Who would win Knight vs Samurai?

I would like to point out, this man is an University professor in Italy who has been granted the right to visit the Vatican Secret Archives so he could study the texts there, so I'd give his research more value than your average youtuber reading shit off wikipedia in front of a camera.

That is just butted mail with overlinks, wtf are you talking about lol?

Not this thread AGAIN.
Haven't we been over this so many times now?

If it's like 15th century warriors, the knight has better armour and arguably a sword that is better against armour, but it only makes a small marginal difference since individual skill, and just the pure randomness of a fight will play a much larger role

>knight has better armour and arguably a sword that is better against armour, but it only makes a small marginal difference since individual skill, and just the pure randomness of a fight will play a much larger role
Challenger 2 has better armour and arguably gun[compared to Renault FT-17], but it only makes a small marginal difference, since commander's skill, and just the pure randomness of a fight will play a much larger role

From what period? Its a very different question if we're pairing up say a 12th century Norman knight from Sicily, which was the period when knights were at their peak of military import vs a 16th century samurai from the late Sengoku period when they had guns.

Medieval knights existed as a fighting force for over 1000 years, you could even go back further as arguably Roman Equites were knights as well.

Samurai spanned an equally long and diverse history with many developments in their role in society and what kind of arms they could have carried.

well the knight would be on a horse, so that would hardly matter

>3619821
Samurai came into play later than knights and went out later as well.

If you pit them at their height, the samurai would win because he has firearms and the knight does not.

Comparing non-historically aligned shit makes no sense. "Who would win Iowa vs Arleigh Burke?"
No matter how powerful Iowa may be, Arligh Burke comes from an era that came after battleships had been made obsolete in naval engagements. Likewise, Samurai come from an era when people dropped armor because firearms made it useless.

Have a SAGE like you deserve..

it's impossible for samurai to beat knights, if you're talking the 1200-1400s then there'd be a chance for the samurai but by 1500s the combat style of samurais was way behind europe and their equipment as well.

and to get an idea of comparison, here's a drawing of 2 knights and a common soldier from the first crusade

the drawing is from "Zur Geschichte der Kostüme" a German book of historical drawings from 1861 that was extensively researched

The suit of plate armor really didn't come into the picture until the 15th century, the twilight of the medieval period. It was developed as part of efforts by armorsmiths to find a solution to the devastating advances in mounted warfare which saw the development of the couched lance, and was the culmination of centuries of advances in smithing techniques.

And? If you compare 11thC with 11thC samurai, knights would still have nice advantage. Most of the time it works the other way, as comparing 11thC knight with 18thC samurai.

>If you compare 11thC with 11thC samurai, knights would still have nice advantage.
in what way

Riveted mail and shield.

what kind of armor would an 11thc samurai have?

-->

chainmail is a lot more mobile and protective then the armor that samurai wore at the time.
Also a samurai's sword and bow where inferior

only late period samurai armour was lighter then typical knight armour. Earlier "box" designs of samurai armor were heavier

Japanese did use butted maile, but it was a little different and more reliable than what you're probably thinking off.

In any case the point of the naginata was not to cut through maile, it had a pretty heavy blade on it that could smash, though of course the goal was to cut through horse legs or get into the gaps of the armor.

That is all debatable, while the armor has gaps it was harder to pierce, and both the yumi and the tachi were good weapons for armored combat.

I'm not saying the Yumi and Tachi wheren't good weapons, they where just of inferior quality.
The draw weight of a yumi is a lot lower then that of a viking short bow.
And a Tachi of that era is made of unfolded iron. Japanese iron is of debatble quality (this is the whole reason the folded 1000 times memes) while a norman sword was based on a bloom steel ulfbert which was far stronger.

Norman chain mail at the times was considered impervious to the point that passages in the Alexiad tell to aim arrows at the horses as aiming for men in chain was a waste.

Objectively knights had superior equipement, that doesn't guarantee a win ofcourse.

The samurai has a gun.

so did the cuirassier or dragoon, your point being.

The samurai sword is made from steel folded over 9000 times, as such was the keenest blade known to man. The samurai were trained not only in the finest sword techniques but could also harness their ki making them fast enough to sprint and leap in full armor with ease, they could casually deflect arrows from multiple archers, and they never tired or felt pain while focusing ki. The samurai's iajutsu technique could bisect a fully armored knight on horseback.

