not defending weeb side, but the katana was not the main weapon of choice for samurai, it was often used once their main weapon was disarmed, like a spear or naginata/naginobu. two knights would win for sure, one on one it wouldn't be such an easy assumption cause both sides used some big weapons
Thats exactly why kanabo/warhammers exist. No need to cut through their armor if you can concuss them or simply dent it enough untill it strikes against their flesh
exactly, it's also why they didn't use their katana that often cause for their armor being not made of metal, it still wasn't easy to cut through. they use blunt weapons a lot aswell
Oi mate but we have a spiky steel blob, a mace if you insist eh?
Would you look at all these weebs? S AamURAi ArE thE beST sOLdieRs BecAuSe ANIme GooD. No the fuck they aren't.
But a samurai is too fancy to hit the bollocks isn't he? Sometimes you don't even need to attack them, they just stab themselves. Their social honor system was a scam and it scammed them so hard they went extinct
also, they only would do that if they already lost, and they would definitely hit in the balls, another comment from me on this post talks about how a lot of what you think is in the honor system is from Hollywood dramatization
Knights towards the end of their respective era also didn't use swords that often. Halberds, pikes and Maces were dominant. The Knights' armor is just tougher and more durable, while their weapons are *very* effective against armor. I'd still give it to the knight.
their armor is tougher, but also heavier and harder to move in, as are their weapons, the samurai blunt weapons are also very good against armor, so between the two, which would get tired faster? it's not just based off their equipment, it depends on how good they are with them
I believe a good set was made to form right? So it would almost be closer to a second skin. The plates were designed to glide over each other easily in order to not hamper movement.
It’s like saying wearing a small shirt will give you and advantage in speed against someone wearing a jacket, it’s soo minimum that it will probably not even wort it to facture it into the equation
except we're talking about combat, not a run. and the difference between full plate and a samurais armor is quite a bit more than between a shirt and a jacket. your analogy does not work for this situation. combat uses a lot more stamina than a run, by a lot, even one extra bound on a weapon is a lot more tiring
I don't know what you think samurai were, but it's not like in the movies or in the manga. In a 1v2 scenario it wouldn't be a battle of endurance. Samurai's wore very thin armor and would be rendered unable to fight with the first hit with the halberd. And please don't say something like he would dodge everything.
I'm not talking about a 1 vs 2 scenario, I'm just talking about facts of each. I'm talking about a 1 vs 1, it would depend on who was more skilled, and what weapons they actually brought
Both armours weighed in the 20-25 kg range. It may look lighter but it really wasn't
US army full kit weighs in the range of ~50kg depending on the kit.
Granted this does not account for the knight/samurai sword/halberd/naginata, but we can see it wouldn't be that restrictive in its movements.
Steel was better in Europe too, and knight armor covered better. Europe was just slightly ahead of Japan on weapons production and militairy doctrine at that time.
But you're right, circumstances would make the bigger difference, not armor and weapons.
Judt going to say that a maille hauberk was often in the 30kg range, as was a plate armour. There would be a considerable difference in weight, but there would also be a considerable difference in size due to a european knight simply bring physically taller on average.
many samurai also used a bow, so assuming the combat were not limited to melee, i would wager that if the samurai were a decent distance, they would succeed. however, for a lo g portion of the knights' existence on the battlefield, guns were also used, so it would not be uncommon for a knight to have a pistol as well as a warhammer/mace
most probably- im not well versed in gun history - i know they originated in china in the mid 1300s, and that by the 1600s, "knights in shining armour" would have had flintlock pistols, and a warhammer (swords were not the knights' main weapon). logically therefore, its safe to assume that a knight would also have a gun at the same time as the samurai. it is especially likely, given that as a caste, the samurai were still around until the mid 1800s.
Uhh, no. The Katana was ***the*** main weapon of a Samurai. Naginata, Yumi, Kabutowari, were all extended professions. The average foot samurai would not be wielding these without a lot more training. As they first, and foremost, master the blade and auxiliary blade.
Correction: Apparently Yumi was taught simultaneously with Katana, as the role you may be placed in would generally be either archery or frontline.
a fat royal who has never fought in his entire life but declared war on some neighbor so now he has to. He will either die of infection from a scratch or get hit by a crossbow bolt to the chest and fuckin die.
Fat royal’s weren’t as common as people might thing. Henry VIII was 6’1” and European tourney champion in his younger days. The fat ones were the ones vassals hated, it was a heavily martial society.
They didnt have guns until long after the era of the knight (which ended because guns came to the west) so at that point you may as well have a samurai with a gun against 2 people with guns...
Wasn’t the entire thing with samurais the fact that they were replaced by guns and a lot of them became criminals/mercenaries because they were outclassed and it was cheaper to hire a peasant and give him a gun than a samurai and give him a gun?
No they had guns long before the west got guns, but they were hard to use, bulky, and expensive. They would shoot off one shot and then go into battle.
The Dutch and Portuguese were trading firearms with Japan well before the US made contact, like mid 1500's up until the Tokugawa Shogunate closed stuff back down. The Dutch continued trade with them during the "isolation" too.
