Who would win, a Roman legionary, a Medieval knight or a Japanese samurai?

>>all these idiots assuming medieval knights all had access to late medieval equipment
The classic imperial legionary would curb check the average knight or samurai. Sure, some of the later knights and samurai would have been able to deal with a legionary, but most knights were not strolling around in full plate and most samurai that existed were not using guns.

Whoever is a better fighter obviously. Skill is far more important than equipment in this instance.
In that respect, Roman legionnaires are taught to fight as a group so they're probably less effective at single combat ruling them out.
Knights are trained from the age of 7 (or 9 i can't remember) as a page and learn skills such as horseriding until they become 15 when they are a squire. They will extensively train in jousting, swordplay and other stuff until they reach 21 (there are exceptions) when they will become a knight. They will obviously continue to train extensively, mainly because they got nothing better to do.
I don't know much about samurai but i know they preferred to train horseback archery and i believe this will be ineffective against knight plate armour also Samurai don't really use shields.
Hard to say, but the knight has better equipment

Legionaries were used to fighting in formation, not individual combat.

The samurai would win this without a doubt.

The arrow would just bounce off the knights armor.

>knight has better equipment

Um, no sweetie

Lol. Fucking weebs.

My sides if you actually believe this

In single combat
Mounted warrior > dismounted warrior

>allowing the Knight to attack with relative impunity
Nah, any fight between the three is going to come down blunt force trauma. A knight would have to be very careful if he's up against a samurai armed with a Kanabo or a legionary's shield.
This is assuming that nobody's brought their horse(s), that the Legionary is from Julio-Claudian Rome, the Samurai is from the Sengoku Jidai (but doesn't have a matchlock because even taking accuracy into account it kind of trivialises the fight) and the Knight is from the 100 Years War.

That's exactly what happened in medieval battles, the arrows bounced right off the medieval knights plate armor.

Well if this is 15th century the knight has a buff gambeson coat with a chainmail hauberk and coif, over this he has a robust suit of steel plate covering him head to toe.
In contrast samurai either didn't use plate or it was bulky and it didn't provide full coverage.
Furthermore knights use kiteshields which is far superior to anything samurai have

>He thinks samurai were the only ones with access to archery

Attached: 1478670271180.jpg (645x968, 47K)

Without a doubt the medieval knight, especially if we are talking about fully plate armored knights from the late middle ages.

>The classic imperial legionary would curb check the average knight or samurai. Sure, some of the later knights and samurai would have been able to deal with a legionary, but most knights were not strolling around in full plate and most samurai that existed were not using guns.
This is the armament of the "classic" (early) imperial legionary. He hasn't got anywhere near the armour of a medieval knight. His shield, while large, is also among the heaviest. His sword is not only extremely short, but also utterly incapable of doing anything against (significantly more advanced than classical) medieval mail armour.
The Roman legionary is also very likely to be deficient in protein, meaning there's a rather hard limit on how strong he can be, most likely significantly weaker than the knight. Not to mention he's probably gonna be shorter too.

Attached: 4f397302d53cb575be8a05a50a395313--roman-legion-roman-soldiers.jpg (714x960, 85K)

Because the mongols with ponies and bows with little armor totally didn't completely decimate a bunch of European knights, who only managed not to be conquered because some important khan or something like that died and they ran away.

Did samurais even have shields?

You realize archery is impossible in plate armor right?

A 15th century knight wouldn’t always have hauberks. It was just more practical to have Mail sleeves or just not wear mail outright and cover yourself in Plate.

Like in a duel? Would be interesting, both had a religious fervor behind their sword.

There was a unique unit in Age of Empires 2
dont recall if it was Cataphract or Mameluke
but it was the foundation for the Knight.

Since when was the criteria that the knight had to be in plate armor? Medieval armies usually had their own designated archery units.

That aside, this is a three-way battle between three individual warriors. The samurai can't just switch from a blade to a bow. It's one or the other.

Probably Cataphract as that's a heavily armoured dude on an armoured horse, and the Mamluke were Muslim slave soldiers, and was sometimes also used to refer to Muslim leaders with slave origins.

>throws his pila into the knight's shield
>blocks knight's sword with his own shield, then uses the boss to repeatedly batter the knight until they're on the ground
>applies blunt force to the knight's head until they stop moving and/or removes visor and applies sword to face, just like with King Richard
This is how a Roman legionary would kill a knight in single combat. None of the technological advantages that a knight can bring to the battle field are insurmountable.

