/jp/ - Otaku Culture

European Knight.

/thread

American Police wins

I win.

Samurai obviously. Reason : katanah.

AoE knight vs samurai.jpg

刀 > all

repost
/thread

Forged steel is harder than pattern welded steel
That plate armour (and arming sword of course) is actually harder than the edge of the katana

>>3799581
That's why the samurai will slash at the weak spots: joints.

Since katana can pierce through tank's armor, battle is decided.

>>3799584
The armor protecting the joints is stronger than what the katana is going to make it through.

Bludgeon or piecing attack ... all else will fail.

/k/alling airstrike on this thread !

>>3799584
Weak spots are covered by chainmail under the plate.
Those later pig snout helms don't even have an eye slit you can stab through. You have to wrestle the knight to the ground and rip off his helm to get to his face. And knights are way better in wrestling

>>3799597
>implying knights can wrestle while locked inside a 300 pound tuna can

>>3799600
Actually they can. They can do jumping jacks and handstands and all kinds of shit in it. Its really not hard at all to move around in.

Okay guys, 30 apache indians vs 12 samurai who would win.

>>3799600
Wrestling, other than maces and such which can be disarmed, was the only way to kill people from within their tuna can.

Goddamn no. We had this thread for two fucking days, and we sure as hell don't need it here for a third.

>>3799606
The Apache would kill them before they even knew what was going on.

>300 pound tuna can

>20 kg (45 pounds) for a full plate set if made from well tempered steel

>>3799605
Because a youtube video told you so?

>>3799600
>implying back then europeans were not like twice the size of a samurai
>implying you can wrestle something than weights 3 times you
>implying the spanish inquisition will not pop-up and burn both of them in a unexpected manner

>>3799613
Because I've worn the stuff.

Yeah I agree, the average apache is too fast and agile not to mention throwing axes would down a samurai before he could even counter attack.

>>3799616
Sure you did.

>>3799617
Don't forget the Apache will stealth its way through this.

>>3799615
>implying Japanese martial arts aren't incredibly superior to western fighting

Can tuna cans kill servants?

>>3799620
Ok, if you say so, it must be fucking gospel.

15 rock and 15 scissors vs 15 paper and 15 rock vs. 15 scissors and 15 paper.

Who wins?

>>3799628
super-paper

Indians are easily superior over japanese military,
They fought against veteran colonists who had guns, and had some success, Along with foreign and american militaries.

Whilas it looks like samurai were phased out entirely vs guns.

What we can see from this is the average apache has such a massive speed and tactical advantage compared to the samurai.

>>3799631
no, paperbin wins all

10 samurai vs 3 man machine gun section with a Vickers MMG

Who wins?

>>3799636
1 samurai wins. The other 9 just watch.

>>3799636
We all lose

Another advantage is the average indian before massive american colonization was not trained, but raised fighting and killing rival tribes.

The samurai had to train into his position.

The pure experience and raw combat prowess of indians is comparable to the glorious barbarians.

This is why the samurai also stands no chance in terms of fighting a indian.

1000 africanized honeybees vs. 10 samurai. Who wins?

>>3799647
And that's why the Native Americans rule a powerful 1st world country which leads in technology while the Japanese are almost extinct right? Oh wait, no, it's the other way around.

>>3799654
Clearly the bees would win, since japanese katanas were not ment to cut through such superior grade bee hides.

Not to mention a bee stinger could easily break the armor japan was capable at the time.

>>3799659
Clearly you did not read because, the samurai caste was killed off into extinction.

Whilas the Native Americans still exist, somewhat in their natural state.

Because of this the indians are clearly superior to samurai.

Why. Why do this again.
We've already established repeatedly that the knight would easily win in single combat, mostly due to being impervious to blows from a katana.

A samurai equipped with that weird mace thing they sometimes used might have a shot, but I believe those were rarely carried since they weight a lot.

What about 1000 cavemen and a T-Rex vs 1000 samurai?

>>3799667
Native Americans only exist nowadays because human rights people say it's not cool to kill them. Just that.

>>3799676
>dinosaur with humans
go read a book

>>3799681
Yeah, samurai don't exist today because its cool to kill such useless pieces of shit.

Looks like the knight is fucked

>>3799684
Clearly, you are just afraid of the fact a katana cannot pierce superior caveman flesh, along with a T-rex's steel hide.

A caveman fist or club, and a T-Rex's superior european teeth could easily shatter, or bypass a samurai's armor.

>>3799671
The battles would be one by which weapon and which kind of warrior are in those classes.

All that would take a samurai to kill a knight would be to make the knight miss with a retarded swing then trip the fucker using one of those big studded war sticks samurai used for close combat that could break bone with one hit. After that, disarm the fag knight and cut his throat off with a kodachi.

>>3799686
Not really. But rather because Japan is a powerful 1st world country with high technology.

