[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 68 KB, 600x781, samurai-darth-vader-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
28590203 No.28590203 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

OK tg, I want to settle this once and for all. No wea/westaboo bullshit, no stupid maymays.

Who would win in a fight, a Honshu samurai, or a French knight. Both are typical examples of their type, and both come from the year 1500. They get all their equipment that doesn't involve gunpowder.

>> No.28590229


gonna have to be more specific.

>> No.28590244

The more skilled one.

>> No.28590256


I will say that the samurai's weapon is more likely to break than the French knight's, but that might not end up being a determining factor.

>> No.28590278

I think OPost assumes they are of equal skill, at least in their own martial arts.

Also, knight. Besides guns and kanabo's, nothing in Japan could crack full plate.

>> No.28590291

1000 folds

>> No.28590292


Look, buddy, there's a winner to the fight, yeah?

That one's the more skilled one.

>> No.28590297

Probably a knight, though the samurai could win if he was tricksy

>> No.28590304

Well I mean the french do have a track record of getting #rekd by archers. That said I'm going with >>28590244 because it's honestly the most sensible answer.

>> No.28590322

The knight wins. Even if the samurai had a musket it wouldn't help him, since it takes several bullets before full European plate will actually break.

>> No.28590338

The knight has a significant advantage.

Japanese weaponry never developed to deal with harness-style armour and while you can crack a knight solo without specific anti-armour weaponry, its really not something you want to be attempting.

>> No.28590355


Firstly, what are the battlefield conditions?

How far away do they start from one another?

Does "Equipment" include a horse?

>> No.28590363

no they don't. Read up on the battle of patay, and consider that england LOST the 100 years war.

>> No.28590367

Two marksmen duel eachother. One is armed with a nerf gun. The other has a glock.

Does this mean that the man with the glock is more skilled?

No. That would be improper control of variables. You don't have different equipment AND different skill levels in hypothetical combat experiments. This is middleschool-level shit right here. Scientific method, yo.

>> No.28590373

ITT: Anons say the knight wins because he has a better coward-suit, and because they're white.

>> No.28590376

>Does this mean that the man with the glock is more skilled?

He was skilled enough not to bring a nerf gun to a fight, I'd say that puts him ahead of the other guy.

>> No.28590382


Samurai is fucked.

dial it back 400 years if you want a good fight.

>> No.28590395

The hooks. You need to bait them.

>> No.28590403

>Does "Equipment" include a horse?

Why does nobody take horses into account, especially when one of the combatants has a long history of mounted archery to draw on.

>> No.28590405

The knight wins because the Japanese cannot defeat top-tier plate armor, and their armor cannot stop a halberd, lance, pollaxe, or other large polearms.

>> No.28590414

I would guess yes, or else the samurai becomes even more useless.

>> No.28590415

If the samurai is a good shot, he hits the knight in a weak spot with an arrow and debilitates him. Won't kill him, since the vitals aren't weak spots, but once he's bleeding out he'll be severely weakened in melee and the samurai can overpower him.

If the knight closes before the samurai can shoot, or if he can't get a piercing hit in, then the knight wins effortlessly. European armor was the best in the world and Japanese melee was focused on cutting, not piercing.

>> No.28590418

Rolled 100

Considering the word samurai originally refered to mounted archers, I'd assume hes on a horse with a bow.

>> No.28590419

Japanese "horses" are very tiny and slow compared to European horses.

>> No.28590423

You can't even say that, because samurai had traditions of half swording to deal with armor just like their european counterparts.

>> No.28590473

because the Japanese horse is smaller, slower, and will tire faster.

On top of that, he did not fight like a steppe archer, darting about away form reach-
they would advance steadily towards targets, firing all the way.

>> No.28590502
File: 237 KB, 934x1024, 1382164939309.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

You're forgetting that knights have the world's greatest armor, and nothing has come close before or since. A German armorsmith spent years on a single breastplate, braiding it thousands of times, making it nigh unbreakable. Tests conclusively show that a modern tank shell fired at a suit of armor will simply bounce back harder, bisecting the tank in two.
Even in WWII, plate-armored troops were targeted first, feared for the power their armor granted.