Woah so this is the power of Veeky Forums, trolls, weebs and romeboos jump through rings of fire to explain every conceivable way the obviously best option would lose.

>plays dark souls once

Attached: 1498462529302.png (375x389, 223K)

Or the knight drops his shield and wrestles the legionaries own shield out of his hand while he attempts to puncture plate and gambeson with a gladius.

Or he could wait for the Roman to attempt to stab him and crush his hand with a mace, warhammer or any other weapon he decided to take with him.

The Samurai and knight is a more interesting match up simply because Samurai had a wider range of weapons that could actually stun a guy in armour.

Let's compare this legionary to an 11th century knight, arguably the earliest "true" form of them.
He's got a long sleeved mail hauberk, which conforms to the body (or rather, to the padded garment worn underneath). Again, not all mail is equal, this guy's has gone through a thousand years of evolution compared to the lorica hamata. He's also got a mail coif with a facial flap, giving him far more extensive coverage than the legionary.
Neither the Gladius or Pilum is very likely to be a major threat to this sort of protection.

His horse is more suitable for combat than anything a classical Roman or Samurai would've ever known, (also stirrups!).

When it comes to his weaponry, there are five that are associated with knights of this time period.
First we have the lance, of course. It was a relatively simple thing compared to later ones, but against the opponents in question here, it probably wouldn't matter.
His sword would most likely be of the Oakeshott Type X sort. These were heavily geared towards cutting - in fact, modern tests show that they were easily comparable in cutting power to the katana in spite of the fact that they're one-handed, thanks to some well-developed blade geometry.
At this point in time (wood hafted) maces and also throwing spears (on and off horseback) were used by them too.

>throws pilum at knight's shield
>knight doesn't really need it, and let's not ignore the fact that the Pilum's effectiveness is heavily exaggerated in modern pop culture anyway
>knight approaches without shield
>legionary tries to stab him
>can't even break a mail ring
>legionary tries to beat him over the head with gladius
>lol
>legionary tries to bash him with his Scutum
>oh wait, if you knew how much those fuckers weigh you'd know there's no way in hell this 5'4 manlet could get any momentum behind it
>knight grabs the scutum, because he's holding the edge he has a major leverage advantage
>lops the romanlet's arm off

Attached: 1514297256616.jpg (800x1024, 304K)

>Ctrl+F
>no mention of katana
I'm proud of you Veeky Forums

Dude this isn't a fucking d&d session.
Why the fuck would a legionary be more intelligent than a knight? And HOW? Do you even know that legionnaries came from the poorest strata of Roman society?
> Legionary more charismatic than Knight
Metatron get the fuck out

Attached: it was only 999 times folded!.gif (396x224, 1.99M)

That's just how a legionary would be able to kill a knight. Your idea that every Dick, Tom and Harry wearing a suit of plate armour was the medieval equivalent of an Abrams tank is absolutely laughable.
Also your belief that Romans couldn't actually use their shield despite the dozens of accounts describing just how effective they were in formation and single combat is some Deusvultabooism. At least try and come up with a reasonable way for a knight to be able to counter 10kg of wood, hide and metal being hammered into him by an equally skilled warrior.

>equally skilled warrior
Knights were trained from the age of 7. Legionnaires are skilled no doubt, but compared to a knight who has better equipment and training he'll lose in a 1 vs 1 fight.

Giantesses are cute! CUTE!!

I disagree, though. Samurai's training style makes up for the armor imbalance.
It's pretty close but I'd want the samurai to win because I'm an unironic weeaboo.

Attached: 1511892466138.gif (346x339, 123K)

Uh, yes he can, it's in his designated weapon slots

t. someone who doesn't understand that Dick, Tom and Harry could get a suit of plate armor only after being veterans of more than a war and a fight, making even the average Joe (a non-noble man at arms) formidable against foes.
just stop dude

>Your idea that every Dick, Tom and Harry wearing a suit of plate armour was the medieval equivalent of an Abrams tank is absolutely laughable.
It was widespread among the most elite yes. 1 V 1 we're going with the most elite of each, and OP DID state that this is 1 V 1 V 1. It really depends which era of Roman though. Later Romans wore armor very similar in style and composition to knights, although I don't think anyone would argue that the German or Italian armors of the 15-16th centuries were in any way comparable to anything the Romans had out of sheer fitting superiority. I'm a huge Romaboo but the Knights win hands down.