>>3799690
>implying knight don't have mace

>>3799701
>implying knights would be able to hit a fast opponent with their heavy armor on.

>>3799698
So everyone in japan today is a samurai, instead of some weakass tiny nip with no will to fight?

>>3799708
>implying samurai can dodge a swinging mace

>>3799709
No everyone in Japan is a citizen of a modern country with modern weaponry. Samurais are part of Japanese history, the same way knights are part of European history. I thought I wouldn't have to explain obvious things, but I'm apparently dealing with retards here.

>their heavy armor
It's lighter than your average infantry's gear these days, and instead of the weight all located in a bag and an assault rifle, the weight is distributed evenly on the body.

When it comes to feudal times I prefer Europe over Japan.

>>3799723
Why don't you read the part of our arguement, you fucking moron.

It says "SAMURAI VS INDIANS"

not "EVERYONE IN JAPAN EVEN MODERN JAPAN VS INDIANS"

Stop fucking your pillows and learn how to read, you faggot.

>>3799724
Whoa, that obviously means that a knight can move more easily, what with their extremities covered in armor plating with a helmet obviously limiting their field of vision.

>>3799718
Samurai dodged faster things than a knight swinging a mace. There's this thing called an arm swing and telegraphing your movements. Maces don't swing themselves.

European knight vs German .andsknecht

1 on 1

Who wins?

European knight versus German landsknechte

1 on 1

Who wins?

>>3799724
There's a reason why soldiers do NOT wear full body armor and have their gear concentrated elsewhere.

>>3799745
Hey, don't diss the dakimakura!

If the samurai's sword can't cut throw the armor, he can simply evade all hits, wear the knight down and kill him afterwards.

>>3799548
Samurai.
European knight has no brain.

>>3799764
A samurai also has a studded war club in his arsenal. Best weapon to use against armored opponents and can shatter bones in unarmored targets.

>>3799770
>studded war club
Called a Kanabo.

>>3799546
please stop spamming Ａｎｏｎ Ｔａｌｋ .com thanks

>>3799770
Meanwhile, every weapon employed by the knight is leathal against the samurai

The european knight's massive european dick could shatter a japanese studded club in one clash.

European knight is slow.

Knight is mostly a cavalry
Samurai is mostly an infantry

Infantry cannot beat cavalry, unless using phalanx

>>3799779
1. You underestimate the samurai's armor.
2. The knight must hit, but he's too slow. Give him a net or a bow, then we talk.

>The knight must hit, but he's too slow.
You know, knights are very well trained in hand to hand fighting against light troops, seen as they have to fight them all the time after they're done charging with the lance.

>>3799547
please stop spamming Ａｎｏｎ Ｔａｌｋ .com thanks

Samurai clubs tin man to death.

>>3799808
Kiting samurai.

>>3799808
Because light armored troops don't have the sufficient weapons to beat them, right? Tell that to halberdiers.

>>3799779
Weapons are only lethal if they hit.

>>3799831
They do, that's why it's ridiculous to suggest that knight won't know how to handle light infantry like samurai. They have plenty of experience fighting light infantries. (everyone is light infantry compared to knights)

>>3799792
>implying samurais aren't masters of horseback archery

>>3799690
>>3799770
>>3799773
Samurai practically never carried kanabou.

Make it a fight where the opponents are aware of the other's equipment and skill sets, and we can talk. The samurai will bring a kanabou (since katana are completely useless against full plate), and although he'll die while striking the knight (can't dodge and swing that monstrosity at the same time), if he aims well enough he might kill the knight, or at the very least severely harm him.

>>3799849
Kanabou is part of a samurai weapon cache. As well as the yumi, which they can accurately fire on a fucking horse.

>>3799849
>implying a samurai cannot read a telegraphed knight attack and just dodge it while aiming his kanabo at the knight's legs. take off the helmet when the gaijin is on the ground, then stab the fucker with a wakizashi.

>>3799842
Knights can only fight well against light armored troops not specialized in killing them. Any specialized troop armed to deal with them kills knights easily in a one on one affair.

>implying samurais aren't masters of horseback archery

You're damn right that's what I'm implying. The only mounted archers worth a damn are from the Eurasian Steppe.

Japanese mounted archery is shit compared to Steppe mounted warfare. For one they don't even have composite recurve bows.

>>3799861
They can hit a bulls-eye on a gallop. Enjoy having your eyes pierced.

BROADSWORDS CAN PIERCE THE HEAVENS

>>3799861
>You're damn right that's what I'm implying.

Good thing you admit your ignorance. Next step is to start learning.

>Knights can only fight well against light armored troops not specialized in killing them

No shit genius, if you have a specialised troop that gets slaughtered by the one thing they're designed to counter, there wouldn't be much point would there?