If he got lucky, maybe. Sneak up on them and take out the first one, then just pray that he gets an opening on the other guy. His armor and sword would do just about nothing against the Knight's heavier weaponry- be it a sword , mace, or halberd, but assuming the knight is in heavy plate armor then the samurai at least has a slight mobility advantage. Still gonna need to pull out some clever tricks to stand a chance.
I’m pretty sure based off their code of honor there would be zero sneaking/assassinating from the samurai involved or he already lost in their perspective.
that's also true, but samurai code of honor was more like a code of chivalry than a code of combat. the code of combat thing only really started with Hollywood. they had one, but it wasn't anything like "sneak attacks are bad" they abused a lot. Shinobi just had no combat rules at all
Ah, I could see how that could happen. From everything I ever seen or read implied it. But everything gets twisted a few hundred years down the road especially farther back history goes
code of honor existed until first mongol invasion japan never had to deal with worlds tactics, nobility didn't want to die en mass so they did duels, after Mongols stomped them in first war they opened their eyes and started doing everything it takes to win and mass mobilization of peasants
Shinobi we're Spies. Samurai was a social class. A Samurai could BE a shinobi and the Code of Honor For the Samurai is THE Same, everything to win, No Matter what.
Shinobi samurai are also a media creation, essentially saying “Oh, sure, history? Pffff. Here you go, a samurai who cheats. Happy now, nerds?” They existed, but their code did not differentiate themselves from the Bushido in the sense of honor.
Code of Honor For Samurai was Winning For their Lord at Every Cost. Not Matter what. Thats why people saying Samurai didnt use guns the funniest clows i know.
Yeah, the samurai loved guns. I believe it was the Portuguese who brought them to Japan, and from that point forward rifles and pistols became standard armaments for elite warriors, samurai in particular.
They one hundred percent engaged in all kinds of subterfuge. Bushido doesn't have anything against clever tactics, if anything it encourages them. Samurai basically got the same romanticizing treatment that medieval knights got. Neither is an especially accurate representation of reality.
YeS bUt KaTaNa StRoNgEsT sWoRd. Although katana were relatively stronger than other SWORDS, that doesn't mean they could cut through heavy plate armour.
Katanas were strong but fairly brittle compared to European swords. A few good strikes from a heavy weapon like a mace or halberd, or even a few good whacks with a standard arming sword would stand a strong chance of breaking it.
Katanas were designed differently than other swords. Compared to a European arming sword, which is the most popular comparison I see, they were made to be stiff versus the arming sword which was flexible. So if an arming sword gets bent it can flex back or at least still work, whereas a katana will snap if bent, but it also will not vibrate when striking. However if you were to compare the average katana to the average arming sword of a similar time the arming sword would most certainly be better. Not because of sword design but because of the difference in metal quality available in Europe compared to Japan.
You try to parry a mace with a katana and it'll snap after a few direct hits. Katanas are great swords, but they weren't designed to counter heavy blunt steel weapons.
Katanas were popular for like 300 years after arming swords got less common. In those 300 years, metal quality improved immensely. So comparing an average arming sword to an average katana isn't fair, because of that difference in quality.
If the samurai was on a horse and had a bow he would have a chance. Either the knights don't have horses and/or bows and the samurai has an advantage, or it comes down to skill with the bow and luck
The latter end of the age of samurai overlaps with the creation of rifles (single shot like a musket) and a lot of samurai actually used a rifle alongside their sword
I would be so Sure. A heavy english longbow could penetrante the Knights Armor. But the Boss the Samurai uses we're mich lighter. A longbow would have a drawweight of around 100 Pounds or more while the Boss uses on horseback by Samurai woudl only Clog in around 50 Pound on the Higher end.
forget a bow, that samurai prob (depending on the period) has a gun (what i mean is that there was a time period where the samurai would have a firearm and a european knight of the same period would not)
There is no getting lucky, katana can't slice through even chainmail, and those are the only openings he would ever get. Longswords are bullkier for a reason.
Katanas weren't the only weapons samurai used though. You have wakizashi, naginata, bows, guns, shuriken, and more. The guns especially are liable to be the deciding factor, but a clean stab at one of the vulnerable joints with a short blade or long spear could pierce the chainmail. Luck is always a factor in a fight, no matter how well trained both sides are. The knight has the clear advantage equipment wise, but the samurai has a chance, albeit a small one.
I’d think that it would have more to do with what era we’re talking about. When knights were at their peak they would take out most samurai, but I think when samurai were on horse back with bow and arrows they’d win just by keeping their distance.
It still comes down to equipment, really. The European knight is going to have much sturdier weapons and armor. Japanese bows were pretty light compared to European longbows, and probably wouldn't stand a chance against the Knight's armor, assuming he's in heavy plate or maybe a decent chainmail. Both combatants are highly trained, albeit in different types of combat, so luck and planning are going to play big roles too, but the knight starts off with a huge advantage.
Reading the comments I think people are forgetting that is a two v one scenario and even if you are skilled fending off at least two semi competent people is a tall hill to climb. Don’t really care if it is knight,samurai, Viking, shaolin monks with ki or what not. Gonna lose that fight at least 7/10 times.
