Normans, Portuguese, Spanish, Dutch, and any other group nearby. Put them in SE Asia, the Malays, Khmer, Viets, Chams, and Burmese would steamroll them. And near any Islamic lands in North Africa, the Near East, Central Asia, or South Asia, forget it, the manlets wouldn't even stand a chance against people even MORE fanatical than them AND possess tactical and equipment superiority.

I know your a troll, but if the Japanese were located in the middle of a continent their arms and armor would have been completely different.

as for reality Chinese and the few western records of the time are in complete disagreement with you, both as individual warriors and as units.

I really dislike how Japs are hyped up as warriors when Pathans, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Maori, and other groups deserve more press. It's only because Japan's our cuck colony and produces some interesting things that weabs dickride them so hard.

Yeah, I've actually read those accounts of how fearsome Japs were in SE Asia and their brief foray into overseas trade in the early Tokugawa Shogunate. But having a flash in the pan doesn't matter much in the vast continuum of recorded human history.

Japan was only effective at killing themselves. Their only notable pre-20th century victories were against Mongols whose ships got battered from typhoons, Koreans and Chinese were caught off-guard by pirate raids and the 1592 invasion that the samurai got BTFO in the most decisive way on sea and against artillery.

>scenario 1:on horseback
Samurai
>Scenario 2: on foot
Samurai

Cataphracts are meant to neither charge single individuals or fight single individuals on foot.

They aren't a social class, just recruited soldiers probably from the nobility.

Famous warriors/soldiers are famous because they extend beyond the battlefield but no one cares about a rich merchants son who can afford full scale armour.

I do concede that Japanese are very adaptive. They've always had a tendency to assimilate foreign elements and make it their own so instead of their resource-poor islands and subsisting on rice & fish, say they inhabited India for example, they have the means and access to develop their economy, tech, military gear, tactical and logistical approach, better livestock (especially horses), and even make themselves stronger and taller in stature via improved diet. But this is all just speculation and would monumentally rewrite their whole cultural outlook and social psyche.

>I really dislike how Japs are hyped up as warriors when Pathans, Sikhs, Gurkhas, Maori, and other groups deserve more press.

Well those groups might deserve more press but it doesn't make the Japanese less because they were not the only the only competent professional warriors in asia.

That the Japanese were mostly insular doesn't mean the were only effective at killing themselves, certainly that isn't was Koreans and Chinese who had to fight off their raids thought.

The Mongolian invasions in particular are unfairly dismissed as being won thought typoons. There were multiple battles through two campaigns, and the Japanese really only did bad in the first few battles where they were getting use to continental tactics. After that the wars were a series of draws and victories for the Japanese.

I'm all for demystifying the samurai but lets ground that in actual accounts of the period rather than anachronistic comparing of warriors who would have never met and trying to weight equipment to see who has an advantage

That's not really true. Forget the ELITE WARRIOR bullshit, they had very good organisation and large powerful standing armies with again good organisation and in-depth tactical knowledge. They true civilised nation with a civilised army, the vikings or normans would have got shit on, and there's a reason the Spanish didn't go full conquistadores like they did on all their other infiltrated nations..

>the vikings or normans would have got shit on,
Vikings I agree with because most of them were about 5'8 from 800 to 1100 so they wouldn't outsize the Japs that much. The Normans are an entirely class in themselves and were the daredevils of Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. They were the ones who spearheaded the conquest of Muslim Sicily, played a significant part in the early Crusades, and of course, their Conquest of Anglo-Saxon England as well as parts of Ireland.

The Norman heavy cavalry would've given them all sorts of fits. And the Normans were vicious as fuck and would not hesitate to do ethnic cleansing like what they did in the Harrying of the North. It would be interesting to see what a Norman/Japanese mix would turn out like if the 2 groups merged.

>and there's a reason the Spanish didn't go full conquistadores like they did on all their other infiltrated nations..
The Japs weren't Mayans, Incans, or Aztecs. They had access to steel weaponry and armor (despite how inferior their iron supplies were) as well as produced thousands of home-made arquebuses. Not to mention decades upon decades of experience fighting in their civil wars.