>> No.28590513

>weak spot
If it's the 1500s, and he fits the french requirements to be a "knight" he's fabulously wealthy and will have arrowproof armor.

and that tradition was focused around attacking the man unarmored portions left in japanese armor, rather than wrestling to stab through ever-present voiders.

he cna win, but it is not very likely. A1500s Frenchman is pretty much the epitome of what a knight was meant to be in terms of combat ability and equipment. These are the same men who managed to break the swiss and force them into neutrality via cavalry charge. consider that one for a bit.

>> No.28590553

>arrowproof armor

It has eye-slits, doesn't it? And if you don't believe a good samurai can hit eye slits at 15 or 20 meters...

>> No.28590585


Half-swording a katana is a very different maneuver than half-swording a European longsword.

The Samurai loses this one. Unlike many "who would win" arguments, this one has a real answer that has nothing to do with who you think is cooler. The Frenchman comes from an area with better and more plentiful iron deposits, and he is simply better armed. There's an element of randomness to any fight, it's not IMPOSSIBLE for the samurai to win, but Japanese bows didn't have the draw of English longbows, and iron was rare enough that their "typical gear" didn't include bodkin tips. The katana may be an elegant weapon from a more civilized age or however the fuck you want to talk about it, but it's not ideal for dealing with plate.

It's heavy cavalry specialized in killing skirmishers vs. skirmisher specialized in killing infantry. Samurai's fucked.

>> No.28590605


>> No.28590612


I absolutely don't believe a good samurai can hit the eyeslit of a charging knight with a shield at 15 or 20 meters. This is not your chinese cartoons.

I LIKE your chinese cartoons, but this ain't them.

>> No.28590618


>> No.28590620

you mena the thickest fuckign part of the armor?

on top of that, they;d be too narrow to fit an arorw through.

>And if you don't believe a good samurai can hit eye slits at 15 or 20 meters...
No bow faggot confirmed. no, You cannot hit a target a fraction of an inch wide at fucking15-20 meters on a moving target. It would be a hard shot with modern, sighted bows, never-mind traditional bows, which are drawn, aimed, and fired in one motion.

military archery was not about precision in most of the world. It's about speed and the ability to saturate an area. Japan is not the exception to this.

>> No.28590632

im doubting a katana would do shit to armor but a spear could and both rode horses so its a toss up but its gonna weight on the knight because of armor.

>> No.28590654


you can see it in motion in this most excellent presentation. the demonstration of the guy with a needle trying to find a hole in maille is good, too.

>> No.28590665

If mounted, I'm leaning toward the samurai. Drop the horse with arrows then charge the dismounted knight with a yari or something.

>> No.28590675

Would this contest be more interesting if we dailed it back to 1300?

>> No.28590700

no, spears could not reliably pierce armor.

Frenchmen in the 1500s actually bitched about the newfound uselessness of the lance now that everyone but gunners wore breastplates.

>> No.28590720
File: 375 KB, 477x640, Knight 1300.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Forgot my pic.

>> No.28590729

it's better around 1100/1200.

1300 still leaves the knight with a considerable armor advantage.

>> No.28590775

A spear or arrow could get into the joints.
And if there's one thing Samurai are good at (Besides using arquebus and oppressing peasants) it's using spears and bows.

>> No.28590812

a spear could, but won't. killing a man in harness will almost always come down to wrestling with him unless you've got a poleax. even then, probably still comes down to wrestling.

>> No.28590856

The Knight would still win. He can easily block the Samurai's slashes with a good shield.

>> No.28590857

Rolled 28

Why did Japanese armor never really get that much better?

Just the lack of iron?

>> No.28590860

Could a katana get through the plates on this guy's arm?

>> No.28590882

The French Knight assuming that the Samurai doesn't get his kill shot in right on the charge. If he doesn't then the French Knight will simply outlast him due to a training that focused far more on endurance than upon getting a kill on your first blow.

>> No.28590887

The Samurai wins, because he isn't French.

