Which ancient warrior would win in a 1v1 duel to the death? A 16th century knight or a Samurai from the same period...

Samurai were switching to full plated armor by 16th century. So quality of the material would probably be equal, however Samurai armors have bit of gaps that can be exploited. If they "cheaped" out on the armor, they could instead be carrying heavier iron plates version instead of bit lighter plate. If we're going by the OP's picture, the knight's armor near the groin area looks like freeshot. This could easily offset the samurai's gaps within armor.

Now as for the battle itself. With both heavily armored, the Samurai would make a strike at the knight's groin and hope for a fast disabling strike. Knight may or may not counter that. If he counters/meets the katanah with his sword, the samurai might be fucked.

Alternatively, the knight might try for first strike, however the samurai might go for counter with a fast strike to the groin once more.

One sword vs sword, Katana isn't meant for fighting against it. Its not even meant to fight against plate armor or iron armor. Instead, the katana is meant for cutting flesh and it does a pretty good job with little very force due to its sharpness. Meanwhile the longsword/bastard sword is more of a armor damager/hitter type of weapon. It can cut but has to be much applied more initial force.

Ultimately, I think the winner would be the knight simply because its area of target is bigger than samurai's groin strike.

>Samurai were switching to full plated armor by 16th century.
Laminar Armor/some bits of plate armor =/= Full Plate.

Relative to Euronigger Full Plate, Nip Armor had plenty of fucking soft spots.

>wears armet together with gothic armour

The knight probably, don't know that much about samurai but katana don't seem to be made for precise stabs which are needed for european armor.

For an armor using civilization, Japs seem to have not that much anti-armor weapons.

Which is weird, considering that Mainland Asian Neighbors had maces, flails, halberds, battle axes, and war picks.

>Seiba vs Assassin

>So quality of the material would probably be equal,
No.

Ah, another gentlemanly aficionado of the noble groin stab.

If it's katana v longsword, then the knight would win yes. I don't really understand what you mean when saying "armor damager/hitter type of weapon". You would never bash the blade against the armour if that's what you're thinking. It's either using the sword as a hammer, or preferably half-swording, which is what the manuals mostly recomend

Edge to the knight, better armour that resists chopping blades like the katana and also the late medieval knight would probably have a weapon with longer reach.

Not having any idea how to fight with heavy armoured opponents is a big no-no. The only chance for samurai to win, is to wrestle knight down, Considering, that Europeans were higher and bulkier, even this would be difficult.

>European armors are [heavier] and bulkier
>Samurai armor is light weight
kek Those 16th century full armors weigh just as much if not more than the typical plate armors knights wear.

He said Europeans were heavier and bulkier, not that their armor was.

>Not having any idea how to fight with heavy armoured opponents is a big no-no
So this is meant for the knights? Europeans knights don't know how to fight heavy armored?

Samurai and Knights generally would have had similar skillsets...only that samurai (in some periods) could shoot a bow. Most samurai were not supreme martial artists.

He's saying a fight between 2 heavily armored men would usually require grappling...he's asserting Europeans would be larger/taller and therefore more suited to an armored grapple.

In regards to skill levels, during the russo-japanese war japanese officers and russian aristocrats go engaged in sabre duels quite often, and it tended to go both ways, so I would say they're probably about equal in skill.

>being illiterate
Go away

>be retard
>call other illiterate

So the sentence is useless? Since both are "heavy armored" and both know how to fight other heavy armored opponents.

Unless ofcourse the assumption is, samurai is a light weight and can't fight heavy european knight or european lightweight knight can't fight heavy armored samurai.

>all this nuance doesn't matter
It does when you're arguing on the wrong end.

Pretty sure a heavily armored zweihander user would just blow away any katana/nodachi in its way and hack deep through the more primitive armor.

Were there even armored knights in the 16th century? When I think of 16th century, I usually don't think of someone wearing full plate.

There are ceremonial ones.