Other than crossbow men or pike squares, what else can touch a knight?

>>3799874
Samurais

>>3799865
>hit a bulls-eye on a gallop
Yeah, one of a thousand samurai shoot at the same time, at least one of them may hit a bulls-eye.

>>3799874
A samurai with a kanabou and a knife.

You can't be a decent mounted archer without a recurve bow, it's that simple.

>>3799881
>has never seen Japanese horse archery before and time to make wild claims

ENJOY YOUR DEAD HORSE

>>3799881
>one of a thousand samurai shoot at the same time
>one
>shoot at the same time
WAT

>>3799545
please stop spamming Ａｎｏｎ Ｔａｌｋ .com thanks

>>3799888
Tell that to the Japanese arrow while it penetrates your eye socket.

You all wrong, european mounted arbalesters were strongest force came after mongols.

>They can hit a bulls-eye on a gallop

That's mounted archery, but it's not mounted warfare. Mounted archers are not suppose to get close enough to aim at individual targets, they are very fast long range skirmisher. If you can aim at individual targets on a horse it means foot archers can aim at you. And a person + horse is much bigger target than a foot archer.

Precise shots from a running horse are impossible. With a bow as well as with modern guns.

>>3799928
Are we talking about knights vs samurai here? Or did you just change the subject into something else?
>>3799929
You have never tried it before. Yes, you can also do it with guns and arrows. It has been done before.
>>3799915
Enjoy your slow reload time.

>>3799928
>That's mounted archery
>but it's not mounted warfare
>implying archery isn't a form of warfare

>>3799861
FUCK YEAH KHERGIT

>>3799929
Watch Lock and Load. And a lot of kyudo shows. They will prove you wrong.

>>3799946
Stop posting.

>>3799960
>I said something stupid and now I feel humiliated

>>3799965
Which is why you should stop posting.

>>3799956
Fuck yeah Gunny shooting with a pistol accurately while riding a hog.

Who suddenly decided to give the samurai a horse and a bow?

I could give the knight a machine gun to "compensate".

>>3799976
Because you are feeling humiliated? I rather humiliate you more.

>>3799980
even then samurai would win

>>3799980
Samurai fought with bows and arrows, you dickhead. On horses even. Where they carried a vast array of weaponry. You dickhead.

>>3799980
>implying a machine gun would be historically accurate

>>3799982
I can finally start taking you seriously now, keep up the good work. Maybe someday you'll graduate past /v/.

I fail to see how a Japanese bow is going to do anything against a knight. Wouldn't you need a more powerful projectile than that to effectively pierce plate?

>>3799985
Samurai don't fight with a katana + kanabo + bow + arrows + horse.

So, now let's give the knight a horse, too, because knights ride horses. Then, let's give him a crossbow.

>>3799998
No need for bows. Kanabou + wakizashi = knight is fucked.

>>3800008
>Samurai don't fight with a katana + kanabo + bow + arrows + horse.
LEARN YOUR HISTORY, FAGGOT.

>>3800012
>Kanabo
is worthless when you already have an arming sword through you.

>>3799998
Just Kanabou and wakizashi is enough to kill a knight if he's the full plate version and the yumi cannot properly get an accurate shot in if the archer is too shitty and not up to par with samurai horseback archers.

>>3800018
Samurai is a lot more agile, knight never hits him.

>>3800029
He's still wearing heavy armor, hardly agile.

>>3800018
Knights, by the very virtue of them wearing heavy armor at their extremities, then using heavy weapons will almost always telegraph their swings.

Samurai is fast enough to capitalize. Trip the faggot using the kanabou then kill the knight how knights are killed in the feudal age.

TAKE HELMET OFF, STAB IN FACE.

>>3800035
Huh? Are you sure you know what samurai wear?

>>3800016
So many faggots here.

Equip your knight:
armor:
weapons:
something else:

Equip your samurai:
armor:
weapons:
something else:

Note, the more equipment you choose, the less agile the warrior becomes.

>Samurai is a lot more agile
I agree. But that's only if he's not carrying a fucking kanabo. Which is it, now? Either he's already dead or he has no way to attack. Your call.

>>3800035
Samurai are more agile because their armor does not cover where it counts for them to be agile: the extremities.

>>3800037
this

>>3800046
A kanabou is not the part where the samurai is agile. Samurai do not carry kanabou with their legs.

>>3800044
Samurai will bring his weapons from horseback. He kills your knight's horse with the first arrow.

Whatever. The thread is already over--everyone here knows the knight wins. Unless someone from /a/ really did stumble in.

Fucking janitor needs to do his job.

>>3800056
Isn't a knight's horse also decked with heavy armor?

>>3800069
>can't admit defeat
You're only like that because the previous fags you outargued weren't as knowledgeable as the fags you're arguing with right now.