>> No.28590899

>Implying the samurai would be using a katana
Katana is a sidearm, bro. He'd be using a polearm or bow as his main weapon. A gun (And European plate fancied up to look Japanese) if we're talking post-European contact.

>> No.28590925

Japanese Armor is actually really good... for what it's made for. It's extremely stab-resistant, which helps when the main ways people get killed are via arrow or spear, and it's got rough plates to stop just any ol' sword-slash from getting through. Plus it's light enough that you can do whatever the hell you need to do in it.

Basically, people made armor for what they were dealing with - And Japan had a different warrior culture, and made different armor to deal with it.

>> No.28590931


Joints were pretty goddam well protected. You COULD, under optimal circumstances, do some damage there. Not with arrows; unless you're firing bodkin tips from an english longbow, or a crossbow, a knight in full plate is basically arrowproof. Spear's actually a bad choice too, because it's not just an issue of tagging the location, you gotta get the angle right and put some serious force on it. Strange as it sounds, if you don't have a warhammer or poleaxe, you're better off with a misericord or other thin, long knife. Hope you can wrestle him down and stab him in the armpit.

Of course, by that point he's probably murdered your face off with his own weapons. All this arguing about whether the samurai could theoretically even hurt the knight is ignoring that the knight is doing his damnedest to hurt the samurai and doesn't need to worry about aiming for joints or eyeslits. That's the thing about a good defense; it lets you concentrate on offense. Samurai might try to pull a parthian, but Frenchie's got a much better horse.

It's just a hugely imbalanced fight, something like "1700s pirate vs. navy seal." Yeah, pirates are cool and all, but come on. Gear matters.

>> No.28590945

Japanese armor was actually very good. European armor was just better.

As for why it was designed the way it was? They were archer first, infantry/lancers second. Armor was more open for unimpeded use of bows.

It was also heavier than euro kit because they lacked the technology to turn out larger plates for most of their history, so they used lammellar, which needs about a mile and a half of lacing to work.

Euro armro got where it was largely because of the black death. When 30-50% of the labor pool dies, maille becomes very costly.

when new technology means you can produce better armor much faster, you switch to it.

better armor making limbs safe means no more shields, which means you can put TWO hand son a weapon, which means new techniques and armor to protect vs that shit, and so on.

the odds of him carrying a shield are close to zero.

>> No.28590947


Poor quality iron, relatively low amounts of it, poorer horses and the lack of a population structure needed to make really expensive troops a particularly good idea.

>> No.28590950

Armour trumps still polearms. The only reason the English could kill French knights with their bill hooks in the Hundred Years' War was because most of the time the knights had to slog through yards of mud and arrows to get to tem.

>> No.28590958

If we dial it back to 1100, the Japanese JUST started making decent swords, around 1300 AD. The CELTS by comparison had pattern welding 700 years earlier.

I'm sure the french could make something good.

>> No.28590963

The samurai is armored too.
He couldn't take a lance to the chest, (but neither could the knight, really) but it would be good enough to protect against the knight's sword.

>> No.28590989

>unless you're firing bodkin tips from an English longbow
you use lozenge heads for that, not bodkins. Surviving bodkins are actually soft iron and rather blunt.

Bodkins=cheap, state provided munitions gear so archers will actually fire as fast as you want them too, rather than skimping out to preserve their valuable steel arrowheads.

Bodkins also strongly resemble modern flight arrows, which lends credence to the idea of them being munitions gear-longer range.

>> No.28590995

French have a long history of kicking ass. The stereotype of French cowards started in WW2 to make the Germans less frightening after they curbstomped France

>> No.28591002


Similarly, Incan woven armor was actually really fucking good when you were up against slings. And a sling is a nasty weapon, don't go thinking it's not.

But when guys show up with steel swords, horses, and cannons, it just doesn't function as well.

Armor is usually built for a specific range of threats. A bulletproof vest, for instance, won't help you much against a guy with a club. He'll beat you over the head, hit your knees, etc.

>> No.28591018

Yeah, even the best sets of plate had joints a skilled fighter could go for.