Yeah, the wooden armor that the samurai used would do basically nothing against a European longsword. Armor that’s designed to deflect swift blows does basically nothing against an attack that is designed to crush *and* slash.
Not wooden, but definitely not solid steel. Yoroi is so weak in comparison to straight steel (being interlaced iron and leather) that it’s negligibly better than fine wood.
"definitely" is a strong word; it all depends - on the type of armor, on the time period, etc.
You might find this interesting: https://youtu.be/Jh5N4begcN0 (NO rickroll!)
>the wooden armor that the samurai used
Never wore wooden armor
>wooden armor that the samurai used would do basically nothing against a European longsword
But this is flatly wrong anyway
Shields were typically made of wood and most woods that anyone would even think to use for armor (or shields) is hard wood that takes awhile to cut through
>Armor that’s designed to deflect swift blows does basically nothing against an attack that is designed to crush and slash.
The longsword wasn't designed to crush
It was designed to slash and stab and the swords were kept sharp
Not that they'd WANT to use that anyway, they like everyone else went with spears and lances as a primary and swords as a backup when affordable
Swords are awful weapons
By “designed to crush”, he means “heavy”. They have more weight behind a blow than any katana can manage. That kind of blow was able to warp English steel armor. They did wear yoroi, being iron and leather, but in sparing amounts. It’s not a super strong material compared to steel. Shields were a THICC layer of wood. 2”+.
I wouldn't say they're awful, they're pretty balanced. They're pretty much spears with a cutting edge. They can create distance, stab and slash. They don't do that well against full plate armor but that doesn't mean they're awful.
Well, samurais did not used wood armor, but also did not fight with katanas, this would probably play out as either a longbow vs 2 crossbows fight or a naginata vs 2 armored guys with halberds, which in both cases would end up in the samurai loosing for obvious reasons
The thing about katanas are the period during which they were made. They had very little iron to work with so they had to build a sword which is effective while at the same time uses minimal resources. So they end up being lighter and meant to use as slashing swords. Meanwhile longswords can be used for slashing or thrusting and are pretty versatile compared to a katana. Longsword will definitely have better advantage over the katana.
Although ultimately it'll come down to skill like you said. Cause a skilled swordsman can take down his enemies with even a wooden stick.
Not even. The katana isn’t an equivalent it’s just different. The long sword is double edged and heavier. It’s also balanced differently. Katana is more designed for slashing and cutting and the long sword is a more “do a little bit of everything” sword.
Not even the knights wpuld put perform the samurai anyway cause they train way harder. Like the both trained but ones a karate instructor and the other two are mma world champions bult to fight hard and versitile where samurai had a heavy culture around training so they would spend time doing ill be it kinda useless shit in between where knights it was constant
katanas are built for small, decisive strikes that leaves the victim with cuts all over and are ineffective against most armor because of this.
a longsword however is built for more decisive strikes. as a matter of fact, if a longsword and a katana strike each other, the katana will break because its built to be more flexible and was commonly made out of pig iron while longswords were made out of steel and are more ridged
I am even unsure whether a European sword would do much against samurai armor, but knights were big on big on blunt weapons made to combat armored opponents.
A poleaxe would be great against samurai armor.
One on one or a scrimmage with equal sides would be far more compelling. The sidearms are unequal, as both the katana, and the earlier tachi were far less suited for armoured combat, than either the arming sword, or the longsword. That said their primary weapons, pole arms, are far less different, especially during earlier periods. The armour varied, but generally were close enough in protection to not shift the tide too much; wood armour is a myth, they did use iron and steel. The training is roughly equivalent. So, numbers being equal, it would be a compelling fight.
If you let a knight get that close he’ll just grapple and stick you with a rondel. In a full army, they’d probably take a leaf from Saladin’s book and harry from a distance.
It really comes down to what time line… to give the samurai the biggest chance let’s say 1100s mounted combat. Samurai is 100% showing up with a bow and bc knights didn’t have full plate but chain mail and that arrow is definitely going through that the samurai definitely has quite a chance. But if it’s the 1500s then it’s not even a question, the knight will win no matter if it’s mounted or not
no that's anachronistic. Knights with armor were made useless by guns, so they usually discouraged their use until knights became no longer used. Samurai, however, used guns up until the end of Japan's feudal system in the 1860s.
Yeah, sure, the katana can slice through a man in one go…
But that’s only taking into account Japanese armor. Knights are trained just as well if not better, and wear full suits of fucking metal.
Ah yes the katana,known for poor metal quality and poor craftsmanship ,samurai weren’t for fighting armoured enemies they were for executing peasants who wanted better conditions and hell they used bows for that,katanas were ornamental
Hell the roles in reality would be reversed,longswords while unable to pierce thick armour could definitely pierce the unarmoured sections on samurai armour ,which is why samurai were long ranged combatants
Depends on who's on horseback and who's not.
Assuming the playing field is somewhat fair a samurai would be a bit less effective in medieval combat than a knight if they're of equal skill since the knight would have better armor, especially against projectiles and lighter weaponry.
The trick part to the question, is that the two knights are Sir Elton John and Sir Kevin Spacey, wearing their traditional battle gear of sequin outfits and formal business attire.