>the combat style of samurais was way behind europe and their equipment as well
Why do people who have absolutely no idea what they are talking about insist on wasting people's time with their vapid nonsense? Medieval Japanese swordsmiths were pretty much the only pre-modern swordsmiths who actually had fine grained control over the hardness and microstructure of the steel in the different portions of their blades thanks to their development of painted on clay coatings combined with water quenching. At the time they would have been the only swordsmiths on the planet who actually DID have fine grained control over hardening and thus did not design their swords to work around "too high carbon" in their steel, and did not have to leave the edges "too thick". They were deliberately hardening their cutting edges to ~60 HRC, it wasn't accidental! If they'd wanted a softer cutting edge they would have been perfectly capable of achieving that result.

Also the geometry of a katana is fairly close to ideal for a two handed slashing weapon meant to cleave limbs off (meaning it had to go through bone). Modern large chopping knives meant to chop through 2x4s and the like often have similar geometries (and differential hardening) for the same reasons that Katanas did.

Whereas in Europe even the famous "Ulfbehrt" blades were both grossly underhardened overall and inconsistently hardened. Even the advantage of crucible steel could not save them from the relatively rudimentary heat treatments being used by Viking swordsmiths. Japanese swordsmiths, on the other hand, could have very fine grained control over the hardening response of their blades in the quench by controlling the temperature to which the blade was heated prior to quenching and the thickness of the clay coating applied (which would affect both the speed and the depth of the quench).

That's it. I'm sick of all this "Masterwork Bastard Sword" bullshit that's going on in the d20 system right now. Katanas deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine katana in Japan for 2,400,000 Yen (that's about $20,000) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even cut slabs of solid steel with my katana.

Japanese smiths spend years working on a single katana and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest blades known to mankind.

Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a longsword can cut through, a katana can cut through better. I'm pretty sure a katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.

Ever wonder why medieval Europe never bothered conquering Japan? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Samurai and their katanas of destruction. Even in World War II, American soldiers targeted the men with the katanas first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Katanas are simply the best sword that the world has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the d20 system. Here is the stat block I propose for Katanas:

(One-Handed Exotic Weapon)
1d12 Damage
19-20 x4 Crit
+2 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

(Two-Handed Exotic Weapon)
2d10 Damage
17-20 x4 Crit
+5 to hit and damage
Counts as Masterwork

Now that seems a lot more representative of the cutting power of Katanas in real life, don't you think?

tl;dr = Katanas need to do more damage in d20, see my new stat block.

Well both those things were untrue. The tachi was always made of refined steel even in its earliest forms and by the 11th century was pretty much completely developed. I would like a source on the unfolded claim'

Japanese iron sand is poor, but Japanese steel does not have those same problems

I assume for the yumi you're working off modern numbers but the draw weight of the modern yumi does not reflect historical pieces, which were somewhere between 80 and 140 pounds.

>Depends on the individuals, I'd like to say your average Knight was more highly trained
It would depends on the individuals then. Some samurai were trained since they were little kids, like 5-6 years old; even now, some sword masters were "abducted" by the familial heir of the sword style and trained since they were old enough to walk and lift a shinai.

Sure, you could find less than optimal samurai, but they were a warrior class, just like the knights, trained in a large variety of activities, both directly martial or related to it (like hunting and riding for instance). There's no reason to believe that one was better trained than the other in general.

I dont know what you mean by "abducted" sure there are martial arts schools who train their heir from childhood, and families that make their kids train martial arts but abduction?

> the samurai would win because he has firearms and the knight does not.

You do realize knights had access to guns over a century before the samurai?

> The suit of plate armor really didn't come into the picture until the 15th century

Mid to late 14th century already had widespread plate armor.

> Medieval Japanese swordsmiths were pretty much the only pre-modern swordsmiths who actually had fine grained control over the hardness and microstructure of the steel in the different portions of their blades

Source?

> At the time they would have been the only swordsmiths on the planet who actually DID have fine grained control over hardening and thus did not design their swords to work around "too high carbon" in their steel, and did not have to leave the edges "too thick".

Source on anyone having to do this?

Nearly all swords on Earth at any period were cutting sharp.

> They were deliberately hardening their cutting edges to ~60 HRC, it wasn't accidental!

Yeah, they had higher edge hardness but were still forced to do what you are explaining because they failed to develop blast furnaces, unlike China, India and later Europe.

> Also the geometry of a katana is fairly close to ideal for a two handed slashing weapon meant to cleave limbs off

It is very good, but so are other swords.

But the issue is that such a design is bad for basically anything else, while a longswords can also chop and cleave as well as cut.

> Whereas in Europe even the famous "Ulfbehrt" blades were both grossly underhardened overall and inconsistently hardened.

Not the case.