The Spanish knew they'd be stretching the limits of their resources if they tried anything with Japan. They had to worry about their own tenuous hold on the Philippines as well as their South American holdings AND fend off against the Portuguese, English, Dutch, and other rivals.

I'd be more impressed with Japan's victory over the attempted Mongol invasions if they actually had a navy to wreck their ships like the Koreans did in Hansan, Myeongnyang, or Noryang. Or even what the Greeks did at Salamis against the full might of the Persians.

How the hell does an island people NOT develop a proper ocean-going navy? The Chinese, Indians, and SE Asians had way better navigation and shipbuilding than Japan did for centuries. The friggin Pacific Islanders of Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia explored the reaches of the Pacific AND Indian Oceans despite having nowhere near the population and structural base that Japan had. It boggles my mind how Japanese who were perfectly poisoned at currents DIDN'T explore and discover North & South America, Siberia, Australia, etc.

They actually did quite well in naval battles during the mongol invasions, but your right, they were insular enough they never really developed a proper navy

Where's the Japanese warhammer? Japanese maces? Japanese awlpike?

Seriously fucking where: I'm very familiar with East Asian weapons and while China and Korea has the above mentioned shit, Japan has nothing. Nothing.
>Kanabo/Tetsubo
Barely even mentioned in history outside of myths and popular legend.

>Japanese maces

There are examples of one handed kanabo,

There were also axes, war hammers,though they were mostly used for sieges, and a variety of hook weapons.for throwing or pulling down men in armor.

They also had a wide variety of small weapons from armored grappling.

As much as any heavily armored warrior many tactics involved knocking the other guy down and finishing him off in closed combat.

Aside from that weapons like naginata and nagimaki are anti armor weapons. They could smash as much as they could cut, and they were used as such.

Because Samurai armor is no where as reinforced or durable as the armor medieval knights, cataphracts, etc..used in mainland Asia or Europe, user.

And you base this on what?

>There are examples of one handed kanabo,
Already stated my opinion on this: it's apocryphal. Your picture is from the Edo period where all sorts of romanticization and pop-culturing of earlier Japanese history happened.
>There were also axes,
Ono wood-axes used in engineering.
>war hammers,though they were mostly used for sieges,
Mallets used in engineering.
>and a variety of hook weapons for throwing or pulling down men in armor.
AFAIK there's that Japanese copy of a Chinese naval weapon called a Scorpion hook. The rest sounds like Ninja shit.

Much that you mentioned really doesn't hold a candle to what there was in Mainland Asia, where the weapons are purpose built to the task as opposed to just tools used in combat in a jiffy.

Your opinion that tesubo are apocryphal holds little weight with me.

axes were used for combat, and they were quite different from a wood cutting axe

>AFAIK there's that Japanese copy of a Chinese naval weapon called a Scorpion hook. The rest sounds like Ninja shit.

Yeah most weapons found on the mainland had a Japanese copy or at least something similar though convergent or divergent evolution.

>where the weapons are purpose built to the task as opposed to just tools used in combat in a jiffy.

That is a pretty inaccurate characterization of Japanese weapons. farming implements make pretty poor weapons unless they are pretty heavily modified, and the only real example of this is the ono and the kama.

Because they're more civilised than all the groups you mentioned

>Your opinion that tesubo are apocryphal holds little weight with me.
I am so sorry your vision of Japan is far from Anime.
>axes were used for combat, and they were quite different from a wood cutting axe
You asked for it.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ono_(weapon)
There is no such thing as a Japanese battle axe. All of them were tools. The one in the picture there looks typical of Zen Buddhist Statuary whose styles came from Buddhist Statues in China.
>Yeah most weapons found on the mainland had a Japanese copy or at least something similar though convergent or divergent evolution.
And they dropped or didn't adopt many of them.
What happened to shields? Dropped. What happened to Crossbows? Dropped.

Meanwhile no accounts of military hammers, axes, and maces, and the only ones in artwork are from the Edo period, which is highly unreliable.
>That is a pretty inaccurate characterization of Japanese weapons.
Am I talking about all Japanese weapons, you weeaboo fuck? No. I'm talking about maces, axes, war picks, war hammers. The Japs didn't have them. Period.