Melanin makes Legionary the clear winner. Anybody who disagrees are nordic racists or nippon xenophobes

Attached: AFRICANUS.jpg (300x168, 9K)

There's only one thing really going the way of a legionary - his pilum(s) (or is it pilii? pilumii? idc). They were trained to fight in a formation, had inferior equipment (even if we consider lorica segmentata, metallurgy obviously was better in the medieval ages), and, worst of all, had a short slashing (okay, they did thrust, but without the reach of a longsword and the ability to grip the blade for better precision it doesnt really matter) sword in a fight of mostly armoured warriors.
I don't know much about samurais, but from what I heard they at best were equals with knights in terms of equipment, and at worst - grossly outmatched. Skill, of course, plays the most important role, but i just don't see how a samurai, without a shield and a blunt (as far as i know) weapon, could do anything against a plate-clad knight. Moreover, i doubt samurais were often better trained than knights, at least at 1 on 1 (on 1, but legionary would do himself a favor if he just ran off) combat.
tl;dr romaboos BTFO (coming from a romaboo, it's just unfair to put a legionary against warriors from 15 hundred years in the future)

Knights hands down. A German knight with Gothic armor and a Zweihander would assfuck any legionary, or samurai that comes his way no matter how much weebshits and romeboos tell themselves otherwise.

Attached: DSC_9621.jpg (539x811, 91K)

good posts

Lole Germans r gay
English knights were the best

1 on 1 the knight easy

Try to hammer somebody with anything that weighs 10 kilograms. Spoilers: It won't fucking work, they'll just get out of the way, or you won't even be able to get the necessary windup to even push the guy.
In fact, when it comes to usage as a blunt weapon, the Scutum is possibly one of the worst types of shield you can use, as it's too heavy to let you quickly gather momentum and its horizontal center grip will make it very easy to control by manipulating the top and bottom edge especially, (you bash forward, your opponent grabs or binds the top edge, good job your shield is now nothing but a ramp that directs sharp things towards your face)
The scutum is a heavy shield designed to provide a high amount of coverage to its user. That's all it's for. You use it to block your enemy's blow while closing the distance to attack. It's not designed to hurt people, that's what the Gladius is for.

The shield bash meme is mostly just videogame bullshit. It isn't how shields work. You can't just punch forward with a heavy-ass shield and cause someone to enter a stun animation, much less break their face.
Using a shield as a blunt impact weapon only works with stuff like bucklers, precisely because they're small and light. You can deliver a left hook to someone's face with its edge and possibly outright kill them that way (provided they have no armour).
With heavier or larger types of shield, the weight and/or bulk gets in the way. The job of such shields isn't to bash the enemy's face in, but to parry and bind your opponent's weapon so you can bash his face in with whatever you've got in your other hand.

Attached: Rome_Army2.jpg (418x600, 43K)

Shields were extremely underused in Japan but there did exist large archery shields.
No clue wether or not samurai used them but I dont think so.

>The shield bash meme is mostly just videogame bullshit. It isn't how shields work. You can't just punch forward with a heavy-ass shield and cause someone to enter a stun animation
lmao this

The Knight would fucking crush the samurai like a grape. Superior weaponry and armor makes that a cinch. The legionary would last longer due to the use of the shield, but would eventually become overwhelmed and tire out.

So we are talking 1v1 here? Legionaries are not designed to fight like that at all so it is irrelevant. In a group Legionaries win.

Knight wins in a 1v1 always. Samurai is strait up weeb shit.

Attached: 1511624219500.jpg (445x720, 42K)

>In a group Legionaries win.
I still don't know about that. Against an entire army group of knights? No doubt the samurai get stomped in any scenario, but the knights aren't going to do that much worse just because their shield walls aren't as pretty. Also, if you consider that the battle of Grunwald between knights had fucking cannons involved and knights would have them from the 13th century onward, yeah, the Romans are going to get mega wrecked.

>without a shield and a blunt (as far as i know) weapon, could do anything against a plate-clad knight.
See pic related. You don't want to be hit by a burly Japanese man armed with one of these badboys. Also considering that the archeological evidence shows that a lot of the knights killed in melee combat where cut down by halberds (Richard III had his head and helmet caved in from a downward halberd strike), this is probably the best tool in the samurai's arsenal when it comes to fighting fully armed knights.