Also, why are you comparing viking swords lol?

myarmoury.com/feature_bladehardness.html

tameshigiri.ca/2014/01/21/razor-edged-3-comparing-metallurgy/

Already settled

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles

And yet their overall product was still inferior, thats impressive. Japanese metallurgy has always been inferior to the Wests. Yes they came up with novel ways to compensate but that never brought them past their competition.

They really were not in competition with the west until the modern era. They were in some ways in completion with other Asian powers, were they were respected.

Heck even westerners traveling in Asia generally considered Japanese not worth messing with.

That isn't to say that knights did not have some notable advantages in a fantasy match up, just that these lop sided power fantasies on both sides are not very historical.

Cataphract

Byzanbros be pullin' the weight so I don't have to

Here's a (You)

I don't know, but I like the fact that eight years on, this is the only thing that anyone remembers from this show.

>Samurai came into play later than knights and went out later as well.
No. What we'd call a Knight only really came into existence in the 11th Century at the very earliest, while Samurai have been around since the 9th Century.

Straight swords can't cut. European swords were blunt

> knight would be on a horse but the samurai wouldn't
Are you retarded?

The samurai has secret swordsmanship techniques such as "battou-jutsu" where the sword is drawn with such speed that it creates a vacuum that shreds the knight apart. The knight has no chance in hell.

Not him, but are YOU retarded? Learn to read.

...

No.

The knight.
A full plate harness is as agile as any man.
A katana won't dent it.
Samurai armor is slightly less protective.
A knight has a heavy polearm.
Samurais have slightly lighter polearms that won't have enough weight to knock a man.
A samurai bow won't get through plate.

Food for thought: Samurais didn't go to battle armed with katanas and knights did not go to battle armed with arming swords.
Neither could cut each other's armour either way.

Well they would carry both a sword and a polearm.
and both sides had heavy, anti-armor weapons.

the knight wins because the samurai's sword breaks, either when parrying a strike from the knight's sword, or when striking the knight's armor

the japanese were just woefully behind when it comes to metallurgy. Why do you think they had to fold their steel a bazillion times?

See

Both of these are gross exaggerations of the state of metallurgy in Japan and Europe

What anti-armour melee weapons did the samurai have access to?

Knight
He has an actual armor and he's carrying a shield
Samurai would just wave his katana like a retard until he's overpowered

>ideal for slashing

translation: It was a large club that could sorta cleave shit off you

>only people who had control over the micro structure

translation: what is Gallic? And is it a new sushi i've never heard of?

There were naginata and nagimaki, which don't seem like antiarmor weapons at first glance but they were made to be sturdy enough to used as smashing weapons.

there were also tetsubo: iron or riveted wooden clubs, kumade, which were hooked polearms used for navel fights or pulling armored warriors off horses, so they could be quickly killed on the ground.

Less well known were battle axes, which kind of fell out of favor with the advent of massed infantry, but were certainly used by foot soldiers in pre sengoku times. There were also some one handed clubs.

And Finally there were yoroi doshi which were just daggers for armored grappling.

> There were naginata and nagimaki,

> there were also tetsubo: iron or riveted wooden clubs, kumade

There were shields though.

Yeah, there were. but he asked about what anti armor weapons the Japanese had access to.

Personally I would hate to be blocking a pole arm with a buckler. Its totally possible but you catch at the wrong angle could mess up your arm real quick.

Don't forget about the yari itself. It makes for a very functional anti-armor weapon. The point was used to target gaps and weak points in the armor.

In addition, the triangular or diamond cross section is an armor-piercing design. Many yari were essentially reinforced spikes.

The one with the better steel, which is the knight 100% of the time

The Knight would likely win due to his superior armor that covers his entire body.

When comparing Japanese armies to European armies, though, the Japanese would likely win:
>Better arquebuses
>More arquebuses (Post-1543 Japan manufactured more guns than any other country on earth at that time)
>Larger recruiting pools and more efficient conscription/recruiting systems
>Mass-produced armor for even lowly musketeers and other levies

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles

Yes, a professional Spanish fleet against Woku (Who also are Chinese and Korean) pirates armed mostly with swords. You proved it.

>Better arquebuses
Ah the famous Japan alien technology, which makes everything they craft superior to other works.

>Japanese feudal armies would beat European armies

*breathes in* HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAAHHAAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAHHAHAAHAAAAAAA

holy fuck please die weeb pleb

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

Really makes you think.
Also reminder that the US lost every battle before midway.

>3625337
>Ah the famous Japan alien technology, which makes everything they craft superior to other works.