Also by the 17th century, the war-driven samurai class were made obsolete as they transitioned towards a more statesman/state guard/military than war-general type. Mid 16th century samurais were also in the transition to being obsoleted by the mass production of firearms(japanese were producing more firearms than the entire european firearms combined).

You're either completely retarded, or deliberately misunderstanding every post directed at you. So just kill yourself already.

Yes they were, but they eventually ditched the lance for pistols during said century. They faded away in the 17th century in the form of the fully armored horsemen, yet heavy cavalry kept on being used until the 19th century.

In fact, plate armor was at its peak in the 16th century...

The stereotypical "medieval" knights you see in fantasy and vidya are often based on 16th century mounted warriors. They used armets and burgonets in that period and were often armed with pistols.
You might say they weren't "full" plate because they were starting to give up using metal protection on the legs and simply using leather armors, but this type of armored warrior existed all to way to the 1650s.

They had axes and bashing weapons, they simply were not preserved as martial arts, so they were mostly forgotten.

They had war picks and naginata, and those were heavily used. Naginata and nagimaki were cutting weapons first, but they were also built to smash.

Samurai wore plate over chain and leather, I mention this since apparently you guys don't know anything about their armor, they also primarily used bows and spears as weaponry, the sword focus came later on when the country was relatively at peace and you had a bunch of now no longer needed soldiers just hanging out with nothing to do so they started bragging about their sword skills and shit
I also saw someone mention grappling and the knight having an edge there so I have to ask, where do you think jiu-jitsu came from

The sword focus came latter, they knew how to use them as well as any other weapon they carried.

My point is that for the era specified a sword wasn't a samurais primary arm

The advantage mentioned was not about skill. It was that Europeans historically were, on average, physically larger than Japanese.

The samurai's sword would cut the puny knight's armor like butter. Also, with his superior mobility, that tin can wouldn't even be able to lift his sword before his demise.

Because jiu-jitsu doesnt have anyway to take down someone larger than you while grappling
You can look that stuff up on youtube man

Sword wrestling > jiu-jitsu

But... yawara IS sword wrestling!

Look bub, size is still an advantage. It's not insurmountable, but it helps.

>muh size
>here's this whole style about taking it to the ground and negating it with centuries of use and development that also one of the most popular sports in the world right now
>but muh size
Spoken like a true burger

You do realize that Europeans had martial arts based on grappling too, right?

Jiu Jitsu tournaments still have weight classes.

So now there are ropes to irish whip the guy against?
>a sports promotion is the same thing as a battlefield
You aren't helping your case

Yeah no jujutsu guy denies size is an advantage, you can make up for size with luck or greater skill, of course

Look up Fiore Both Europe and Japan had systems of weapon based grappling at the time. Those were vital skills for any professional warrior.

easily the knight, japanese does not have the armor, arms or quality steel to match the knight

But it did. The Thun'sche sketchbook shows multiple late gothic armors with armets.
Pic related is likely composite and heavily restored but I don't see how this setup couldn't work.

even later, the fully armored reiter made up the bulk of the Holy League cavalry in the Great Turkish war.

...

that's nice but how the fuck is it relevant at all

-> was my post, so I will explain.
>>European armors are [heavier] and bulkier
Europeans as humans are HIGHER and bulkier.
>>Samurai armor is light weight
You just made that up, as I didn't point that out.
>So this is meant for the knights? Europeans knights don't know how to fight heavy armored?
And my post:
>The only chance for samurai to win(...)
What could I mean by that?
>Since both are "heavy armored" and both know how to fight other heavy armored opponents.
Not by "my" standards. Not only samurai wouldn't have any experience in facing full plate armour, they also wouldn't have any equipment to deal with it. It doesn't work the other way around, so knight would have a big advantage.