>>3800070
Not everywhere. And most of the armored horses where from the Byzantine period around the Turkic peninsula. Those weren't actually knights.

>>3800069

>no more arguments
>goes "lalalalala I win"

>>3800072
So you admit to being new, then?

>>3800079
I've been in /jp/ since it started. But not all the time on it.

>>3800079
That wouldn't null the strong argument presented against you.

>>3800085
Sorry, your use of green text betrays you. Nice try, though.

>>3800055
>A kanabou is not the part where the samurai is agile. Samurai do not carry kanabou with their legs.
/jp/ logic at its finest.

>>3800072
This is not about you winning or losing. This is about cold, hard facts--your shameless desire to "troll" people never factored in, so it was hopeless from the beginning.

When challenged to find the flaw in a vault's security, you're trying to beat up the steel door with your bare hands--"I win as long as I make this door annoyed," you think.

Foolish.

>>3800096
Look at all the other people using quotes. It's not really greentext, but you're too much of a newfag to know they're really called quotes.
>>3800099
If you didn't understand what I meant with that, facepalm.jpg

>>3800105
You can't even prove me wrong, yet you're calling me a troll? Damn.

>>3800108
All of those posts that have "implying" in green text? /jp/edos don't do that.

A knight would only win if a samurai became retarded and just tried to bash it out with a knight, not taking into account the speed and agility advantage a samurai has, as well as specialized anti-armor weapon that a samurai has.

>>3800116
Look at the guys who argued with each other in this thread. Get out.

>>3800110
Suffer me the truth, if you will. How did you manage to notice that I called you a troll when you quite obviously cannot read?

>>3800123
You haven't even given a good counter-argument, yet you call my informed arguments a troll? THAT is trolling.

>>3800122
This is my board. You and your friends go back to your board.

>>3800123
You're being a prick. You haven't even made good counters to what he brought up and you declare victory all of a sudden when he made good points.

>>3800139
>he
You refer to yourself in the third person? How cute.

>>3800149
Okay sure. Whatever. You're still being a prick.

ITT tripfag that brought no good arguments trolling anons with good arguments and counterarguments.

>>3800150
I'm being a prick by rejecting arguments which have already been soundly defeated? Interesting...

>>3800161
These are clearly not the same arguments.

>>3800161
Which arguments have been soundly defeated? Tell me, please. Enlighten this weak-minded one. If my previous arguments can destroy those, then fuck you.

>A knight would only win if a samurai became retarded and just tried to bash it out with a knight, not taking into account the speed and agility advantage a samurai has, as well as specialized anti-armor weapon that a samurai has.

>>3800169
>Which arguments have been soundly defeated?
The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim. Provide an argument which has not already been defeated and we'll talk.

>>3800178
READ THE THREAD

Now I'm sure you're trolling.

>>3800178
This thread is filled with arguments that soundly beats a knight. If you can't read, then you're worth nothing in this discussion at all.

>>3800178
>The burden of proof is on the one making a positive claim.
>implying he's not making a positive claim that a knight can not be beaten by a samurai

>>3800186
In other words, you can show me none. Well, then...

>>3800190
OH GOD, READ THE FUCKING THREAD, YOU TROLL.

>>3800191
He's feeding off your attention. Stop feeding him.

>>3800190
>>3800118
>>3800048
>>3800055
>>3800037
>>3800027
>>3799985
>>3799859
>>3799854
>>3799837
>>3799764
>>3799751
>>3799756
>>3799697

in short, READ THE FUCKING THREAD

Summarize your arguments, then come to a conclusion.

>>3800206
go here >>3800174

>>3800189
It has been shown in many previous threads that the samurai does not have a weapon capable of killing the knight before the knight kills him. This is "established." You propose that there is a counterargument. This is a positive claim which has not been established.

>>3800191
You're trying to avoid accountability by not making a statement yourself and avoid defeat by sending me on a wild goose chase. That won't work. One argument. You only need one. If you can't show me one, you forfeit.

>>3800212
>It has been shown in many previous threads that the samurai does not have a weapon capable of killing the knight before the knight kills him.
KANABOU TRIPS KNIGHT, KILLS KNIGHT THE WAY KNIGHTS ARE KILLED BY LIGHT-ARMORED TROOPS:

OPEN HELMET, STAB FACE.

>>3800212
Read the goddamn thread, faggot. Read it and weep. There are more ways to kill a knight rather than standing in front of him and going for a bashfest.

>>3800212
because knights can't have their visors forced open and get killed with a knife. oh wait, that's how knights were killed by unarmored troops if they had no halberds, war hammers, or crossbows.

Come on...
I ignored this thread at first as it was just a repost of the thread from last night, but seriously?
Why do people think that armor is such a disadvantage? And why does so many think that Samurais stand a fair chance?