>I am so sorry your vision of Japan is far from Anime.

Im sorry you have no sources to confirm your wide claim to a weapon not or bearly existing

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ono_(weapon)

This article says the opposite

> The weapon version of the ono is described as having "a very large head with a very convex cutting edge and a large scroll-shaped peen opposite it. It has a sheath covering only the edge of the blade. The entire length is nearly six feet"

Frankly a nagimaki or naginata would be better in almost every respect.

The Japanese had most if not all of the weapons you mentioned, though not all of them were common the weapons they were armed with were more than suitable for dealing with armor.

Wasn't the naginata a much, much better weapon than a katana and only got made out to be a 'feminine' weapon because some lord got super booty blasted that his sword skills were invalidated by people with better weapons.

I still don't think the Normans could compete, i know they're good but we're talking about a 12th century medieval army against 17th century Japanese army with flintlocks and superior organisation, against essentially a band of roving mercenaries with dysentery.

>The Japs weren't Mayans, Incans, or Aztecs. They had access to steel weaponry and armor (despite how inferior their iron supplies were) as well as produced thousands of home-made arquebuses. Not to mention decades upon decades of experience fighting in their civil wars.
Yeah that's exactly my point, the Japanese weren't a push over even for Spain.

Aren't cataphracts just knights with shittier armor?

yes are they?

No?

>...all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff-joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skillfully fitted to their heads, that since their entire body was covered with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings opposite the pupil of the eye, or where through the tip of their nose they were able to get a little breath. Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze.

Knights also vastly varied in the quality and type of armor they wore depending on their origins and time period.

Also both ERE/Byzantine and Iranian Cataphracts were trained for single combat. Where is this nonsense they didn't fight in anything other then massed formations and units?

weebs doing that "superior skill" meme again.

byzantine cataphracts fought in tight formation there would be little need for 1v1 training beyond the basics

Uh huh.

they were perhaps the tightest horse formation ever conceived, they were quite literally organized as "legions" having replaced the infantry as the most prestigious job, and they charged as a mass of tightly packed armored horses that literally smashed whatever was in front of them.

They received close quarters training, but not like an infantryman would, and even he was a formation fighter like his brothers on horseback, 1v1 was no doubt taught but clearly not the focus when every aspect of your military is extremely tight and in very strict formations unmatched anywhere on the planet at this point.

Its not that is was a better weapon, it was a better weapon for the battlefield. It was the polearm of choice for most of samurai history but as closed formations became the norm the spear became more popular, and the naginata became the weapon of low ranking rear guard troops, or alternatively high ranking individual warriors who preferred it.

Since naginata were increasingly left back at home it became a weapon women would use to defend when their husband was away, and eventually the weapon was shorted and made lighter for its new role

Cataphracts definitely wore superior armor to Samurai even in the 13th century. They had three layers of armor- padding, maille, and more padding. They may also have a lamellar breastplate in the period. This makes them vulnerable to overheating (probably why knights kicked their asses, less insulation), but melee is a Cataphract's world. Not only is he likely got a lot of mass on him, his armpits are covered by two layers of armor. So no sneaky stabs up into the lungs, meanwhile Samurai rarely had protected armpits for some reason.

That's not the point of contention I was making or responding to. Some user claimed cataphract soldiers were not "trained" for close-quarters combat or one-on-one fighting or even dismounted fighting which are all patently untrue.

>Some user claimed cataphract soldiers were not "trained" for close-quarters combat
That user is retarded considering all Cataphracts did was slowly jog into combat on horseback in heavy armor, then start beating the shit out of people.

>fought against knights and (sometimes) won.

didn't know knights were considered such great warriors...

thought they were just rich blokes with expensive armor

Really depends on the year and the region.

>didn't know knights were considered such great warriors...
Do you even fucking history. Knights were the greatest warrior-caste of Europe during the Middle Ages.

...

Can we add Winged Hussars to the mix?