>The shield bash meme is mostly just videogame bullshit. It isn't how shields work. You can't just punch forward with a heavy-ass shield
We have contemporary reports about shields being used for exactly that.
Suetonius's Life of Caesar: 28:4
>Acilius in the sea-fight at Massilia grasped the stern of one of the enemy's ships, and when his right hand was lopped off, rivalling the famous exploit of the Greek hero Cynegirus, boarded the ship and drove the enemy before him with the boss of his shield.
Call it exaggeration, but scuta were obviously considered to be offensive weapons by the Romans themselves and it goes without saying that the Romans would use them accordingly, even if your HEMA websites say otherwise.

Attached: d46f87cff6f97cac2eab178d2f2bab5c.jpg (736x664, 199K)

>"Shieldwall! Keep it tight!"
>*cannon flies through four ranks of of troops

>and when his right hand was lopped off, rivalling the famous exploit of the Greek hero Cynegirus
So it's citing a mythical account as it's basis for use in history inside the story? You can see why this sounds like utter bullshit then.
>Call it exaggeration, but scuta were obviously considered to be offensive weapons by the Romans themselves
That's the exact opposite takeaway you were given by the author you just cited. He's talking about how incredibly brave he must have been, how he had no other options at all, and performed a maneuver only used in myths. So yeah, not standard. How can someone read so much yet think so little?

Right then we have another problem with the question again. Are we talking about early Middle Ages Knights or Late Middle Ages Knights? Or mid, or Western European or Eastern. Little bit too broad to say Knights in general.

Fuck yo cannons

Attached: 1511021785669.jpg (557x748, 213K)

>Fuck yo cannons
Cringe. And I mean that one.
>Are we talking about early Middle Ages Knights or Late Middle Ages Knights? Or mid, or Western European or Eastern. Little bit too broad to say Knights in general.
High German from the 15th century in gilded full flex armor using the latest furnacing methods and full access to black powder weapons. Trained from birth. Father was a warrior. His father before him. Even better on a horse. His army replicates him to a slightly diminished standard but with access to steel, black powder, Greek fire, etc. They're trained with crossbows as well, unlike melee-only Romans or their ridiculous Spanish slinger auxilia.

Oh, so they did have blunt weapons. Makes it a lot more even of a fight, though i'm still not sold.

Closest thing to a group of Roman legionaries fighting knights would be the huscarls at Hastings. Lmao when even a group of Samurai could just repeat the Battle of Carrhae on Romans too.

Honestly its unfair to put Roman infantry up against two cavalry focused opponents.

holy fuck that sword

Cynaegirus wasn't a "hero" in the same sense as Achilles and Heracles, he was one of the venerated dead of Ancient Greece who was worshiped after his death for his actions in life. They're kind of like a saint, but this "saint" is remembered because he fought at Marathon, not because he performed any miracles.
The feat was continuing to fight after the enemy had lopped off his hand, not charging the enemy with his shield. That is the "heroic" part of Acilius' story, the way he used his shield wasn't anything of particular note to the Romans because that's how they expected a scutum to be used.

surely this sword would me used mostly as a ceremonial sword?

>Honestly its unfair to put Roman infantry up against two cavalry focused opponents.
Depends if the Samurai can reliably stick to horseback. But the Romans used artillery units too though, I didn't figure that in. The japs really didn't.
>Cynaegirus wasn't a "hero" in the same sense as Achilles and Heracles, he was one of the venerated dead of Ancient Greece who was worshiped after his death for his actions in life. They're kind of like a saint, but this "saint" is remembered because he fought at Marathon, not because he performed any miracles.
This whole line of contextualization was pointless because A) I kind of get that already and B) It does nothing to alter the point.
>That is the "heroic" part of Acilius' story, the way he used his shield wasn't anything of particular note
The author you cited clearly disagrees with you. He's comparing the act to that of legend, highlighting the bravery but admitting simultaneously only a mad man with no options left would do this sort of thing.

(you)

see me dual wielding those bad boys in world of warcraft

Attached: 1514708931404.jpg (531x343, 43K)

No. Zweihanders were extensively used by German knights to cut down enemies.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweihänder

>The weapon is mostly associated with either Swiss or German mercenaries known as Landsknecht, and their wielders were Doppelsöldner. However, the Swiss outlawed their use, while the Landsknechte kept using them until much later.[2] The Black Band of German mercenaries (active during the 1510s and 1520s) included 2,000 two-handed swordsmen in a total strength of 17,000 men. Zweihänder-wielders fought with and against pike formations. Soldiers trained in the use of the sword were granted the title of Meister des langen Schwertes (lit. Master of the Long Sword) by the Marx brotherhood.