A few posts from the earlier thread
http://archive.easymodo.net/cgi-board.pl/jp/thread/3788884#p3789402
http://archive.easymodo.net/cgi-board.pl/jp/thread/3788884#p3789423
http://archive.easymodo.net/cgi-board.pl/jp/thread/3788884#p3789643
http://archive.easymodo.net/cgi-board.pl/jp/thread/3788884#p3793435
http://archive.easymodo.net/cgi-board.pl/jp/thread/3788884#p3793685
http://archive.easymodo.net/cgi-board.pl/jp/thread/3788884#p3793688

>>3800235
You probably don't know how much armor weighs.

fascinating.jpg

It's like I'm really on /tg/!

>>3800235
Because samurai have the option of not standing in front of a knight, who does have armor, but also has limited field of vision, as well as telegraphing their blows because of armored extremities.

I'm not going to read though this whole thing, I hope alot of the people voting for the Samurai were being ironic, I know the "katana cuts tank" guy was, at least.

The Japanese Katana is a thin, brittle blade, but very easy to carry and very fast to swing. This makes it highly efficient at what it was made to do: cut down many unarrmored or lightly armorored opponents in rapid succession. However, it also makes it quite useless against a knight decked in full plate mail. Luckily, European forces were not composed of legions of plate mail opponents, knights were the rare royalty who took the battlefield, not actual mass infantry units.

So to answer OP's question: whoever sent the samurai after the knight was an idiot. Japanese crossbowman wins; banned on European battlefields the crossbowman could easily kill the royal asshole in full plate.

150+ post omitted for a 3D wapanese thread? I am disappoint.

>>3800246
Expect worse later on today. I knew I shouldn't be visiting this site on a US holiday.

>>3800245
You have not read the thread. With the right weapons (kanabou and wakizashi), a Samurai can make short work of a Knight.

Of course if a Samurai used JUST a Katana, he'd get creamed.

>>3800238
You mean we're having a real discussion and not just pointing out silly facts like 'Rika is the miracle of this universe'?

>>3800245
>The Japanese Katana
People weren't arguing for the katana. They were arguing for a samurai specially armed to deal with a Knight using samurai weaponry that can be geared for such a fight.

Further reading: http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Warning for mentally handicapped: long.

>>3800251
I should go post "Rika is the miracle of this universe" in /tg/ to completely flip reality.

>>3800201
I said one, not fifty. I would be a waste of time to address fifty different lies, so give me one and make it quick.

...Otherwise, I'll declare victory after disproving only one, since you seem so confident... Do you want to take that risk?

>>3800208
>A knight would only win if a samurai became retarded and just tried to bash it out with a knight, not taking into account the speed and agility advantage a samurai has, as well as specialized anti-armor weapon that a samurai has.
Disproven in >>3800046.

As for the "not on your legs" counterclaim, go pin your arm down and tell me if you can still walk.

>>3800215
Read above to see why this is already defeated.

Further, assuming the knight was caught off-guard or some-such, knights were well-versed in wrestling while samurai were not, so he could easily pull the samurai down and kill him even with a broken leg.

>>3800226
Not all helmets are so easy to penetrate, as previously established in >>3799597.

>>3800237
20 kg, as mentioned in >>3799612.

>>3800241
Are you seriously trying to imply that knights aren't capable of turning and moving around? I admit, this hasn't been defeated yet, because no one is that stupid.

>>3800255
Does he get a crossbow? He would win with a crossbow.

>>3799861
>Japanese mounted archery is shit compared to Steppe mounted warfare. For one they don't even have composite recurve bows.
Holy shit, someone who has a clue what they're talking about.

>>3800261
That post disproved nothing.
>As for the "not on your legs" counterclaim, go pin your arm down and tell me if you can still walk.
Kanabo are NOT that heavy, you retarded faggot. It's a fucking baseball bat with iron studs.
>Further, assuming the knight was caught off-guard or some-such, knights were well-versed in wrestling while samurai were not, so he could easily pull the samurai down and kill him even with a broken leg.
SAMURAI ARE TRAINED WITH JUJITSU, LEARN YOUR HISTORY.

And a falling knight in full armor just would NOT have the proper reaction time to pull off what you're suggesting.

>Are you seriously trying to imply that knights aren't capable of turning and moving around? I admit, this hasn't been defeated yet, because no one is that stupid.

A knight can move around, but he will NOT be as fast, nor as agile as a Samurai in combat. With his limited field of vision, a Samurai can easily fuck him up in a fight.

>180 posts and 7 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ooooh pleeeeeaase

>>3800269
That's in an en masse battle. If it's a one-on-one, it's no different. A samurai can still aim for the Knight's visor or horse.

>>3800272
>a Samurai can easily fuck him up in a fight.
look, no well-trained soldier is going to be "easily" fucking up any other well trained soldier in armed combat.