A Persian cataphract had a fucking iron/steel lance that was so heavy and powerful it was noted by even Roman eyewitnesses to penetrate several heavy armored men like a fucking shish kabob going through meat. I'm pretty certain a Samurai is fucked when it comes to armor and defense.

Depends on the time period. But in general, this one is pretty hard, we don't know how strong japanese bows were, but Archery and horse archery were the main weapons for samurai. Japanese bows could pierce chainmail and perhaps weaker breastplates? So it kinda depends on wheter or not the samurai can shoot him to death before it comes close. He could also aim for the horse, as it would have less armor? Cataphracts
mainly used spears and lances as far as I know, so the Samurai has the range. The cataphract could also be slower than him, due to even the horse using armor I guess.

Odd question, but, assuming most of you majored in history or something similar in college, what texts were you assigned on the Samurai and Asiatic warriors/culture?

Looking for whatever, really. I'm learning Japanese and want to supplement it with learning history and culture

They had blunt weapons and axes. Look up masakari, we know of one warrior who used axes as his main weapon, it was referenced in the Taiheiki, Akamatsu something . one handed studded clubs also existed. It just wasn't as widespread, as you could shit out spears for ashigaru easily.
As for the Tetsubo/kanabo, whatever, it was used, even has martial arts schools for it, not to mention it appears in many statues, mainly as a weapon for demons. Stop being a contrarian who tries to make the nips into some savage yellow monkeys. The reason for the lack of distinct armor piercing weapons is because japanese armor didn't need piercing, like european armor. Also, they got guns later on, so fuck your armor
Stephen Turnbull. Guy is a giant weeb, but he's on point when it comes to Samurai and japanese warfare. I'd recommend Samurai: The Story of Japan's noble Warriors, it covers most stuff, but look up his shit and decide on your own.

>Look up masakari
Ono (斧?) (masa-kari)[1] is the Japanese word for an "axe" or a "hatchet", and is used to describe various tools of similar structure. As with axes in other cultures, ono are sometimes employed as weapons. Many existing examples of this particular weapon are associated with the sōhei or yamabushi[1] (warrior monks), who also adapt other agricultural tools as weapons although samurai are also pictured as using ono in wood block prints. Ono that were specifically designed for military use are of extreme rarity. The weapon version of the ono is described as having "a very large head with a very convex cutting edge and a large scroll-shaped peen opposite it. It has a sheath covering only the edge of the blade. The entire length is nearly six feet" (stone,475).

Does not look like samurai used them since the only evidence for it is art. Ontop of that it was rarely used as a weapon and commonly by monks. Axes would be far more common among western soldiers. The same thing with the bludgeons.
But I guess when your primary opponents do not have armor you don't need those weapons.
So what point are you trying to make here other then samurai did not use them?

>wikipedia is a reliable source for historic information
>contemporary artwork is not a reliable source

are you 12, or a high school student?
Basic rule of thumb: If the chinese knew about it, and used it before Sekigahara, chances are, japanese knew about it and used it aswell.

True, axes weren't considered samurai weapons, but do you seriously think that within millions of samurai, not one even picked up an axe that was made specifically for battle?
I'll also help you out, have a great book on historical weapons:
A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times - George Cameron Stone

Then how about you actually cite your source.

I literally did that you fucking retard, it's called a book

>cite source
>no page, no information on what it says
So in otherwords Wikipedia is more reliable then you because they can usually cite a source properly.

>spoonfeed me, I am 12
Fine
bfy(.)tw(/)BH4W

Wikipedia isn't reliable on historical articles because it's shit up by the likes of you

So you are just lieing about an incredibly old book, good to know your only source is your ass.

>lieing
Is this bait?

I literally gave you the source 3 fucking times.
It's [current year], you can google this shit. The book is even on google books. The book itself is a fucking glossery, it's sorted by fucking LETTERS.
A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times - George Cameron Stone
Page 83, 239

>we don't know how strong japanese bows were
Jap bows were woefully inferior to continental ones. Especially composite bows which is what cataphracts would use.

Well obviously samurai and ashigaru armed with 16th century arquebuses and tactical doctrine would defeat 12th century Normans. I was making the analogy if they were in the same period.