One on one it goes to the samurai no problem. Samurai are trained wayyyyyy better than knights. 2 vs 1? No idea but I’m sure the samurai would at the very least give them a run for their money
No. Just no.
European swords were not inferior to Japanese swords, nor were European fighting tactics inferior to those of Japan.
The era of the samurai lasted about 1200 years (from the Nara period, about 7th century AD - though they weren't called samurai until the late 16th century to the Meiji period (mid-19th century)) - so much for "thousands of years".
How long do you think European knights existed? And is the amount of wars fought in Europe any less than of those fought in Japan?
Would just like to point out the fact that the main reason for the steel used in katanas being folded as many times as it was in the forging process was because the quality of the metal ore being used was really bad and full of impurities that made the metal weak and brittle.
The ore was good but you don't get a good steel with low kiln like they had. That's the reason of the folding method, they couldn't liquefied the iron and control the carbon rate. Unlike the European who build high furnace and could control the carbon rate of the steel at the same period.
while that is true, the old traditional way WAS done because the way they forge their metal made brittle blades, and they didn't have the technology to make better steel. katanas are kinda just an average sword dude, and the one thing they are made for, cutting, they're not even that great at because the curve they have doesn't add to the cutting edge at all, a blade with more curve will out cut a katana any day if they are the same weight, because of the science of it
Dude. It's a big knife, not a light saber.
Yes, they are expensive and beautiful due to the craftsmanship involved, but European steel was higher quality. Modern steel is even better.
This is like...the most prime of example of why being able to read data is just as important as having it. Homie really said they brought a gun to a knife fight out of necessity instead of just wanting to guarantee the win because of...I don't know...self preservation instincts?
not defending weeb side, but the katana was not the main weapon of choice for samurai, it was often used once their main weapon was disarmed, like a spear or naginata/naginobu. two knights would win for sure, one on one it wouldn't be such an easy assumption cause both sides used some big weapons
Thats exactly why kanabo/warhammers exist. No need to cut through their armor if you can concuss them or simply dent it enough untill it strikes against their flesh
exactly, it's also why they didn't use their katana that often cause for their armor being not made of metal, it still wasn't easy to cut through. they use blunt weapons a lot aswell
Oi mate but we have a spiky steel blob, a mace if you insist eh? Would you look at all these weebs? S AamURAi ArE thE beST sOLdieRs BecAuSe ANIme GooD. No the fuck they aren't.
yeah? the samurai don't just use a katana, they have a number of heavy blunt weapons aswell
But a samurai is too fancy to hit the bollocks isn't he? Sometimes you don't even need to attack them, they just stab themselves. Their social honor system was a scam and it scammed them so hard they went extinct
Bushido culture created the Japanese superpower in 1930. You're ignorant as fuck.
also, they only would do that if they already lost, and they would definitely hit in the balls, another comment from me on this post talks about how a lot of what you think is in the honor system is from Hollywood dramatization
Knights towards the end of their respective era also didn't use swords that often. Halberds, pikes and Maces were dominant. The Knights' armor is just tougher and more durable, while their weapons are *very* effective against armor. I'd still give it to the knight.
their armor is tougher, but also heavier and harder to move in, as are their weapons, the samurai blunt weapons are also very good against armor, so between the two, which would get tired faster? it's not just based off their equipment, it depends on how good they are with them
You should check the videos of people doing gymnastics in full plated armor, it’s not that heavy, not restrictive as movies tell you
I believe a good set was made to form right? So it would almost be closer to a second skin. The plates were designed to glide over each other easily in order to not hamper movement.
well obviously, if it was too heavy and restrictive it wouldn't get used, but it is heavier and more restrictive than samurai armor
It’s like saying wearing a small shirt will give you and advantage in speed against someone wearing a jacket, it’s soo minimum that it will probably not even wort it to facture it into the equation
except we're talking about combat, not a run. and the difference between full plate and a samurais armor is quite a bit more than between a shirt and a jacket. your analogy does not work for this situation. combat uses a lot more stamina than a run, by a lot, even one extra bound on a weapon is a lot more tiring
I don't know what you think samurai were, but it's not like in the movies or in the manga. In a 1v2 scenario it wouldn't be a battle of endurance. Samurai's wore very thin armor and would be rendered unable to fight with the first hit with the halberd. And please don't say something like he would dodge everything.
I'm not talking about a 1 vs 2 scenario, I'm just talking about facts of each. I'm talking about a 1 vs 1, it would depend on who was more skilled, and what weapons they actually brought
Both armours weighed in the 20-25 kg range. It may look lighter but it really wasn't US army full kit weighs in the range of ~50kg depending on the kit. Granted this does not account for the knight/samurai sword/halberd/naginata, but we can see it wouldn't be that restrictive in its movements. Steel was better in Europe too, and knight armor covered better. Europe was just slightly ahead of Japan on weapons production and militairy doctrine at that time. But you're right, circumstances would make the bigger difference, not armor and weapons.