The Japanese, in a very short period of time, developed:
-Technology to fire matchlocks in the rain
-Technology to fire matchlocks at night
-Greater firearms production and usage
But go ahead and continue to ignore facts because muh Europe

An FT-17 literally cannot penetrate the Challenger II's top roof armour.

No, you are just delusional and don't want to think about other side(European), listing just some nice thing going for Japanese. Guess what, muh Europe laso improved guns, with muskets being capable of piercing even bullet-proofed breastplates at short distances. Armours, with quality far superior than Japanese ones. And there were advances with gunpowder too.
>Mass-produced armor for even lowly musketeers and other levies
Mass produced armour was a thing in Europe too, with munition breastplates being even able to protect from arquebuses. Japanese did it too, but it was reserved for richer samurai, not poor fucking ashigaru with their poor excuses of the armours.
>Larger recruiting pools
Number superiority means jack shit, when it's confronted with better technology and experience, which comes to..
European armies at that time were far more experienced when fighting with guns. There were shitload of wars, and everyone used firearms. How about Japenese? Their muh most arqebuses army failed in invading Korea, and that's it.
>More arquebuses
So how many Japanese soldiers were equpped at the end of 16thC with firearms? How many cannons they had? Because you know, at that time European armies would have easily over 1 firearm per soldier in army.

>Armours, with quality far superior than Japanese ones. And there were advances with gunpowder too.
The reason I can list specific advances rather than vagueries is because European firearms only outpaced Japanese ones in the late 17th century.
>Japanese did it too, but it was reserved for richer samurai, not poor fucking ashigaru with their poor excuses of the armours.
Okegawa-do (Which in certain instances were bullet-tested) were originally the armors of ashigaru and retainers, since they were easier to produce. Not only were these new armors more protective but they were easier to produce, which is why most munition armors you find during the Sengoku period were partial plate.
>Number superiority means jack shit, when it's confronted with better technology and experience, which comes to..
TIL larger armies with more firearms make no difference.
>Their muh most arqebuses army failed in invading Korea, and that's it.
They lost because of their shit navy. I don't idolize Sengoku armies just because muh Japan, I recognize that they had one of the most advanced land armies of the time... and a rather pitiful and simple naval force.

Depends what time period. 15th/16th century knights would easily win considering they stopped using swords and even started half swording because it was more effective than cutting.

what do japs think about weebs

Samurai

>More arquebuses (Post-1543 Japan manufactured more guns than any other country on earth at that time)
This is complete nonsense.
greatmingmilitary.blogspot.com/2017/01/random-mythbusting-part-2.html

what the fuck has the 20th century have to do with anything in this thread?
By the mid 18th century the rest of the world(Africa and Asia) was catching up to Europe because Europe was sharing her technological innovations with the world in exchange for lands, trade or straight up annexation.

>The reason I can list specific advances rather than vagueries is because European firearms only outpaced Japanese ones in the late 17th century.
So you should be able to name those advancements, which made European guns better by 17thC?
>TIL larger armies with more firearms make no difference.
>more
That's your claim. The wiki article, from which I think you have your knowledge (because it literally names firing in the night and rain, and
>apan became so enthusiastic about the new weapons that it possibly overtook every European country in absolute numbers produced.
states that only quarter of Japenese soldiers were equipped with firearms. Which "for one of the most advanced land armies of the time" is kinda weak. Hungarian black army had the same ratio of soldiers with firearms... 150 years earlier.

>So how many Japanese soldiers were equpped at the end of 16thC with firearms? How many cannons they had? Because you know, at that time European armies would have easily over 1 firearm per soldier in army.
That's simply not true as Tercios were the 'thing' in the 16th century

Many soldiers had few pistols, especially cavalry force. That's where it comes >more than one per soldiers on average
It may be "only" close to one per soldier for western armies, which still used many pikemen at that time, but for EE armies it's true.

--> Life is not fair for Weaboos.

...

But that's a Persian Cataphract!

>Life is not fair for Weaboos.
I wouldn't underestimate Sengoku armies,the Japanese were able to mobilize a high number of disciplined infantry relative to their population.

However,the Japanese lagged behind in artillery,navy,logistics and cavalry compared to the Chinese.

Pikemen outnumbered arquebusers 2 to 1 in a 1580s tercio formation. In fact, pikemen were the major body of any army until mid 17th Century near the end of the 30 Years War.
You're simply in the wrong about this.

> The point was used to target gaps and weak points in the armor.

Samurai armor, which has large gaps.

European mail suits have no gaps and plate armor has mail underneath the gaps.

The gaps in European medieval armor are either too protected or just far too small to rely on against a moving target.