Put a 12th century Norman army at the time of the Gempei War, you'd probably see a French-speaking dynasty overtake Japan.

"monks" in Japan often had their own small armies. Even small groups of ascetics like the yamabushi were known for training in a variety of weapons and were generally considered on par with samurai in single combat.

even low level foot soldiers had basic armor. and not armor you could just cut through.
you had to bludgeon the person wearing it or pierce a weak point, just like most armors in China and Korea

>Aren't cataphracts just knights with shittier armor?
The only time knights had better armor than cataphracts was when the knights finally had plate.

Prior to that, many cataphracts outstripped knights in Armor. Many times these people put lamellar/scales ON TOP of their Chainmail. And Muslims were absolutely in love with plated mail. Meanwhile for the longest time, Western Knights only had mail.

Consider the fact that Cataphracts also armored their horses while for the longest time, knights can only put heralding coats on their horses

"Battle axes (masakari) were a common weapon in the fourteenth century....their use fell from favour in later centuries as spears and pikes because more effective battlefield weapons"

Conlan, Thomas, "Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai Warrior 1200-1877 AD"

became not because, I messed up

Unlike muslims, Knights used akertons and gambesons. They had more armor, better armor, than the muslims.

Everyone who used mail has some sort of protective padding underneath, git gud.

That's not padding, and that's not over it as well. 13th century Knights wore an akerton (thin padding), and a gambeson over their maille.

brah,there's so many instances of Knights BTFOing numerically superior muslim army

They weren't organized in legions. Ever.

They also fought as skirmishers like every other cavalryman when not in a pitched battle. Armor, as fate would have it, can be removed when not required, and your best cavalrymen tend to be the best in single combat.

>BUT MUH CHARGES
And the catahpracts found that the knights were BETTER at mounting a high speed, close order charge than them. They adopted the tactic of charges with couched lances.

Knights, in reality, trained primarily to operate in very close groups. Lone horsemen are dead horsemen, especially against infantry.

This. Cataphracts attacked at the fucking trot, often with archers in the wedge with them.
Please, provide proof that the majority of knights in the 1200s had a textile over armor.

youtu.be/n8j1wT81KlI

>implying any of them bar the Roman/Byzantine ones matter

>And the catahpracts found that the knights were BETTER at mounting a high speed, close order charge than them. They adopted the tactic of charges with couched lances.
People often forget that Knights up until the "modern" era were NOT heavy cavalry when compared with the old Roman Cataphract tradition, they were shock cavalry. They operated by ramming your formations with a couched lance charge and then would either run down a broken unit or retreat and regroup. Their horses were rarely barded with metal, and typically only had some kind of gambesoned covering to protect against missiles and cuts.

Meanwhile Cataphracts covered everything in metal and multiple layers of padding. If anything, knights crushed them in combat not because of lances (those only kill horses or concuss/unhorse riders anyway, even maille can stop a couched lance from the same period), but because of heat exhaustion. I'd much rather have a lightly armored horse and wear an akerton with a layer of maille over it and a surcoat than have an akerton, maille, and a full gambeson AND possibly lamellar as well. And have my horse fully barded. I know from experience that will fucking cook you in the heat.

Did you forget that the Renault heavy tank lost to German armored division?

...

how can Nip horslets even compete?

...

Chinese heavy cavalry was conquered by Mongolian light cavalry.
It is the same for Western Asia and Europe.

There were no fighter planes that could win the zero fighter at Dogfight.

>Chinese heavy cavalry was conquered by Mongolian light cavalry.
It is the same for Western Asia and Europe.

Mongolian Light cavalry tend to avoid Heavy cavalry, they weren't fighting them CQC,

You're not gonna kite down a fucking cataphract.

Heavy cavalry was dull and could not respond to Mongol's mobile tactics.
The result is defeated

It is the same as the Maginot line can not move

>Heavy cavalry was dull and could not respond to >Mongol's mobile tactics.

That seems irrelevant in a duel unless the Samurai tries to kite rather than just straight up fighting the Cataphract.

Mongolian soldiers also avoided the samurai cavalry.
However, the samurai drived the enemy because they were agile.