Who would actually win?

Attached: 0370F15B-AB69-4AD1-9402-CF86EB146301.jpg (1331x548, 161K)

lol nice

/lgbt/

This wins. The age of standing army and mass trained peasantry troops armed with munition weaponry killed feudal warfare.

As one Samurai from 1590s lamented, gone has ten or twenty valiant Samurai dashingly riding out of the army ranks to find worthy foes to duel; replaced by this Ashigaru warfare where mass Teppo volleys and Yari wall pushes wins the day.

Attached: 1468271836389.jpg (1600x900, 602K)

user if we are going to skip ahead in time and tactics with guns then just put in a machine gun nest

Attached: 1530723903_Is this a joke.png (563x311, 240K)

Realistically, it would come down to the skill and experience of the individual warriors but all else being equal the knight holds an advantage because of his superior armour.

those arent peasants, theyre soldiers/mercenaries.

probably the knight.
also, /o/ for

Other than in the jomon era, there was no wood armor. This common misconception is often due to the fact that everything is covered in lacquer.

Depends on the era. In the classical period, like the Genpei wars or mongol invasions, yes. But by the Sengoku, they fought more as heavy infantry with a variety of arms including swords, clubs, spears, and naginata.

It depends on the swordsmanship, although the favor is heavily in that of the knight, especially considering he appears to be carrying a hammer of some sort.

A knight donning a tool for bludgeoning would be able to easily crush through a samurai's shitty wood armor, given he's even wearing any wood armor, or even if he were wearing some sort of plate chest as some samurai occasionally did he would be able to crush through it to stun the samurai and then just beat the shit out of him while the samurai breaks his katana on the knight's sturdy plate armor.

However, if the samurai managed to land a slice on one of the openings of the armor, about a 2% chance, he has the opportunity to cut the knight's arm off, or even possibly his head.

>This entire post

Attached: 1505545339003.png (1000x1271, 314K)

Samurai. Better trained in martial arts, faster. As if a longsword is going to go through Samurai armor, lol, neither sword can penetrate the others armor. It would come down to a grappling match with the winner sliding a blade into chinks in the armor, in which case I will take the judo and jiu jitsu trained Samurai over the knight anyday.

If the knight has a blunt weapon like a mace, however, I think it would be in the Knights favor.

alriight, "commoner" is the better term than "peasantry" for this context

Attached: 1536979977380.jpg (1280x993, 242K)

Confirmed retard.
>samurai faster
How? With his significantly heavier and worse supported lamellar armor, he is going to be much slower.
>judo
Invented in the 1880s retard
>jiu-jitsu
a whole bunch of stupid shit that doesn't even work, which is why Judo destroys it every time.

meanwhile the knight practices western wrestling and boxing.

>while the samurai breaks his katana on the knight's sturdy plate armor
>not understanding the strength and power of grorious forded steer

Attached: Y4Wo4p5.jpg (951x840, 90K)

user, guns was already a thing at the time Gothic Plate Armour like in the OP was used.

Attached: castle seige.jpg (840x1017, 287K)

Only dysfunctional samurai killed peasants, much like how black knights tended to be bandits. The ideal in both cases was chivalry, either to your lord in the case of samurai, or to the ideals of honour in general for knights.

The reason you hear so much shit about both of them killing peasants and generally being assholes is because those events were noteworthy enough to record.

>This wins
Are you sure?

Attached: file.png (800x496, 1006K)

the samurai, japan's superior metallurgy at the time led to the katana being as effective as it was, sword to sword the katana could slice clean through a knight if not two

speaking of which user, I've never known of any Waffen-SS armoured car like that

The European knight, he's bigger, stronger, better armoured, his weapon is made of better material

Everything you know is incorrect.

what the fuck did you just fucking say about me you little bitch?

Attached: _105206573_gettyimages-632821082-594x594-1.jpg (624x351, 25K)

wow like nice argument?? eurocentrist much??