>>3800281
Tell that to a crossbowman.

Why do people think the Samurai is more agile?

Asians don't have +2 to agility as much as anime would like you to believe.
Knight armor and Samurai armor weighed about the same.

A lot of samurai helmets obscured vision as well.

>>3800281
Pikemen here. Knights are small time.

>184 posts and 8 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view

holy fuck you guys. this is posted in /k/ constantly and they've learned not to pay attention to it anymore

>>3800285
>completely disregarded where the armor is placed
>a majority of samurai helmets never obscured vision

Are you faggets still falling for the troll? Knights would not stand a change against the japs because of reasons stated above. However one should not argue with mentally delusional manchildish fanboys who really believe that warfare means two groups will face each other and fight to the death just because the little fanboy wants to get his results seen.

>>3800290
What is your problem? I'm not participating in the thread. I'm not interested, so I'm just ignoring. Are you actually tsundere for the topic? Feel the need to stomp on it every time it appears?

>Implying knight can't possibly be any fast no matter what

>>3800293
You're disregarding the fact that though they weighed the same the Knight armor was actually better placed than the Samurai armor. It was less encumbersome. The Samurai armor had balance issues because it was made of unattached plates.

If anything, the knight was more Agile, he also was faster at moving because of longer legs.

>>3800303
That's because of how the armor is placed and how they are covered with it.

Samurai don't have full body armor, and their extremities are freer than a knight's. Also, facial armor is a difference maker.

>>3800293
You're disregarding the fact that though they weighed the same the Knight armor was actually better placed than the Samurai armor. It was less cumbersome. The Samurai armor had balance issues because it was made of unattached plates.

If anything, the knight was more Agile, he also was faster at moving because of longer legs.

>>3800272
>Kanabo are NOT that heavy, you retarded faggot. It's a fucking baseball bat with iron studs.
Give me a source, because a quick look around the 'net says the kanabo is "one of the heaviest weapons ever wielded."

>SAMURAI ARE TRAINED WITH JUJITSU
This is specialized for Japanese opponents, meaning it is not useful against plate. A good wrestler in plate will easily defeat a lightly armored or unarmored jiu-jitsu user.

>And a falling knight in full armor just would NOT have the proper reaction time to pull off what you're suggesting.
They do this for a living, so I think they would.

>A knight can move around, but he will NOT be as fast, nor as agile as a Samurai in combat.
No, he will be faster and more agile, because the samurai is carrying around a fucking kanabo.

>>3800314
Dude, armor at the arms plus heavier weapon = telegraphed move. Armor at legs means he has to exert more force just to move his legs forward.

That is not going to help his agility.

A Samurai might have imbalanced armor, but it would not hamper his agility at all.

Speed is not a fucking race.

>jiu-jitsu
lol good luck against someone who is a foot taller who's main training is grappling in armor.

Seriously, people keep forgetting the Samurai were midgets. It's just not fair.

>>3800324
>A Samurai might have imbalanced armor, but it would not hamper his agility at all.
Put a refrigerator on your chest and try to run around.

>>3800324
>Dude, armor at the arms plus heavier weapon = telegraphed move. Armor at legs means he has to exert more force just to move his legs forward.

Samurai had armor on the legs and arms bro, it just had huge gaps. By your admission now their armor is just inferior in every way.

>>3800322
>Give me a source, because a quick look around the 'net says the kanabo is "one of the heaviest weapons ever wielded."
It's one of the heaviest weapons because it WAS A FUCKING BAT. WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO BE HEAVIER THAN A KATANA.

But a katana is by far the faster weapon compared to other swords, especially if it's held by an armored man. And do NOT confuse a Kanabo with a Tetsubo, which IS the heavy club.

>This is specialized for Japanese opponents, meaning it is not useful against plate. A good wrestler in plate will easily defeat a lightly armored or unarmored jiu-jitsu user.
No, you retard. Jujitsu is specialized to make the opponent get fucked up on the ground while you stab the fucker in the neck or face. This is not judo. An armored knight would have a harder time using wrestling moves on the ground with fucking plate armor.

>They do this for a living, so I think they would.
So do Samurai. And because of equipment advantage, they'd be quicker to get out of the way.

>No, he will be faster and more agile, because the samurai is carrying around a fucking kanabo.
The kanabo is not that fucking heavy. They've shown it on TV already. It's a fucking baseball bat.

>>3799861
wat. even the mongolian are better than those failures rofl

>>3800341
>>3800327
Those gaps allowed for agility that a knight cannot possess. And the fridge joke was stupid.

Midget with worse equipment refined in isolation versus a comparative giant with centuries more advanced equipment which was refined by thousands of different nations.

GEE THIS IS DIFFICULT.

>>3800353
Giant? Only Russians and Slavs were gigantic men. Europeans were stocky little men.