The Knights armor is going to be of far superior quality, there are reported cases of powerful samurais smuggling pieces of European armor and using them in place of their traditional armors. Steel Plate is superior to half wooden lamellar, this is fact.

A Katana is a cutting sword, and a French Longsword is more of a stabbing sword. The best way to deal with plate is to stab it, the best way to deal with half wooden lamellar held together with cord would probably be slashing. Both swords would be being used out of their element.

The year 1500 is pre-civil war for Japan, but its also pre-gun. So our Samurai probably does have a nice set of real metal armor, and his sword and spear are probably of high quality as well. However this Samurai would have a bow and arrow, not a gun. Given bow and arrows can eventually stop some one in plate armor from sheer force of the shots, its practically impossible that any arrows will pierce the knights armor and do any real harm. A katana has a real chance of piecing joints with a well placed stab, and it could possibly cause a fracture in plate, but the chances of the sword also getting through the leather or chain under the plate are next to none. The Samurai's best bet against this knight would be to wind him with a bow and arrow from afar, and then use his spear when the knight got close. A katana is next to uselessin this fight unless the samurai is much more skilled than the knight.

In contrast the knights sword, while not ideal for cutting, can still probably slice into the samurai's armor pretty well, not to mention Samurai armor has plenty of open unprotected areas to slash or stab at, even if it is of high quality.

But even against the bow and the spear, a standard knight is going to be armed with a quality shield.

It doesnt look good for our Samurai, OP.

>> No.28591022

1100s sees us with he protypical kite/heater shield carrying, maille wearing lancer on horseback.

he'd have full armor, the jap would liekly be wearing shit for armor, but would be able to shoot at and possible kill him before contact.

the frenchfag also wouldn't be as skilled on foot as the 1500s version.

>> No.28591044

Woven armor is actually really good against a lot of things.
It's like wearing armor made out of phonebooks. Sure you can cut through it, but it's going to take a fair amount of effort and the guy you're trying to kill is trying to kill you right back.

>> No.28591047


They never really fought anyone else. Don't know if china was different.

>> No.28591063

meant to link >>28591002

>> No.28591086


Swords are SIDEARMS. They are both sufficiently armored that a sword-kill would be difficult. However, the knight is BETTER armored, and a longsword is better at dealing with armor than a katana.

Their primary weapons are the main problem. French plate beats samurai bow. French lance beats samurai armor.

The samurai loses, man. His gear is beautiful and elegant and really a fantastic use of the technology and materials available at the time, but it's just not suited to the task of killing someone in plate armor. If the knight is anything like as competent as the samurai, the extra weight of steel makes the difference.

>> No.28591091

Im crying.
I love you.

>> No.28591105

>what was the 100 years war (yes they won, but they lost far more than the English)
>what was WWI
>what was WWII
>what was Vietnam

The French have always had large powerful armies, but their command structure has always been utter shit and their morale is always a bad rainstorm from breaking.

>> No.28591138

I'm pretty sure that by the time the French have plate armor, the Japanese have guns.
And while it might not penetrate the armor, the impact is going to leave the knight winded at best, possibly knocked flat on his ass.

>> No.28591158

This debate comes up in the HEMA communities and we're fortunate to have people that have now studies both styles. Our conclusion was that the better swordsman would win. In an equal match of skill, the knight is simply better equipped. Everything is armored, where as the Samuri has areas that where typically not armored such as portions of the forearms, and lower legs. the lack of a gorget,

In regards to the Longsword. It is very much a cutting weapon. Most all of the master cuts are cuts.

>> No.28591162

>I'm pretty sure that by the time the French have plate armor, the Japanese have guns.

See, this is a very important piece of information, because it lets us all know that you've got no idea what you're talking about and we can safely ignore you.

>> No.28591185

>If the samurai is a good shot, he hits the knight in a weak spot with an arrow and debilitates him.
>weak spot
It doesn't really work that way.

>> No.28591193

everyone ignore the tripfag.