No, just factual.

Superior metallurgy but inferior ore. The katana would still be more susceptible to damage than the bastard sword.

I see your point, but you do know that the Poles never charged German armour on horseback right?

Attached: 1470120150871.jpg (255x255, 16K)

you could line up three bastard swords and the katana would chip thru all of them without being damaged. euros comparatively had NO quality of metal . HANDS. DOWN. fact. don't be mad at me. be mad at history haters.

The katana was made from shit iron ore from steam beds and there are many illustrations of Japanese samurai trying to straighten them DURING battle as the had a horrible tendency to BEND. The European knights sword was mad of extremely high grade material. There is no comparison. What idiot thinks that Japanese swords were made of better metals?

between those specific two I would say knight most like

Thanks is weak bait, no one could think such shite not even the most deranged seen could think this

WRONG. Shitty Japanese Iron Ore makes their sword tend to CHIP or BREAK.

see
don't argue with real facts.

Is he Japanese or Mongolian? Also, the biggest sumo have been Hawaiian or European.

So why all the contemporary illustration s of saumari trying to straighten Bent katanas in the middle of battles, Wes they bent easily.Euripean swords from e.g solligen were vastly superior

Send it to reddit

Weak weak bait it's like turbo weeb levels of gay bullshit. A solligen blade would destroy a katana

>its le bait
not an argument. wtf is a solligen? were talking medieval weapons pleb. katana > stinky euro iron

So why all of the contemorary ilustrasions of samuri broken katana stabd on th ground in the middel of battles. Eorepean swerds from e.g toledo were vastly superior

>had NO quality of metal . HANDS. DOWN. fact. don't be mad at me. be mad at history haters.
>steel plate couldn’t be penetrated or sliced
>swords hitting steel plate wouldn’t bend or cut as bad as a katana

Attached: 3BCA585C-CC74-4901-84B8-11B8BA2BFEB3.jpg (800x517, 111K)

Samurai 10 times out of 10
>has objectively the best sword
>has the better martial arts
>lighter armor means he can backflip all over the place
>knight can barely take a step without losing breath
>has a bow and arrow for range, knight has none
>doesn't have a useless shield weighing him down
>can cut through shield like butter, western metal working was shit compared to eastern blacksmiths

bait

youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc
this video is where a dude makes his own sword and does some tests with a katana
youtu.be/2t4ojjzJJZ4?t=581
don't think the japs would have anything great in terms of doing what a warhammer does

Attached: oog.jpg (670x489, 76K)

Going just by what's in the picture, it would come down to the skill of the fighter. Both men are covered in metal armor and may as well be immune to swords and arrows.

Lets analyze this and come to some conclusions. First some facts, starting with the knight.

Training:
A knight would undergo years of training starting as a page in a knights retainer, caring for house and horse(s) of his lord, a rudimentary education, with some early physical training and sword play. As the aspiring knight got older he would squire to a knight, maintaining equipment, practicing wrestling and sword play, Horsemanship, archery, heavy amounts of physical training and he would often accompany his knight onto the battlefield and would continue his education until knighted. A Squire that never received his knighthood (which was a social class as much if not more so than a title of battlefield rank.) would also be expected to eventually fight along side the cavalry of a lord and there are instances of very famous men who while being of noble birth for one reason or another never archived knighthood.

As far as their skills in battle, a knight would be a powerhouse on a medieval battlefield. Even without his armor a knights ability to wield his arms as well as his body was of immense importance. Many a fight between equally matched opponent would go to ground and ones ability to wrestle and wield a dagger could very well decide the victor.

As far as a knights use of a sword goes there are plenty of existing writings on how they learned this and what they were expected to know. In the early medieval period the training was likely passed down from knight to his squires, while as you get into the high medieval period and into the Renaissance the rise of large metropolitan areas also gave rise to a burgeoning middle class, and among them were men who fancied themselves masters of swordsmanship. Ever vying for lordly patronage these people dedicated fortunes and their lives compiling fencing treatises trying to sell to the nobility a means of besting their opponents.