>Frisian hero Pier Gerlofs Donia is reputed to have wielded a Zweihänder with such skill, strength and efficiency that he managed to behead several people with it in a single blow. The Zweihänder ascribed to him is, as of 2008, on display in the Fries Museum. It has a length of 213 cm (84 in) and a mass/weight of about 6.6 kg (15 lb).[4]

Attached: Battle_of_Kappel_detail.jpg (240x181, 18K)

>The Black Band of German mercenaries
You know why they called them that right? HIDDEN HISTORY.

They were used to fight pikemen, similar to a halberd. The one pictured could be ceremonial but they were used in battle for a time.

Attached: 2handscim_123.jpg (400x275, 44K)

>Cringe. And I mean that one
You mean it ay. You want to stop talking like a teenager, this is a very serious topic.

>High German
>gilded full flex armor
>His army replicates him
>trained with crossbows as well

Economic victory. Your troops run off with their new found training and armour to be well payed mercenaries for the Empire.

Attached: 1511052954426.jpg (1958x2730, 1.1M)

>You want to stop talking like a teenager, this is a very serious topic.
Projection. What did you find under aged? I'm not the one unironically saying "fuck yo _____". Pitiful attempt at redirection.

>Economic victory. Your troops run off with their new found training and armour to be well payed mercenaries for the Empire.
Bankrupt your provincia, be my guest.

Pier Gerlofs Donia was a Frisian rebel leader and pirate. He is best known by his West Frisian nickname Grutte Pier "Big Pier."

Today, a great sword that is said to have belonged to Pier is on display at the Fries Museum in Leeuwarden. It measures 2.13 metres (7 ft) in length and weighs about 6.6 kilograms (14.6 lb). Pier was alleged to be so strong that he could bend coins using just his thumb, index and middle finger. Some sources put Pier Gerlofs height at 7 ft. A huge helmet said to be Grutte Pier's is kept in the town hall of Sneek.

Attached: autism.jpg (346x630, 125K)

I'm sorry that your gay "martial arts" obsession has taught you nothing about real history and how to read Ancient Sources.
>The author you cited clearly disagrees with you.
How did your conversation with Suetonius go? He never answers my calls on account of him being dead for the last 1800 years.
Your ignorance is absolutely laughable and you clearly have no idea how to even begin thinking about Roman history, yet alone how to engage in internet pissing fights about how they fought.

Attached: 1489717352087.jpg (497x442, 35K)

>Legionary more intelligent than a Knight
>Despite the fact that Legionaries were usually drafted from the poor rural areas of one of Rome's many backwater provinces while Knights were born into nobility, thus having better access to education from the outset

Nah.

You have this all wrong.

>STR
K: 7
L: 9
S: 5
Legionaries are basically manual construction workers who build a camp every night, there's strength in that. Samurai require the least strength and are smaller.

>DEX
K: 7
L: 5
S: 8
Legionary combat was not dexterous, Knights were fairly as they used a lot of different weapons, fought in single combat and rode. Samurai take that to the next level.

>CON
K: 6
L: 7
S: 8
Legionaries were tough, their lives were fucking hard, physical punishment was common for them, they'd not be pussies at a wound, but knights were aristocrats who didn't get hurt that much. Samurai were all about showing no fear and no pain and obviously even having to kill themselves, they're tough little bastards, that much remained true about the Japanese right through WW2.

>INT
K: 8
L: 3
S: 8
Legionaries don't need any intelligence, just to follow orders, those who show it can get promoted. Knights and Samurais are both aristocrats expected to be educated and mingle with high society, they'd be pretty knowledgeable and intelligent.

>WIS
K: 8
L: 4
S: 9
Wisdom isn't a legionaries forte, doesn't need it. A knight would be fairly wise through education, but like philosophy and poems and thinking are the realms of the samurai.

>CHR
K: 9
L: 4
S: 7
Legionaries aren't charismatic, they're blunt soldiers. Samurai would be pretty eloquent, but their superiority complex is too much and their poor treatment of anyone below them makes them into assholes. Knights however are chivalric, well spoken, and *try* to treat everybody well.