>>3800350
>Those gaps allowed for agility that a knight cannot possess. And the fridge joke was stupid.

HA HA. You realize your elbow and knee ARE NOT ball in socket joints right? RIGHT? And the groin and shoulder are protected by loose chain which hampers nothing?

You're so clueless it's amazing. Plate is superior in almost every way.

Also, Balance is a huge part of combat. Have fun with your samurai falling over or being unable to put their full force behind a swing.

It has already been declared that almost no weapons are able to damage one wearing full plate armor, this includes the katana.

Knights wouldn't wear fucking plate armor if they wouldn't be able to take down unarmored (as they would have to resort to unarmed combat as their weapon wouldn't help them) light infantry.

Knights were more trained in wrestling than samurais, and given that the knights are larger and thanks to the extra mass and weight of the armor (though the weight was never enough to lessen the knights mobility, and it was evenly distributed all over the body thus it was never a problem) the samurai would be at a heavy disadvantage against the knight if it would come to unarmed combat (but that would probably never even be neccessary as the knights weapons would still be useful on the samurai, even though the opposite wouldn't be true)

When it comes to bows and crossbows only a tiny percentage were ever able to pierce such armor and even when such arrows did pierce the plates were basically never able to pierce through the rest of the armor such as the mail etc.
Knights were able to ride through several storms of arrows or/and bolts without harm.

The japanese highly valued western armor (even though such pieces rarely got there) as it was basically indestructable armor crafted from metal that was on a completely different level than their precious "tamahagane".

>>Japanese mounted archery is shit compared to Steppe mounted warfare. For one they don't even have composite recurve bows.
>wat. even the mongolian are better than those failures rofl
epicFaceplam.exe
You're so stupid it hurts to read your post.

>>3800366
>Loose chain
>not hampering anything
>forgetting it adds weight

> faggets really believe Knights in full armor were agile and fast

BROADSWORDS CAN CUT SERVANTS.
DISCUSS.
KNIGHTS WITH ARMOR ARE FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT.
DISCUSS.

>>3800373
Trip knight with kanabo, open visor, stab face.

>>3800380
Of course it adds weight. So did the armor on the Samurai armor. Try to keep up.

>>3800366
>Also, Balance is a huge part of combat. Have fun with your samurai falling over or being unable to put their full force behind a swing.
Huh? LOL yeah sure. They wouldn't need to when they're bashing your knight legs from under him.

>>3800388
Added weight to the extremities = less agility

Samurai weight concentrated to the center, freeing their fucking extremities for combat.

>>3800380
You realize weight on the joint if it doesn't hamper range of movement is easier to move than weight on the limb right? It's called leverage. The fact that the knight's armor is distributed better is an advantage in every way.

Asians have +2 agility!
Asians have +2 agility!
Asians have +2 agility!
Asians have +2 agility!
Asians have +2 agility!
Asians have +2 agility!
Asians have +2 agility!

>>3800396
Oh damn, can't you read. The guy has chains all over his arms and legs covered with fucking armor, then carries a weapon or shield on it.

A samurai does not have that much weight on his arms or on his legs.

Do you only get NOW where the agility bonus comes from?

You need more force to move those legs and arms if they ARE covered with armor.

>>3800405
>A samurai does not have that much weight on his arms or on his legs.
Yes he does actually. The samurai had large unwieldy plates to protect their limbs. It was inferior in every way because they lacked the metal to do joined properly. It wasn't a conscious decision for warfare.

>>3800344
>It's one of the heaviest weapons
Apparently around 10lb., all on the hands. Try not to telegraph that.

>Jujitsu is specialized to make the opponent get fucked up on the ground while you stab the fucker in the neck or face
Absolutely wrong. In fact, the judo you mentioned is actually based on older jiu-jitsu, and most modern jiu-jitsu is based off of judo!

Of course, there may be some offshoots like that, but they're still not specialized in removing impenetrable knight helmets...

>So do Samurai. And because of equipment advantage, they'd be quicker to get out of the way.
They have a heavier weapon and light-but-still-heavy armor. They might even be slower than the knight, who is a physically superior European.

>The kanabo is not that fucking heavy. ... It's a fucking baseball bat.
You want a baseball bat kanabo? Fine. Go hit some full plate with a baseball bat and get back to me.

Either it's heavy enough to be a disadvantage or it's too light to be an advantage. Pick one.

>>3800412
>unwieldy
It's not unwieldy at all. What the fuck are you talking about.

I just had a great idea. You know those famous warriors that used to be so effective? All you have to do is hit them in the legs and they're dead. I can't believe those morons they fought didn't think of that in all the years before firearms made them obsolete.

Honestly, I don't know who the fuck would win, but reading the thread I get the feeling that most people defending the samurai are underage retards or trolls.