>Yeah, even the best sets of plate had joints a skilled fighter could go for.
The best plate has overlapping plates at the joint and possibly voiders.
>reported cases of powerful samurais smuggling pieces of European armor and using them in place of their traditional armors.
no, there are not. because you could just buy it off of the euro tradeships legally, which is what they did.

>Steel Plate is superior to half wooden lamellar, this is fact.
This would be relevant if the jap armror had wood in the construction, which it did not.
>a French Longsword is more of a stabbing sword.
No, it isn't.

>The best way to deal with plate is to stab it,
That doesn't work.
>the best way to deal with half wooden lamellar held together with cord would probably be slashing.
>Both swords would be being used out of their element.

>Given bow and arrows can eventually stop some one in plate armor from sheer force of the shots
no, they cannot, given that the arrows would be either glancing off and impartign next to no force, or breaking and thus not transferring much force at all.
On top of that, plate is fucking awesome at distributing and absorbing shock, despite common myth.

>A katana has a real chance of piecing joints with a well placed stab,
Sure, if you're half swording, and manage to work the tip in, and shove with your legs and back to pierce the voider.

>and it could possibly cause a fracture in plate,
A fucking poleax being broken on a breastplate won't do this.
>but the chances of the sword also getting through the leather or chain under the plate are next to none
He'd be wearing an arming jacket and maybe some sewn-on voiders. That's it.

>In contrast the knights sword, while not ideal for cutting,
longswords are fucking great for cutting
>can still probably slice into the samurai's armor
A human body doesn't have the power to drive a steel blade through iron lames.

Fuck you, faggot.

>> No.28591204

It's true.
Any fight on horseback will probably end with a Samurai impaled on a lance.

>> No.28591217

Yeah, no. The japanese were among the last people in the world to get guns.

>> No.28591249
File: 360 KB, 650x488, helmet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>It has eye-slits, doesn't it? And if you don't believe a good samurai can hit eye slits at 15 or 20 meters...
Good luck with that.

>> No.28591255

Is range of movement & agility a concern? I'm not a total incompetent, so I know plate isn't actually particularly encumbering (whereas proper mail and quilting is) but that doesn't mean it's featherlight. Would generally lighter Japanese armor lend an advantage to the grapple? If you can't reliably pierce, after all, just control the weapon arm & knock the knight on his ass and give that helm a solid round of Mr. Boot Meets Mr. Face before going to stab a gap. It's not just equipment & skill that matter, but approach.

>> No.28591257

The Tanegashima was introduced around 1543, and became popular extremely quickly. He's only a few decades off.

But OP still said "no gunpowder" so whatever.

>> No.28591258

in any serious fight, swords come out. The whole reason medievals worshiped swords was because they're the weapon that kept you alive if the enemy didn't break quickly.

the longsword is also really, really handy for wrestling in plate.

>> No.28591274

>a French Longsword is more of a stabbing sword
>stabbing sword

Okay... are you even trying??

>> No.28591307

However, by that point plate was "proofed" against bullets so it still wouldn't do jack all (not to mention most samurai refused to use guns)

>> No.28591311

Not really. Japanese armor would actually be heavier, and the euro method for fighting armored men actually revolved around wrestling and grappling.

The extra mass plate gives you actually makes it even more dangerous, according to modern practitioners. Apparently it's hard to practice at any speed without breaking people.

>> No.28591328

Then from where do we have the stereotype of the knight in shining armour (armed with sword and shield)? Tournaments?

>> No.28591329

You're right on the armor bit, I was thinking of leather, and even then yeah, it wasn't done often.

I was under the impression that Japan had not made direct contact with Europeans before 1500, my mistake.

I guess if you slice apart my post like that it looks stupid yeah.
I don't get why you're so angry.

>> No.28591350

From time periods that aren't the 1500s.

>> No.28591368


Tournaments somewhat, but mostly earlier plate armour (at least for the shield. The swords reputation is mostly because its a good sidearm and rather pricy as weapons go, therefore making quite a good status symbol)

The shield dropped out of use by the end of the harness period because the armour in use was a) good enough to deflect just about anything by itself and b) far enough ahead of weapon tech that to pierce it required either the wrestle-and-stab approach or the use of heavy double-handed weapons.