In both cases the actual fighters were lightly-protected peasant conscripts.

Even actual fighting heavy cavalry weren't nearly this heavy.

Landed elite wore heavy impractical armour to make sure that they wouldn't be injured, but it also meant they didn't really actually fight that much.
The whole thing is romanticised because those cowards also strictly controlled what was written about them.

But in an actual 1-on-1 fight I guess probably the knight because solid plate is fucking bullshit hax provided you only need to kill one dude before grabbing a gatorade

Attached: 3Q6nX9L.gif (484x430, 106K)

Lol, he wearin socks!!!! Just step on that nigga toes! I'm dead.

A knights equipment would largely depend on the time period and the wealth of the man in question. In order to tell how effective they would be against a Japanese Samurai one first needs to look at what these arms were made of. A lot of people have this notion that European steel was much better then Japanese steel and in part they are correct, however you must keep in mind that the vast majority of European steel was the same bog Iron that the Japanese were often criticized for, as well as a similar Bloomery technique to produce usable steel, leaving large amounts of slag or impurities in the iron/steel that needed to be folded repeatedly to evenly distribute it (just like the Japanese were doing). Artistic depictions routinely show swords and other arms breaking at the center, indicating that it was likely the swords were not being made out of homogeneous steel, furthermore acid testing on antiques proves this as man swords will have a slight pattern welded appearance (Damascus) when subjected to acids. They chipped, broke and otherwise became worn out just like Japanese swords. Unlike Japanese swords European swords were built quite hardy around the guard were the highest stress would be produced, Europeans seemed to not trust there steel more the the Japanese did and preferred many sword styles that were wide at the base. In fact the part of a medieval sword that you cut with, the middle 3rd of the blade from middle to tip, is not much thicker then the blade on a Japanese sword of comparable size.

As far as a knights armor goes, well, Armor works. It will happily protect you from all but the most determined attacker, missile fire, sword blades, even early firearms. A knights training would teach him to aim his attacks at the gaps in armor. Underarms, hands, wrists, inner elbow and knees, ankles,the visor slot and blunt trauma to the head were the keys to overcoming the massive advantage that armor gave you.

I find japanese military practice interesting, but they're clearly outclassed in terms of equipment and SIZE.

Unlike the above poster who seems to suggest that knights only rarely fought and medieval armies were mostly just conscripts (So called Levies) He will be sad to hear that levying died out in most of Europe by the mid 13th century. If were are comparing the above 14th century knight in what appears to be the German style of so called "Gothic" armor, then the majority of people on the battlefield would be part of a lords retainer, and his knights. Professional soldiers who entered into military service in exchange for money. Some could be mercenaries and others could simply be part of the lords household (Household in this instance does not mean part of his family) while his knights and their squires would make up the bulk of his cavalry forces (Unless you were English or Burgundian who predominantly fought on foot by this time) The vast majority of time a knight would be held in reserve until a charge was needed, or at the front in the case of the English, supporting the English archers, Clearly then if you were at the front you would be doing a great deal of fighting. and not "killing one dude before grabbing a Gatorade". One only needs to look at Crecy or Agincourt to see then massive death toll among nobility in this time period. A knight would have to be highly skilled, highly motivated and very well equipped to survive.

A bulletproof breastplate is not the same thing as a traditional one. Early firearms would go right through a classic European knight's armor. The layout and relative lack of secondary / complimentary armor on the limbs and joints for later samurai is a result of having to accommodate that thick and heavy breastplate as part of their overall kit.

It's not really fair to pit knights at their best against samurai at the their best since the latter is way further ahead in time and enjoys the benefits of having guns. Then you get into the problem of figuring out what time period versus what time period is "fair".