Knight: 45
Legionary: 32
Samurai: 45

Well by chance the Samurai and Knight have come out equal but in different areas, while the legionary, as a common soldier, falls behind. Obviously in an adventure setting where personality matters as much as fighting ability, aristocrats will beat common soldiers.

What a boss. The Mountain was real.
>I'm sorry that your gay "martial arts" obsession has taught you nothing about real history and how to read Ancient Sources.
What? Why do you keep pretending you're arguing with HEMA advocates? Can't say I've ever participated but it seems strange since I've done nothing but talk about who had what types of weapons and armor, and when.
>How did your conversation with Suetonius go?
Reading comprehension lad. It was a one way conversation and he told us everything we needed to know.
>Your ignorance is absolutely laughable and you clearly have no idea how to even begin thinking about Roman history, yet alone how to engage in internet pissing fights about how they fought.
lmfao you honestly thought my posts mention him like he's alive holy shit this is too good Lad I'm the guy who called himself a Romaboo above. I was reading Mary Beard and knock offs before Veeky Forums jumped on my bandwagon. I'd taken Latin classes likely well before you were shitposting on here. Even more remarkable is that you thought something in my post hinted at the man being alive. My case rests right here

Attached: ha green man.jpg (113x142, 7K)

>What did you find under aged?
You talk like a toff and take offence to being called a teenager. Never said under aged bruv

>Bankrupt your provincia, be my guest.
Troops are provided for with land grants of "very good" farming land within the Empire after they retire their service

Attached: 1511009296764.jpg (1132x815, 276K)

Even a crusader knight is better armoured than a legionary.

>but knights were aristocrats who didn't get hurt that much.
They probably didn't get hurt that much because they had good armor on, user.

>Never said under aged bruv
Teenage is under aged. I'm not your bruv, guv.
>Troops are provided for with land grants of "very good" farming land within the Empire after they retire their service
Now you want to go Caracalla and gib land to non-Romans? Nice, I'm sure that'll be great for social cohesion. Give these already fantastically wealthy, technologically advanced, lower nobility, with advanced military organization and experience more power INSIDE of your favorite nation.

Oh shit I'm sorry, I didn't know that you had unironic autism. I hope that works out for you, my precious little snowflake.

Attached: 1465701474959.jpg (1280x720, 411K)

>Acilius in the sea-fight at Massilia grasped the stern of one of the enemy's ships, and when his right hand was lopped off, rivalling the famous exploit of the Greek hero Cynegirus, boarded the ship and drove the enemy before him with the boss of his shield.
Next time read thing you quoted to prove your point, as it just so happens to do the exact fucking opposite.

He "drove the enemy before him". Drove is the key word here. He didn't beat them, hit them, or hurt them - he made them retreat, presumably because the sight of a crazed one-handed guy, possibly suffering from substantial blood loss trying to shove people around is pretty freaky. It probably wasn't by inflicting any bodily harm.

And that's assuming this is even true, as this is fucking Suetonius we're talking about here.

>but knights were aristocrats who didn't get hurt that much

Bullshit. Knights, even the aristocratic ones always fought in the thick of battle.

>King Richard III led a cavalry charge deep into the enemy ranks in an attempt to end the battle quickly by striking at Henry Tudor himself.[150]

>Accounts note that King Richard fought bravely and ably during this manoeuvre, unhorsing Sir John Cheyne, a well-known jousting champion, killing Henry's standard bearer Sir William Brandon and coming within a sword's length of Henry Tudor before being surrounded by Sir William Stanley's men and killed.[151] The Burgundian chronicler Jean Molinet says that a Welshman struck the death-blow with a halberd while Richard's horse was stuck in the marshy ground.[152] It was said that the blows were so violent that the king's helmet was driven into his skull.[153] The contemporary Welsh poet Guto'r Glyn implies a leading Welsh Lancastrian Rhys ap Thomas, or one of his men, killed the king, writing that he "killed the boar, shaved his head".[152][154][155]

>Polydore Vergil, Henry Tudor's official historian, recorded that "King Richard, alone, was killed fighting manfully in the thickest press of his enemies".[159

>Bullshit. Knights, even the aristocratic ones always fought in the thick of battle.
The average knight wasn't in combat very often, less so than samurai and legionaries. They also had better armour meaning they got wounded less.