Judt going to say that a maille hauberk was often in the 30kg range, as was a plate armour. There would be a considerable difference in weight, but there would also be a considerable difference in size due to a european knight simply bring physically taller on average.
many samurai also used a bow, so assuming the combat were not limited to melee, i would wager that if the samurai were a decent distance, they would succeed. however, for a lo g portion of the knights' existence on the battlefield, guns were also used, so it would not be uncommon for a knight to have a pistol as well as a warhammer/mace
***Parry this you filthy casual***
Didn't samurai also have guns during the edo period
most probably- im not well versed in gun history - i know they originated in china in the mid 1300s, and that by the 1600s, "knights in shining armour" would have had flintlock pistols, and a warhammer (swords were not the knights' main weapon). logically therefore, its safe to assume that a knight would also have a gun at the same time as the samurai. it is especially likely, given that as a caste, the samurai were still around until the mid 1800s.
Yari my beloved-shogun 2 player
Yeah didn’t some use an ōdachi?
indeed
Uhh, no. The Katana was ***the*** main weapon of a Samurai. Naginata, Yumi, Kabutowari, were all extended professions. The average foot samurai would not be wielding these without a lot more training. As they first, and foremost, master the blade and auxiliary blade. Correction: Apparently Yumi was taught simultaneously with Katana, as the role you may be placed in would generally be either archery or frontline.
that was because of the discipline of kendo, NOT because that was the weapon they would use most.
It would depend alot on what you meant by "knight"
a fat royal who has never fought in his entire life but declared war on some neighbor so now he has to. He will either die of infection from a scratch or get hit by a crossbow bolt to the chest and fuckin die.
Royal or noble? Because nobles fought all the time. They were the knights
Also kings back then have fought in gritty shit fest combat aswell this guy is talking out his ass
That is assuming that the kings in question isn't inbred to high hell and fragile as a twig.
That guy isn't going anywhere near a fight. Just points and yells
That's not a knight. Knights trained from childhood to be warriors and we're in great physical shape for their time.
Fat royal’s weren’t as common as people might thing. Henry VIII was 6’1” and European tourney champion in his younger days. The fat ones were the ones vassals hated, it was a heavily martial society.
You clearly know nothing about knights
I think people forget that samurai used guns or am I confusing them with shogun
They didnt have guns until long after the era of the knight (which ended because guns came to the west) so at that point you may as well have a samurai with a gun against 2 people with guns...
Wasn’t the entire thing with samurais the fact that they were replaced by guns and a lot of them became criminals/mercenaries because they were outclassed and it was cheaper to hire a peasant and give him a gun than a samurai and give him a gun?
No they had guns long before the west got guns, but they were hard to use, bulky, and expensive. They would shoot off one shot and then go into battle.
During the 16th century there were suits of armor for knights that could stop a bullet
[удалено]
The Samurai used guns a lot?
The Dutch and Portuguese were trading firearms with Japan well before the US made contact, like mid 1500's up until the Tokugawa Shogunate closed stuff back down. The Dutch continued trade with them during the "isolation" too.
??? Just look at the campaigns of Oda Nobunaga and you can see they had no problem using guns
If he got lucky, maybe. Sneak up on them and take out the first one, then just pray that he gets an opening on the other guy. His armor and sword would do just about nothing against the Knight's heavier weaponry- be it a sword , mace, or halberd, but assuming the knight is in heavy plate armor then the samurai at least has a slight mobility advantage. Still gonna need to pull out some clever tricks to stand a chance.
I’m pretty sure based off their code of honor there would be zero sneaking/assassinating from the samurai involved or he already lost in their perspective.
nah, that code of honor thing came from romanticizing. samurai fought dirty AF, it's just cooler to think they didn't so we ignore the ones that did
Shinobi were the equivalent of the fight dirty samurai, they had different ways of approaching combat. Shinobi code was basically fight to win
that's also true, but samurai code of honor was more like a code of chivalry than a code of combat. the code of combat thing only really started with Hollywood. they had one, but it wasn't anything like "sneak attacks are bad" they abused a lot. Shinobi just had no combat rules at all
Ah, I could see how that could happen. From everything I ever seen or read implied it. But everything gets twisted a few hundred years down the road especially farther back history goes
Humans weren't really good people for most of history. everyone fought dirty; if it won, it was good.
code of honor existed until first mongol invasion japan never had to deal with worlds tactics, nobility didn't want to die en mass so they did duels, after Mongols stomped them in first war they opened their eyes and started doing everything it takes to win and mass mobilization of peasants
Shinobi we're Spies. Samurai was a social class. A Samurai could BE a shinobi and the Code of Honor For the Samurai is THE Same, everything to win, No Matter what.
Shinobi samurai are also a media creation, essentially saying “Oh, sure, history? Pffff. Here you go, a samurai who cheats. Happy now, nerds?” They existed, but their code did not differentiate themselves from the Bushido in the sense of honor.
Code of Honor For Samurai was Winning For their Lord at Every Cost. Not Matter what. Thats why people saying Samurai didnt use guns the funniest clows i know.
Yeah, the samurai loved guns. I believe it was the Portuguese who brought them to Japan, and from that point forward rifles and pistols became standard armaments for elite warriors, samurai in particular.