>> No.28591369
File: 6.40 MB, 2948x2568, harold.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Ask this guy what he thinks of French armies.

>> No.28591384



>> No.28591385

a:You're a tripfag, and you don't contribute special knowledge ala KM.
You're clearly ignorant yet insist on speaking, rather than lurking.

i like warhmamer fluff. i don't play the game. guess what threads I only lurk in?


Also Hollywood/Victorian era "historians."

When you've got full plate, a shield is utterly redundant. you can ignore most blows without a care in the world.
Those you can't ignore are probably best deal with by advancing into the strike anyway.

>> No.28591388


While mounted, shield and lance. While dismounted, both hands on weapon (sword, warhammer, or polearm.)

>> No.28591403


Okay, they got a bit of the viking stock in them but it's basically France.

>> No.28591407
File: 43 KB, 354x473, 1381877221075.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Who was Nobunaga Oda
>Who were the Shimazu

Samurai fucking loved guns. Maybe they weren't the most traditional weapons, and cavalry and commanders used a sword or lance, but only really hardcore samurai outright refused to acknowledge their use on the battlefield, and they were commonly equipped on ashigaru whenever possible. Nobunaga Oda almost conquered the country in part by being one of the first to equip his troops with rifles.

>> No.28591411
File: 1.55 MB, 310x191, Katana my ass.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I hate these fucking threads. As much as I hate the french knight, he still counts as a european knight and would win. His steel is better, his weapons more versatile, his armor more durable, and his reach is likely longer. I'm a blacksmith. I'm not a master of either particular fighting style. I can tell you that a japanese sword is VERY impressive given what it is made of. I can also tell you that a european sword is made pretty well too and is made of much better steel. European long swords came in many different types designed for various applications. There were long swords made for both focused bashing as well as stabbing. The "typical" longsword was more of a basher and would go through wood and break bones like it was nothing. Sure samurai were skilled, but they weren't wizards, joints are more vulnerable, however that is a relative statement. it is still crazy hard to hit a small, moving joint (IE elbow joint) especially if it is moving towards you and is attached to a sword. Arrows are dangerous, but so are guns. I'm seeing a lot of weeaboo faggotry in this thread,, so do us all a favor and if you want to say that a samurai could do X then find us a video on youtube.

>> No.28591436


>a bit

The Normans considered the Franks vainglorious, weak and distrustful. They never identified as 'French'.

>> No.28591455

The fucking strategikon actually talks about the futility of facing down a Frankish charge, cautioning that cathaprachst MUST beat them via luring them into ambushes, because of said irresistible charge.

bear in mind, this manual is talking about men with two layers of armor+armored horses facing down the bog-standard mailled cavalryman, and stating that the cataphracts will lose head to head.

nobody sane mocked the french. they'd kill you for it whenever they got done killing each other*.
*luckily, this was almost never

>> No.28591469

Just leave.

>> No.28591508

sorry, tactica, not strategikon.

too many names.

>> No.28591513

Well fine, would you care to choose a better term to describe the effect of a longsword on plate mail armor, cause bash was the best I could come up with. Would you prefer cut? do you want me to say that a longsword is for cutting through steel?

>> No.28591519


They were indeed.

But when it came to superior Knights, Normans dicked all over the Franks.

>> No.28591546

Half-sword and wrestle.

if you're so ignorant of the subject that you think they would just strike at the armor like in the vidya, don't post.

lurk. post if you have questions. don't make statements.

>should i say cut?
Yes, because they were in fact made to cut, and used to cut
>do you want me to say that a longsword is for cutting through steel?
no, because they'd use different methods for armored and unarmored targets.

>> No.28591568

Are you happier now? I could be anyone now.

I contributed the fact that a Samurai from 1500 wouldn't have a firearm.

Japan did not have western firearms until mid 16th century, regardless if that.

>> No.28591587

Normans aren't "French" any more than Corsicans are. The French would love to pretend otherwise, on both counts.