>sure that'll be great for social cohesion

Won't it be

>fantastically wealthy, technologically advanced, lower nobility, with advanced military organization and experience

Less numerous and payable assets of knowledge, skill and strength. Romans, at least early on, were very good at using co-opting military knowledge for their advantage. Seems like a win-win to me

Attached: 1511052751173.jpg (2013x2731, 1.09M)

Plutarch also describes the incident in his life of Caesar.
Plutarch's Caesar 16.1
>Such a man, for instance, was Acilius, who, in the sea-fight at Massalia, boarded a hostile ship and had his right hand cut off with a sword, but clung with the other hand to his shield, and dashing it into the faces of his foes, routed them all and got possession of the vessel.
There, concrete proof that the scutum was used as an offensive weapon and that Romans hit their opponents with them. Shield bashing was a thing, deal with it.
>b-but this is exceptional
If battering someone with your shield was exceptional both accounts would have emphasised it. Because Suetonius didn't need to clarify to his audience that Acilius routed his enemies by physically hitting them with his shield than it's safe to assume that they already knew exactly how a scutum was used in combat.

You are wrong for several reasons.

1. In modern combat testing, the shield bash or boss smash is a fully feasible and frequent technique.
2. Shields for most of history have not been strapped to the forearm but held in one hand at the centre, which makes it a perfect extension of the arm for punching.
3. We have these accounts of shield bosses being used offensively which you're having to use mental gymnastics to disprove

Again you proved my point only further, as there again is only evidence of him charging into people with it, not actually bashing in combat. He was pushing like a riot cop, nothing more.

He dashed into them and routed them in panic - this means they weren't acting rationally as it wouldn't take more than two guys to take out a one-handed madman who's presumably already bleeding profusely.

>1. In modern combat testing, the shield bash or boss smash is a fully feasible and frequent technique.
You mean in shitty TV shows where they set up the experiment to get the intended result
>2. Shields for most of history have not been strapped to the forearm but held in one hand at the centre, which makes it a perfect extension of the arm for punching.
Having a strapped setup is actually better because it lets you control the mass. Even then, it's not a very smart idea.
Try the following:
1. A punch without holding anything
2. A punch with one of them 1 or 2kg girly weights
3. A punch with a 10kg dumbbell
Guess which will be the most useful?
>3. We have these accounts of shield bosses being used offensively which you're having to use mental gymnastics to disprove
We have accounts of a crazy man with one hand scaring people and shoving them

>The average knight wasn't in combat very often
That simply isn't true. During the War of the Roses aristocratic knights from both sides were frequently engaged in battles. It ended in a massive shortage in the members of nobility thanks to deaths in battles. House Plantagenet went extinct because of it. your narrative of ''Knights were just aristocrats with good armor and didn't fight often'' Is complete bull. Anyone who is well read about medieval history will tell you that.

Not so much later on, presumably because their main weapons are all two-handed (bow and spear), so carrying a shield would be a hassle. They made up for it by making the shoulder-pads bigger.

Listen, I know you define yourself by being the "smart" guy who can see through all that GoT bullshit, but this is some truly desperate mental gymnastics that you're sprouting here. No matter how much you spin the story and make excuses, nothing you say is going to change historical facts.

You can spout buzzwords like mental gymnastics all day, it won't prove shit

>You mean in shitty TV shows where they set up the experiment to get the intended result
No. First of all there's been no "test" on this because everybody already knows the answer, and i mean in actual combat reconstruction and HEMA, its very clear that shield bosses are used offensively, especially on small buckler types.
>Having a strapped setup is actually better because it lets you control the mass
Doesn't matter, most shields were gripped by a handle behind the center boss, in the hand.
Yes you can punch with a 10KG weight, don't be so fucking weak. Especially when you carry it daily.

Why are you so hell bent on disproving the obvious. Why the fuck do you think there's a big metal thing in the center of the shield, when that is the part least likely to be hit?

I'm studying medieval history, they definitely fought less than legionaries, and Samurai, assuming we're not talking about Edo Period samurai were in constant warfare and military service.

Christ, at least have the dignity to either admit that your wrong or just leave from the thread when your "argument" gets dismantled.

Attached: 1483919890817.png (349x318, 222K)

Pathetic , basically the legionnaire has to get lucky , and has to fight perfectly in your account. On average the knight is going to win, it just simply isn't fair or comparable. It's cute though you think the average legionnaire is some god