>Which ancient warrior would win in a 1v1 duel to the death?
aztec warrioir
+10 against infantry and very cost effective

>Hey, how Diego died?
>He shitted himself to dea...
>No no no don't listen to him. Well you see, we fought with real demons, capable of slashing both Diego and his horse in half with just one strike!
Also, knight is cavalry unit, and your shitty bonus is useless against it.

>unironically mentioning swords

Was this just some quality shit posting? If they were at their apex armour then the knights pole arms have an advantage of the Yari and Naginata.

*blocks your path*

>teutonic knight
>cavalry unit
do u even fast castle

Samurai shoots the knight with a gun/longbow.

>Assume they're about equal in skill and experience
so you're asking who has better armor/weapons?
Knights, easily.
>Samurai plate
Source m8?
You aren't talking about leather are you?
Japan is not a resource rich land.
The Samurai would have used a spear, bushido, bow, and katana.
None of those could break the knight's armor.
The Knight would have used a sword, shield, dagger, lance, all of which could pierce the samurai armor.

>16th century knight

>The Samurai would have used a spear, bushido, bow, and katana.
>bushido
What, may I ask, do you think bushido is?

>what is context?

Your post looks like shitty bait or genuine lack of knowledge on either of the two professions.

>The Samurai would have used a spear, bushido, bow, and katana.
None of those could break the knight's armor.
The Knight would have used a sword, shield, dagger, lance, all of which could pierce the samurai armor.

If you think a sword or a dagger can pierce a silk backed mirror plate or riveted cuirlasses you are dead wrong.

>guns
Where do you think the nips got their guns from in the first place?

>longbow
Do you expect that a bow would do anything against 16th century armour?

>Where do you think the nips got their guns from in the first place?
Doesn't matter. Samurai adapted and loved their gunz, and took great care to make sure that they had better guns than the shitty ones used by peasants and ashigaru.

Knight didn't and got their asses rekt.

There's no such thing as a good sword against steel armour, that's why rondels were invented you brainlet

Even though they wore full plate, calling 16th century gendarmes and pistoliers "knights" may be a bit of a stretch. They were European heavy cavalry, but knight they were not.

Again, reiter were not knights, they were merc cavalry. What part of OP's question you don't understand?

You realize samurai had steel plate in their armor?

The green text was cut short.

>The Samurai would have used a spear, bushido, bow, and katana. None of those could break the knight's armor. The Knight would have used a sword, shield, dagger, lance, all of which could pierce the samurai armor.

Why do you many of you fags think they would straight up sword fight? You arent that stupid are you? They would probably end up wrestling

>The samurai would win because he's probably a better swordsman
when will this meme end?

>Why do you many of you fags think they would straight up sword fight? You arent that stupid are you? They would probably end up wrestling
No. The fight will probably play out like this: A guy with gun (samurai) shoots the other guy without gun (knight). If he hit, end of the story.

How ironic considering it was the Europeans that introduced the matchlock to the Japanese, but it is hardly the samurai's fault that his opponent bring a sword/lance/mace/axe to a gun fight.

They both shoot at each other with their guns. The knight wins because his armor provides better protection against firearms.

Samurais are the most overhyped characters in all of fucking history, they were confined to a miniscule island which barely any trustworthy records exist up until about 1600, and they got their shit kicked in by Dutch sailors immediately after contact. European knights were trained for decades into knighthood, only weebs and yoga jews say samurai.

>European knights were trained for decades into knighthood
But the samurai knew how to use a bushido!

More seriously, europeans knew about Japan since at least the 13th century and had made quite long if flawed records as soon as the 1570's. Nitpicking with the dates but still...

"Knights" doesn't describe a way of fighting, it's a societal title so basically, when you say, who would win a fight between a knight and X, "knight" is devoted of meaning because it doesn't indicate a precise type of warrior, they could be on foot, on horse, use sword and shield, or polearms or pistols, etc...
If we recognize that the typical knight was a heavy horseman, then what matters is this. A gendarme isn't a "knight" but he fights like one, his non-nobility is overall irrelevant to his fighting ability, so in that regards, it's all the same.
The fact is shock full plate heavy cavalry was still in use in the late 16th century, noblemen or not.