This is true and I agree, I merely added it as a means of portraying how tough armor "Could" be.

dumbass argument which essentially is comparing whose tank was better by asking the commanders to duel each other with their pistols

fuck guys comon

Samurai and knights is like comparing apples and oranges, sure they're both fruit, but they're different. Knights and Samurai were used in doctrinally different capacities, with different weapons, tactics and methods of combat but became obsolescent for the exact same reason; pluralization of weaponry and force among subjects and citizenry.

You're a moron. Conflict is frequently asymmetric.

this argument is dumb.

samurai and knight would kill each other

if the samurai managed to land a meaningful blow the knight would die to sepsis due to shitty medieval medicine, but the knight would murder the samurai because the knight has impervious armor to the bladed weaponry commonly carried by samurai, and has weapons that were designed specifically to counter armor.

a well financed western knight would carry a war hammer if he's late medieval period with the sole purpose of engaging similarly mounted foes.

the knight is probably a good 4 to six inches taller, weighs 50 to 100 more pounds due both armor and body weight, and is just as trained than the samurai.

its not a fair comparison.

>he thinks the nips only used bladed weapons

they don't, but there was a huge variance in weapons in europe due to how readily available iron was

the samurai is far more limited in his arsenal than the knight is

not that it matters, you just need the right weapon to hit the right spot at the right time

hence why i said they'd kill each other

i have no doubt that the samurai's training would allow him to kill his foe if given the right circumstances, but the knight would also destroy him if they had no circumstantial advantage

This thread gave me cancer.

Look, I'mma lay it out for you lot.

First thing it's gonna come down to is time period. Assuming our fighters are of equal skill (because this is just gonna get pointless otherwise with the huge variation in ability as well as physical makeup of individual fighters) it's gonna have to boil down to technology. Both of these warrior traditions developed on opposite sides of the globe and were developed to fight against very different opponents. The amount of change that occurred within both of these warrior classes throughout their history is staggering. A 12th century samurai has little to nothing in common with a 16th century Warring States period dude. Hell, a dude from the early days of the Warring States period is a totally different animal from like a guy in the Imjin War in the 1590's.

The only fair way to compare this is contemporaries.

So, let's start.

Gempei War Era Samurai vs Crusader (Late 12th Century)

Samurai
-O-Yoroi armor. Weighed about 60 lbs all told on average. Made of alternating Iron and Water Buffalo Rawhide scales in the important parts, just rawhide in the less important parts. Under it would have been hemp or silk garments. The helmet was the toughest part with a bowl made of riveted plates. The neck guard would be scales once again. The armor's primary purpose is to defend against piercing damage from projectiles.

-Yumi War Bow. I hate to be that guy but this period is kinda my main focus. I see a lot of bullshit about these bows. I had one made by the Imperial Bow Maker in Kyoto that represents one from this era. They were a bit stronger than later period ones. You see a whole ton of bullshit talking about guys having 5 man bows and stuff but I wouldn't go by it. On average they had a 30-35kg pull, so close to the lbage of a modern Bear Bow. The craziest ones would have been 50kg. They're very accurate bows because they do away with the archer's paradox. Wide variety of points available, but no bodkins.

Continued Part 2
Even though there is a lack of bodkins, willow leaf and chisel type heads would have potential against chain mail worn at this time by knights.

Tachi Sword. Heian Period swords weren't quite as developed as later period blades. A lot thinner and lighter. No soft steel core had been developed until the 1220's. These blades were a sidearm and weren't used nearly as much as most other weapons. Not really made for going toe to toe with a heavily armored opponent but intended to help run down lightly armored infantry I'd argue. Lots of people have their opinions on this.

Koshigatana: A long dagger used at this time. This was the real killer. Most horseback fighting once the arrows were expended (on average carried about 24+) devolved into horseback wrestling with daggers trying to behead each other ISIS style.

Naginata. Different from the later period ones with the big chopper blade. Had a much longer and more slender blade with about a 3-4 foot grip. Primarily an infantry weapon. Treated more as a heavy two handed sword than anything else.