> When comparing Japanese armies to European armies, though, the Japanese would likely win:

>Better arquebuses

That is because Europeans already abandoned arquebuses and advanced into muskets lol

A Spanish 16th century long barrel has over 3-4 times the muzzle velocity of a Japanese arquebus.

>More arquebuses (Post-1543 Japan manufactured more guns than any other country on earth at that time)

Europeans have far more armored pikemen, that can run/charge while maintaining formation.

>Larger recruiting pools and more efficient conscription/recruiting systems

That is because Europe did not even have conscription at the time.

>Mass-produced armor for even lowly musketeers and other levies

Europe had that too.

Look into the late 15th century city chronik's and see basically everyone to the lowest rank in at least half armor.

There is a surviving receipt of a single armor guild in Milan crafting 6000 suits of armor for a single buyer in the 1470s.

Europe was basically swimming in equipment.

> -Technology to fire matchlocks in the rain

Europe fired matchlocks in the rain since the invention of the matchlock.

> -Technology to fire matchlocks at night

Well that is just retarded.

What prevents you from firing at night lol?

Also, why the fuck would you fire at night?

> That is because Europeans already abandoned arquebuses and advanced into muskets lol

I just love how many internet articles and weebs completely overlook the fact that they took an already obsolete Portuguese design for their arquebuses and stuck with it, while Europe was starting to adopt full stock muskets already in the 1520s.

Muskets > arquebuses

rondel > tanto

>Pikemen outnumbered arquebusers 2 to 1 in a 1580s tercio formation.
By 1560s it was 6:4 in favour of pikemen, in 1580 it was 6:4 in favour of musketmen, and with time it was more and more firearms.
And how I am wrong about this, when I acknowledged, that there was still many pikemen in west, but there were also a lot of pistols in use, which increased average number of firearms per soldier? Even if we ignore pistols, the western ratio of 1560 tercio is still better that this of 1590s Japanese army.
>In fact, pikemen were the major body of any army until mid 17th Century
And now you are simply wrong about this. There were barely any pikemen in EE by the end of 16thC and in some armies none at all in the beginning of 17thC. And even with western armies, pikemen were by far not majority in 17thC.

That isn't a tanto, the blade is narrower and stiffer

Not to mention that mobile renaissance pike blocks were a horror to deal with themselves.

They were very fast and offensive in nature, not just static field defenders.

>Also reminder that the US lost every battle before midway
But that's wrong though you fucking retard, Remember Coral Sea? You know, the battle that stopped the nips from possibly invading Australia? I'll be fair, that was a draw with more or less equal losses, but we certainly didn't lose that one.

>Samurai martial arts are the basis of modern MMA (UFC 1 was won by a Jiu Jitsu practicioner)
>Knight martial arts are forgotten and practiced only by neckbeard spergs (HEMA)
>hurr durr da knight would win bcuz his steel is 0,1% purer

>Samurai martial arts are the basis of modern MMA (UFC 1 was won by a Jiu Jitsu practicioner)

No, they aren't, modern jiu jitsu has very little to do with pre 19th century japanese martial arts, it is really new, kinda like aikido can only be traced back to the 1930s.

> (UFC 1 was won by a Jiu Jitsu practicioner)

Nearly all latest titles were won by punches and kicks, for instance Stipe Miocic, the current heavy weight, just Slavpunches everyone until they fade.
N

>I just love how many internet articles and weebs completely overlook the fact that they took an already obsolete Portuguese design for their arquebuses and stuck with it, while Europe was starting to adopt full stock muskets already in the 1520s.

Do Euroboos actually think that flintlock muskets were invented in the 1520's? If you don't know what musket means you might be on the wrong board

> Do Euroboos actually think that flintlock muskets were invented in the 1520's?

Flintlock is a ignition mechanism you illiterate cumstain.

A musket is an overall firearm design.

Why are you talking about flintlocks you dumb fuck? It's you who doesn't know what musket means.

>Europeans have far more armored pikemen, that can run/charge while maintaining formation.

Sounds like an easy target. Also, I don't believe that pikemen ran in formation carrying 15-20 foot spears. Also, Japanese had pikemen too...

>Europe fired matchlocks in the rain since the invention of the matchlock.
Matchlocks often couldn't fire in the rain, but the Japanese used a lacquered cover over the match to fix thix.
For instance, at the Battle of La Roche-l'Abeille in 1569, two groups of arquebusiers were rendered useless due to a rain that set in, having to use their guns as clubs.

>What prevents you from firing at night lol?
Not being able to see? But the Japanese used a string to ensure that the gun was held vertical