Why? Why are you idiots still discussing this? This is more stupid than the Typemoon powerlevel discussion threads.

>>3800429
I think I'm going to start posting this daily just to spite you.

la la la la.

>>3800431
But I wanted to post it daily.

>>3800415
Learn to fucking read. And the knight would telegraph his moves more because he has armor on his arms plus his weapons. A Samurai only has to swing for the legs with it from a Knight's blind spot WHICH SHOULD BE FUCK HUGE because of the visor.

And start reading my post about jiujitsu again, you dumb faggot.

Europeans weren't physically superior. Scandinavians, Russians, and Slavs were.

>>3800417
Compared to the almost perfect weight distribution of plate crafted just for its user some barely attached plates are unweildy indeed.

You really should stop talking if you think Samurai had 0 armor on their extremities.

Of course it was possible they only wore the breastplate and helmet, just like it was possible for knights to only wear the breastplate, if they could they'd wear the full armor though.

>>3800434
>Europeans weren't physically superior. Scandinavians, Russians, and Slavs were.
You're forgetting how small Japanese were. They were much shorter than the Japanese of today. We're talking some barely hitting 5'.

>>3800434
>Scandinavians, Russians, and Slavs aren't Europeans.
hilarious_reaction_image.jpg

Okay, we're done here. You're not even trying anymore.

Anyone saying the knight stands a chance against the samurai is a troll.

>Anyone saying the knight stands a chance against the samurai is a troll.

Knight is too heavy, samurai is a lot more agile, katana is an expertly crafted blade, we all know samurai wins.

>>3800445

Uh, Europeans were short back in the day too.

Under nutrition is a bitch!

>>3800495
Other way around. Only a troll pretending to be a weeaboo would pick the samurai.

>>3800488
>>3800518
So I guess we're not even trying anymore at this.

>>3800523
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm

Knights foot work is something that has often been compared to that of modern boxing, they sure as hell could turn around and move in ways to easily protect any weak spots (even though those spots were also covered by plates).

Shields were also designed to be used in combat and not just for blocking, a shield bash is something that would trip over most especially those lighter than yourself (and it was often enough to kill the man on the spot).
Shields were also designed to make the opponents weapon stuck while hit.

The samurais weapon(s) wouldn't be able to do anything and there i really don't think that a samurai would take down a knight with an arming sword and a shield who have trained and practised wrestling all his life (the medieval wrestling arts were downright cruel for most parts) even if the samurai would have trained in jujitsu and various other arts all his life.

and remember that full plate armor didn't really weigh that much, about 20 kg (45 pounds), and this weight was evenly distrubeted all over the body.
The extra weight that would be put on their extremities wouldn't be much at all, one can even swim in plate armor (that was impossible with earlier types of armor before tempered steel etc, though it would be possible with plate armor while still being difficult).

The differance in agility between a knight and a samurai wouldn't be much at all, in fact the samurai's agility advantage (if one would exist, the knight could very well been larger and/or stronger either way) would probably not even be noteworthy.

That thing was too big, too heavy, too thick and too rough to be called a warrior...
It was more like a large hunk of metal.

good fight, have to say the knight though because of better armor and just as extensive training. a knight is not a squire, a knight usually came from aristocracy, whereas a samurai may have just been a lucky sud from poverty- knight has more to lose than his life but honor to boot, my vote goes to the knight | not a troll

>>3800527
Why try to explain the obvious to trolls? Not that it wasn't already explained, if you trolls were interested in the explanation you'd have read the thread.

>>3800495
>>3800524
>Anyone posting in this thread is a terrible troll
Fix'd

>>3800549
Only the ones who don't add to the discussion, like yourself.

>>3800539
>good fight, have to say the knight though because of better armor and just as extensive training. a knight is not a squire, a knight usually came from aristocracy, whereas a samurai may have just been a lucky sud from poverty- knight has more to lose than his life but honor to boot, my vote goes to the knight | not a troll

Actually knights were a military rank. That's why people were knighted, because they weren't just born with the title. In a large majority of the cases Knight refers to a man at arms (see professional career fighter) who has shown commendable performance to a feudal lord.

Samurai on the other hand, were born into their position. Granted they were trained like fuck.

AMERICAN SAMURAI VS JAPANESE COWBOY

WHO WINS

>>3800631
Whoever wins....

...we lose

>>3800613
That's not entirely true. You could be knighted without being a professional military man and you could be granted the status of samurai without having inherited it.

>245 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>3800656
Yes, there were parallel knight ranks to the military one in the same way a surgeon general is an actual general in the US and Elton John is a knight for the British Empire.

>>3800668
>in the same way a surgeon general is an actual general
General has always had a lot more meanings than the military one, so no.

In fact, the surgeon general has a military rank. It's vice admiral.

Is it a bad idea to bump this thread in order to prevent that a repost is posted when this one dies?