>shows multiple late gothic armors with armets
When does it? The closest thing I can see are sallets that sort of look like armets. And armets paired with non gothic armour.
The combo most likely did not occur for the same reason E.G. the english never used gothic plate. They had developed their own distinctive style and stuck to it. Before the 15th century there were less suck distincions, but when full plate came around people pretty much never deviate from the norm. This is why you have people like Matt Easton and Ian LaSpina being all fanatical about very small things such as construction of the arm protection on english 14th century armour

>The samurai would win because he's probably a better swordsman.
based on what exactly?

>16th century

First one to pull out a gun

The samurai tested the qualities of armour by firing multiple musket balls. Yuros also introduced "nanban" (literally southern barbarian) armour and those were qualities Iberian cuirasses capable of glancing straight musket fire.

First one to pull out the bigger gun then!

Knight.
Japanese steel was dogshit. If you tried to strike an european sword with japanese katana it would literally bend due to difference of quality of materials.

Source for that testing (samurai one).
>firing multiple musket balls
Considering how powerful are muskets, and even best European bulletproof breastplates had big problems with them on small distances, I call bullshit. Some kind of matchlock pistols? Sure.

Agreed. For the most part, that equally applies to samurai.

However, someone "fights like a knight" will be limited to perform the role of "fully armored mounted shock lancer" or 'dismounted superheavy infantry" and nothing else.

OTOH, someone "fights like a samurai" can include "armored horse archer", "armored cavalry", "foot archer", "heavy infantry", "pistolier", "musketeer", and "dragoon" - usually, it is "most/all of the above".

The battlefield role of a samurai was simply too versatile for the "knight" to handle, plus the inclusion of musketeer as their standard role gives them overwhelming advantage.

(There were probably some European nobilities/someone considered a "knight" socially, yet fought as musketeers or dragoons, but these people discarded most of the knightly armors to perform said roles, while samurai did all of the above in his full gear)

>First one to pull out the bigger gun then!
Oh bigger gun?

>The bigger "gun"

>"gun"
Samurai lose then. No contest.

>Ancient

The 16th century is early modern era

Are arquebuses muskets?

How do we know what size their "guns" were?

They were musketeer only for a very short amount of time, less than 30 years. It only happened because there wasn't much firearms, so it was logical to hand them to the most adept warriors. As soon as guns were fairly widespread, the samurai largely stopped using them and the ashigaru were used as musketeer instead, because the samurai's skill were better used for close combat or horsemanship.
The samurai as musketeer on the battle lasted only something like 15-20 years.

Also, each samurai would most largely stayed in one role, the class in itself could be represented by various type of soldiers, but each samurai wasn't an "armored horse archer" and/or "pistolier", and/or "heavy infantry", most of the time, they had one role they were very good at and they certainly could touch at other things, but they were still each of them, specialists.
Same thing with the knight, most likely every knight even low-status ones could shoot with a bow, fight with spear, shield and sword, ride a horse, they were just as versatile skills wise, just not very employed as anything else than heavy shock troops because since they got the dosh to spare, better have them in front with the heavier armors.

brobible.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/penis-size3.jpg?quality=90&w=650

So you are comparing
>only my vision of knight of explicit time period and others do not count
to
>battlefield role of a samurai on the span of 1 thousand years.

drive.google.com/file/d/0B3TKJtsOaACaOXJ3REN4RTNyMjA/view

Samurai continued to serve as musketeer after firearm became widespread, they simply switched their role into that of a musketeer captain, but they'd still shoot together with their ashigaru subordinate while wearing samurai gear.

Sure, individual samurai specialize, but you'd find samurai performing every imaginable role on a Japanese battlefield (including messenger!) even during the height of their era, while knights were largely limited to "shock troop".