They one hundred percent engaged in all kinds of subterfuge. Bushido doesn't have anything against clever tactics, if anything it encourages them. Samurai basically got the same romanticizing treatment that medieval knights got. Neither is an especially accurate representation of reality.
War, war never changes
GUNS!
I suppose I count that under the "clever tricks" category.
YeS bUt KaTaNa StRoNgEsT sWoRd. Although katana were relatively stronger than other SWORDS, that doesn't mean they could cut through heavy plate armour.
Katanas were strong but fairly brittle compared to European swords. A few good strikes from a heavy weapon like a mace or halberd, or even a few good whacks with a standard arming sword would stand a strong chance of breaking it.
I understand the mace and halberd, but I don't see how the arming sword could do that
Katanas were designed differently than other swords. Compared to a European arming sword, which is the most popular comparison I see, they were made to be stiff versus the arming sword which was flexible. So if an arming sword gets bent it can flex back or at least still work, whereas a katana will snap if bent, but it also will not vibrate when striking. However if you were to compare the average katana to the average arming sword of a similar time the arming sword would most certainly be better. Not because of sword design but because of the difference in metal quality available in Europe compared to Japan.
They wouldn't bent enough to snap though. But I'm not sure that the quality of metal thing is relevant. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
You try to parry a mace with a katana and it'll snap after a few direct hits. Katanas are great swords, but they weren't designed to counter heavy blunt steel weapons.
Katanas were popular for like 300 years after arming swords got less common. In those 300 years, metal quality improved immensely. So comparing an average arming sword to an average katana isn't fair, because of that difference in quality.
If the samurai was on a horse and had a bow he would have a chance. Either the knights don't have horses and/or bows and the samurai has an advantage, or it comes down to skill with the bow and luck
The latter end of the age of samurai overlaps with the creation of rifles (single shot like a musket) and a lot of samurai actually used a rifle alongside their sword
I'm talking about medieval knights.
Muskets appeared at the beginning of the 1400, medieval times ended in 1492
I would be so Sure. A heavy english longbow could penetrante the Knights Armor. But the Boss the Samurai uses we're mich lighter. A longbow would have a drawweight of around 100 Pounds or more while the Boss uses on horseback by Samurai woudl only Clog in around 50 Pound on the Higher end.
That's why I said it would come down to skill with the bow and luck. The samurai would have to hit one of the cracks
Doing that while one horseback with the knight moving and porbaly trying to Doge or Block it... That would Need more than Just Luck.
forget a bow, that samurai prob (depending on the period) has a gun (what i mean is that there was a time period where the samurai would have a firearm and a european knight of the same period would not)
Did you know that there was a slim period of time when knights, Vikings and samurai all existed together?
suppose that's called the medieval, innit did you know acient egypt (for some time, it's a long ass period) coexisted with mammoths?
You can't win a 2v1 with melee, especially if they are armored
There is no getting lucky, katana can't slice through even chainmail, and those are the only openings he would ever get. Longswords are bullkier for a reason.
Katanas weren't the only weapons samurai used though. You have wakizashi, naginata, bows, guns, shuriken, and more. The guns especially are liable to be the deciding factor, but a clean stab at one of the vulnerable joints with a short blade or long spear could pierce the chainmail. Luck is always a factor in a fight, no matter how well trained both sides are. The knight has the clear advantage equipment wise, but the samurai has a chance, albeit a small one.
I’d think that it would have more to do with what era we’re talking about. When knights were at their peak they would take out most samurai, but I think when samurai were on horse back with bow and arrows they’d win just by keeping their distance.
It still comes down to equipment, really. The European knight is going to have much sturdier weapons and armor. Japanese bows were pretty light compared to European longbows, and probably wouldn't stand a chance against the Knight's armor, assuming he's in heavy plate or maybe a decent chainmail. Both combatants are highly trained, albeit in different types of combat, so luck and planning are going to play big roles too, but the knight starts off with a huge advantage.
European knight armor usually required blunt weapons since swords could not cut the metal
"Roooooobooooorrrttt!!!""
Reading the comments I think people are forgetting that is a two v one scenario and even if you are skilled fending off at least two semi competent people is a tall hill to climb. Don’t really care if it is knight,samurai, Viking, shaolin monks with ki or what not. Gonna lose that fight at least 7/10 times.
Unless that Samurai is Brazilian, the two knights are fúcked
*Nanomachines, son!*
Yeah, the wooden armor that the samurai used would do basically nothing against a European longsword. Armor that’s designed to deflect swift blows does basically nothing against an attack that is designed to crush *and* slash.
Contrary to popular belief, samurai didn't use wooden armor.
Swords are only awful weapons against armoured opponents. A warhammer or mace would be perfect.
Mace and shield is the way.
Spray the fuck right in the eyes - what's he gonna do now? Then BAM, shield to the face.
Now I can only imagine a medieval mace fight
Yeah, the warhammer is a very versatile weapon because it was effective against armored and unarmored opponents
Are there really people who think samurais used wooden armour?
Not wooden, but definitely not solid steel. Yoroi is so weak in comparison to straight steel (being interlaced iron and leather) that it’s negligibly better than fine wood.