Kumade. I think I have the name right. Just a giant claw at the end of a pole for yanking guys off horses. The attendants for a samurai would use it to yank his opponent down to the ground.

Kanabo. Just a big motherfucking war club. Another foot soldiers weapon. Just a solid wooden club with a bunch of studs in it. Think giant ww1 trench club.

There's a bunch of other autistic stuff available but that's the main part.

Now can someone who knows Knight shit from this time period chip in? I know a bit but I'm no expert.

One other thing I'd like to add is shields. They did exist but required a guy to carry it for you. Like a 4 foot tall Pavise with a handle on the back that could be used to lean it up as deployable cover. Made out of a wooden plank. During the Mongol invasion they had a wall of guys surround the Mongol forces on the beach with them while archers shot from behind them. This is not a hand shield. O-yoroi armor at this time would have rather large shoulder guards that took the place of the shield.

The knight is covered in metal armor

No need to sperg out guys

Attached: 7D274A74-425C-426A-BD9E-2BC450707F49.gif (232x297, 118K)

Attached: D2B70C6E-48EC-48E2-A2AB-502CFFD7EB18.jpg (500x691, 68K)

This doesnt count because he didn't mention a board

Send it to /tv/

Send it to /a/

/tv/

A couple of details wrong in this but you get the idea. Samurai from this period are Heavy Horse Archers.

Attached: 637261272776fced5f4f58560ff0943b.jpg (2098x1422, 903K)

I guess what it comes down to here is lance vs bow, and how O-Yoroi would hold up to a European lance vs how Chainmail would hold up to a Yumi.

youtu.be/w_3W1zg683A?t=356

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, that's one ancient pasta. Not that I'm complaining, it really brought back some memories.

>>>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.
The samurai couldn’t even beat drunken Portuguese sailors.

Wew

What was the typical composition of a sengoku judai army?

I mean I appreciate the effortpost but your sanity is going to be far better off if you just treat terrible bait threads as what they actually are.

Here's a random but typical example out of a book I have.

The Commander's Retinue:
The Lord, Matsuura Seizan Kiyoshi 1
Foot Samurai, varied armour, red/white sashimono 20
Foot Samurai, red striped armor, no sashimono 20
Foot Samurai, red disc on armor, no sashimono 20
The lord's spearmen 26
Non-Samurai attendants to the lord 24

Mounted Samurai: 20
Attendants to the mounted samurai 160
Foot samurai, varied armor, black/white sashimono 50
Attendants to the above samurai 54

Specialized Ashigaru
Matchlockmen 104
Archers 32
Officers to the above 32
Spearmen black armor 18
spearmen, red amor 24
Officers to the above 4

Flag bearers 29
Drummers 4

Total 650

Know any resources about how the Japanese trained in equitation? Their (native) horses tended to be pretty shit compared to what was available on the mainland further west, but I'm curious how they stacked up as horsemen compared to their contempories and how their techniques and equipment evolved over the years prior to the Meji period.

Attached: 1494168349539.png (2000x2000, 766K)

I can help on that. Guys were expected to be decent riders. I lived in Japan and paid a visit to Mongolia once. I can give a good idea of Japanese proficiency by comparing it with the Mongols style.

The Mongols traditionally will only ride geldings.

Samurai almost exclusively rode stallions. Especially in the early period I'm describing crazy horses were what were most prized. And I mean crazy. The horse archery wasn't mongol style with skirmishing and what not. It was basically jousting with arrows and super agro. Look up Yabusame on youtube and you'll get a very very clear picture of traditional Japanese riding. Sadly they are using modern western horses now.

In the old days Japanese horses were not far off from Mongol horses. Small, tough, and faster than Western war horses from that time. But not nearly as powerful or heavy. So a western horse by comparison from shear mass I imagine was much more devastating in a charge.