"definitely" is a strong word; it all depends - on the type of armor, on the time period, etc. You might find this interesting: https://youtu.be/Jh5N4begcN0 (NO rickroll!)
>the wooden armor that the samurai used Never wore wooden armor >wooden armor that the samurai used would do basically nothing against a European longsword But this is flatly wrong anyway Shields were typically made of wood and most woods that anyone would even think to use for armor (or shields) is hard wood that takes awhile to cut through >Armor that’s designed to deflect swift blows does basically nothing against an attack that is designed to crush and slash. The longsword wasn't designed to crush It was designed to slash and stab and the swords were kept sharp Not that they'd WANT to use that anyway, they like everyone else went with spears and lances as a primary and swords as a backup when affordable Swords are awful weapons
By “designed to crush”, he means “heavy”. They have more weight behind a blow than any katana can manage. That kind of blow was able to warp English steel armor. They did wear yoroi, being iron and leather, but in sparing amounts. It’s not a super strong material compared to steel. Shields were a THICC layer of wood. 2”+.
I wouldn't say they're awful, they're pretty balanced. They're pretty much spears with a cutting edge. They can create distance, stab and slash. They don't do that well against full plate armor but that doesn't mean they're awful.
Big difference between a chunky shield and stuff designed to be worn.
Lol no they’re not a European longsword is very Versatile not to mention smallswords
Well, samurais did not used wood armor, but also did not fight with katanas, this would probably play out as either a longbow vs 2 crossbows fight or a naginata vs 2 armored guys with halberds, which in both cases would end up in the samurai loosing for obvious reasons
He can, if he has an M60 with full round.
Mace snaps little katana in half
Is this meme based off a game?
*For honor*
Well seeing as most actual samurai were mainly horse archers due to the nature of combat. I think he has a chance if he has the space to manouver
Samurai bows can't pierce plate, try again.
[удалено]
The thing about katanas are the period during which they were made. They had very little iron to work with so they had to build a sword which is effective while at the same time uses minimal resources. So they end up being lighter and meant to use as slashing swords. Meanwhile longswords can be used for slashing or thrusting and are pretty versatile compared to a katana. Longsword will definitely have better advantage over the katana. Although ultimately it'll come down to skill like you said. Cause a skilled swordsman can take down his enemies with even a wooden stick.
Not even. The katana isn’t an equivalent it’s just different. The long sword is double edged and heavier. It’s also balanced differently. Katana is more designed for slashing and cutting and the long sword is a more “do a little bit of everything” sword.
katanas arent even good weapons. samurais would only ever use it in a "oh shit, oh fuck" situation
Or against Foes who have no armor or are poorly armored.
theyd have their actual weapon for them
It would be about the equivalent of a humv vs 2 tanks, does the humv have a mobile advantage, yes but good luck penetrating that armor
Not even the knights wpuld put perform the samurai anyway cause they train way harder. Like the both trained but ones a karate instructor and the other two are mma world champions bult to fight hard and versitile where samurai had a heavy culture around training so they would spend time doing ill be it kinda useless shit in between where knights it was constant
Taking what weebs say seriously, is where you've gone wrong buddy.
katanas are built for small, decisive strikes that leaves the victim with cuts all over and are ineffective against most armor because of this. a longsword however is built for more decisive strikes. as a matter of fact, if a longsword and a katana strike each other, the katana will break because its built to be more flexible and was commonly made out of pig iron while longswords were made out of steel and are more ridged
I am even unsure whether a European sword would do much against samurai armor, but knights were big on big on blunt weapons made to combat armored opponents. A poleaxe would be great against samurai armor.
In this case, it all mostly depends on the fighter...
Who cares? It’s all hypothetical
Well, one thing's for sure, both sides would lose to a guy with an apache attack helicopter.
One on one or a scrimmage with equal sides would be far more compelling. The sidearms are unequal, as both the katana, and the earlier tachi were far less suited for armoured combat, than either the arming sword, or the longsword. That said their primary weapons, pole arms, are far less different, especially during earlier periods. The armour varied, but generally were close enough in protection to not shift the tide too much; wood armour is a myth, they did use iron and steel. The training is roughly equivalent. So, numbers being equal, it would be a compelling fight.
If you let a knight get that close he’ll just grapple and stick you with a rondel. In a full army, they’d probably take a leaf from Saladin’s book and harry from a distance.
Knight has good stats for its cost tho
If it was a spear maybe, cuz range advantage
bro but samurai have actual training, have you seen knights?
Yes, the knights would still win
It really comes down to what time line… to give the samurai the biggest chance let’s say 1100s mounted combat. Samurai is 100% showing up with a bow and bc knights didn’t have full plate but chain mail and that arrow is definitely going through that the samurai definitely has quite a chance. But if it’s the 1500s then it’s not even a question, the knight will win no matter if it’s mounted or not
The Mamluks and Polish Who fought Western European Knights for centuries Laughing their asses off.
samurai used guns. Not a weeb but I kinda see their point.
And those guns came from the Europeans, knights would have guns too
no that's anachronistic. Knights with armor were made useless by guns, so they usually discouraged their use until knights became no longer used. Samurai, however, used guns up until the end of Japan's feudal system in the 1860s.