I'd also like to add that riding equipment really hardly changed at all over a 1,000 year period. More in subtle aesthetics than anything. Considering the difficulty of using giant anime sized weapons (have you seen the length of Japanese bows? 2.2 meters on average, world's longest bow) on the back of an angry pony, the horsemanship required is pretty damn good.

Most army rosters leave out the attendants and support staff. I included one that gives a taste of that. Look at the numbers of support staff in comparison to fighting men with the mounted samurai for example.

But the Yumi bow is quite shit in terms of size/power ratio, mongol/hun/manchu/turkic composite bows are smaller and have higher draw weights (thus much more likely to punch through armor).
This explains why the japanese were the only culture which didn't use shields at all since the bows they used were shit.

Nigger, knights wouldn't use a sword against another knight. That's just silly. They'd use a flail, mace, or warhammer. If they used a sword it'd be against unarmoured peasants. You couldn't do shit to another knight in full plate with a sword short of swinging the sword by the blade and trying to stove in his helm with the pommel or guard.

Was looking more for specifics like their seat, riding aids, cues, etc. Did they favor a natural balance or was there some equivalent to the "artificial balance" (training the animal to keep the majority of its weight on its hind legs rather than their front) taught in western dressage? Were long or short stirrups the general rule? Were they ever taught to lean forward while at a fast gait/jumping (prior to western influence), or did they keep a static seat? Was it outside influence that got them riding in the first place, or did they start doing it on their own? Did they come up with those funny stirrups of theirs independently of the Mongols/Chinese?

>what is a kanabo
Memes aside, as with all weapons of the time, swords were a sidearm to your main weapon, i.e. spears, bows, polearms, etc. The Japs had a colorful assortment of weapons aside from the standard samurai sword.

Without armor? Almost entirely down to the individual skill of the swordsmen. Although the longsword is a bit more versatile and defensive overall.

With armor? Knight, hands down. A full suit of armor is basically god mode. As cool as the samurai armor was, they arent even in the same league.

Natural balance. Shorter stirrups, but often standing up in the stirrups like the mongols. The seat is rather static because of the armor as well as needing to have a balanced seat when shooting. However historical texts from the Gempei period do refer to leaning forward in the seat while tilting the shoulder guards forward in order to protect against arrows. It's fairly dynamic but not crazy like the Mongols. The stirrups are odd. More of a crescent shaped cup as you can see in that illustration I posted. They are uniquely Japanese I believe. You actually had to wear a special kind of leather and bear fur shoe with them. Using straw sandals would cause your feet to slip out of them occasionally. The main thing is having an aggressive, fast horse that can do it's thing without reins as much as possible, go in a straight line and help the rider get to his enemy. The rider had to keep his seat as balanced as possible so as to be an accurate ranged weapons platform. The saddles from the Gempei era also aided in supporting the weight of that armor I described. Guys kept a short whip that was often made from a section of broken bow. It had a lanyard that would hang off the right wrist.

Outside influence for sure, but there are many theories about when and how riding came to Japan. If you'd like me to go into detail on it I could.

Sorry, does that answer everything you were looking for?

You're fucking retarded. Japanese bows are laminated just like other bows. The strength is dependent on the shooter. You can make a Japanese bow just as strong as you want, but good luck pulling it. I can barely draw my war bow because I haven't built up those muscles yet.

Also, horse bows tend to be weaker because you're on a fucking horse. The yumi at this time is comparable with a Mongol horsebow, same rought lbage. However, Mongols carried two bows, one of which was much stronger for use on foot.

The size/power ratio? Like what the fuck are you on about. The length of the Japanese bow is mostly for aesthetics and to give you a longer draw because Japanese liked using longer arrows.

And Japanese did use shields in the ancient times but dumped them because they're pointless if you have good armor. When plate armor came in Knights dumped shields for having the ability to use a two handed weapon that could actually do something.

Please commit sudoku.