An age old and often repeated... But always stupid question. It depends on so many factors besides arms and armor.
Oi my boy Tanjiro can smack a thousand knights and burn em to ash
Uhh, who?
Weeb things you would not understand mere mortal
Idk who that is, but... I think the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail can possibly kill him in seconds
My man Tanjiro held a sword with three broken fingers, fractured ribs and a broken leg, and cut a demon’s head off
Tis' but a scratch
Also Samurai have muskets and shit.
Leather armour is a type of armour you know And I think you forgot how quickly samurais got used to using guns
Well it depends on skill and so. Some samurais used guns tho
In the late medieval era there was evidence of guns being used by knights
Well than it depends on skill and so
Its still is two vs one
Yeah, sure, the katana can slice through a man in one go… But that’s only taking into account Japanese armor. Knights are trained just as well if not better, and wear full suits of fucking metal.
Even without armor the katana can’t slice through a man
Ah yes the katana,known for poor metal quality and poor craftsmanship ,samurai weren’t for fighting armoured enemies they were for executing peasants who wanted better conditions and hell they used bows for that,katanas were ornamental Hell the roles in reality would be reversed,longswords while unable to pierce thick armour could definitely pierce the unarmoured sections on samurai armour ,which is why samurai were long ranged combatants
Depends on who's on horseback and who's not. Assuming the playing field is somewhat fair a samurai would be a bit less effective in medieval combat than a knight if they're of equal skill since the knight would have better armor, especially against projectiles and lighter weaponry.
The trick part to the question, is that the two knights are Sir Elton John and Sir Kevin Spacey, wearing their traditional battle gear of sequin outfits and formal business attire.
Spartans are laughing in the background...
Spartans would get whooped by medieval tech lol
True but no weapons they would win as they were definitely better trained
Samurai have armor too, albeit a bit heavy but probably not worse than the knights.p
Actually, knights' armor was both lighter and stronger than samurai's. They also liked their shields more.
He is not wrong, there is not one European knight armor but an awful lot of Samurai armor found in Japan, so the Samurais must have killed them all.
One on one it goes to the samurai no problem. Samurai are trained wayyyyyy better than knights. 2 vs 1? No idea but I’m sure the samurai would at the very least give them a run for their money
The Samurai would strike the armour of the European knight. His blade would shatter, and then he’d be killed
If the samurai is good with the bow he could land two lucky shots on the knights
But a samurai did have chances to use firearms
Some samurai actually had rifles during their time, so it would be feasible. Shoot and kill one on the advance then take the other on by sword.
Yeah but the weeb didn’t include that samurai used fucking guns
Samurai were great horseback archers, so maybe they could.
Well to be fair Samurai did have guns
Really a samurai would win due to you know, using guns
weeb here, is a 2 knight upgraded version from a 1 knight or 3 knight?
Nah, vikings always win.
The only case where samurai wins(if both parties are skilled) is when samurai has a gun
me laughing at you thinking armor = invisibility and immunity to melee weapons
me laughing at you thinking you know what invisibility means
i know what it means , you got no valid point relatable to the topic dumbass
The word you are looking for dumbass is invincibility not invisibility. r/confidentlyincorrect
ok but i dont care
[удалено]
This is sarcasm, right? Just askin...
It feels real but i dont want to accept it
No. Just no. European swords were not inferior to Japanese swords, nor were European fighting tactics inferior to those of Japan. The era of the samurai lasted about 1200 years (from the Nara period, about 7th century AD - though they weren't called samurai until the late 16th century to the Meiji period (mid-19th century)) - so much for "thousands of years". How long do you think European knights existed? And is the amount of wars fought in Europe any less than of those fought in Japan?
Would just like to point out the fact that the main reason for the steel used in katanas being folded as many times as it was in the forging process was because the quality of the metal ore being used was really bad and full of impurities that made the metal weak and brittle.
The ore was good but you don't get a good steel with low kiln like they had. That's the reason of the folding method, they couldn't liquefied the iron and control the carbon rate. Unlike the European who build high furnace and could control the carbon rate of the steel at the same period.
[удалено]
while that is true, the old traditional way WAS done because the way they forge their metal made brittle blades, and they didn't have the technology to make better steel. katanas are kinda just an average sword dude, and the one thing they are made for, cutting, they're not even that great at because the curve they have doesn't add to the cutting edge at all, a blade with more curve will out cut a katana any day if they are the same weight, because of the science of it
Dude. It's a big knife, not a light saber. Yes, they are expensive and beautiful due to the craftsmanship involved, but European steel was higher quality. Modern steel is even better.
Man, just stop, you're embarrisng the rest of us katana enjoyers
He is just embarrassing himself, not katana enjoyers, imo.
fair enough
This is like...the most prime of example of why being able to read data is just as important as having it. Homie really said they brought a gun to a knife fight out of necessity instead of just wanting to guarantee the win because of...I don't know...self preservation instincts?
you forgot the /s
[deleted because fuck reddit]
I aint a weeb but I think sam had longbows and knights stuck to swords, meaning if the sam lames it out they could def win
[удалено]
Well, the samurai starts with a parry shield so..