>> No.28591619

no, because you're still using a name despite having done nothing to make you special.

do you not understand why this board is the way it is?
>I contributed the fact that a Samurai from 1500 wouldn't have a firearm.
that wasn't in question. op specified no gunpowder.

>> No.28591646

Ive been courteous.

>> No.28591660

they spoke french, had french laws and a french societal structure, fought like french, and were as arrogant as french.

backwards "citizenship by blood" attitude of the french (and euros) in general aside, they fit the bill as french.

look, quacks, smells, and corkscrewscock rapes like a duck?
It's a fucking duck.

>> No.28591703

Only looks and quacks like them though

>> No.28591726

No, it does all four.

>but they thought they were different
That's really par for the course for frenchmen.
better than everyone, and CERTAINLY better than other french.

>> No.28591731

Knight? In 1500? OP is confirmed as a historically illiterate douchebag. Google "gendarme" and educate yourself, faggot.

Getting back to the question: A French gendarme of ~1500 would beat a samurai like a red-headed stepchild.

>> No.28591777


>they spoke french, had french laws and a french societal structure, fought like french, and were as arrogant as french.

They spoke Norman-French, had Norman Law, created their own architecture, fought like Normans and were feared and envied by the other Franks in the region.

If they were French, they would of never been referred as Normans historically in the first place. A real French identity didn't even exist in this period and wouldn't until the 100 years war.

Its like calling the Welsh, Scots and Irish English because of the similar factors.

>> No.28591783

the term "knight" accurately describes the heavier gendarmes just fine.

plus, if you say gendarmes, you could be talking about the "archer" gendarmes or even the later arquebusiers that rode in the companies.

>> No.28591792
File: 866 KB, 1280x2021, Crecy-08.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Pic related.

>> No.28591809

Fair enough. though to be honest, i consider the arrogance and self-importance the defining trait of the french.

>fought like Normans

>> No.28591815

French Knights circa 1500 had their horsed *heavily* armoured.

The Samurai is going to have an exceedingly hard time bringing down that horse while both are in motion.

>> No.28591819

That's like insisting that the various regions of the HRE north of the Alps and east of the Rhine weren't historically German because they didn't primarily identify as such.

>> No.28591830

That comic is so bad, it makes me glad the English lost the war.

>> No.28591831


>England, it has a way of making people its own. Angles, Saxons, Danes, even some of the bloody French; they all end up English

England was created by the fucking Anglo Saxons, it never existed in Celtic Britain. This comic is retarded.

>> No.28591832

I have been lurking this whole time. I do have a question.

Where did you learn what you know about French Knights in the 1500's, and how can you be so sure it's accurate?

I've heard and read tons of different statements, some saying that knights were slow, others that they were fast, some said they were inbetween. Other people said the broad sword was more for piercing armor and breaking bones, the cutting edge was merely an accessory to its mass and size. And naturally, I've heard the reverse; it was deadly sharp and if you attempted to pierce armor with it, the flexible blade would bend, preventing penetration.

So what makes you so confident? I've seen too much conflicting information to be sure of anything anymore.

>> No.28591845

I wasn't saying that they weren't introduced until the 1500s, I was saying that yes, the samurai did use guns, you asshat. I thought that was common knowledge.

>> No.28591855

In motion doesn't matter. The fuckers occasionally ran into and through pike formations without a care in the world.

>> No.28591872


The Normans set the standards for knightly warfare and horse combat, this is why they were much sort after as mercenaries and even bodyguards of the Byzantium Emperor. The Normans were the richest and most powerful region in all of France at this period, and they went on to conquer more than just England, this is why the Franks equally feared and envied them, even the Frank kings.

>> No.28591876

Besides, it would actually apply in the real world way more to the french, which assimilated anything it could put its hands on.

Ask a guy in french guyana, a black guy with an accent so heavy you have a hard time thinking he speak french, how he identify himself.

>> No.28591912

It's pointing out that the only people who considered the Normans to not be French were the Normans themselves, just like any other subgroup in history. Hell, even today the Catalans are insisting that they aren't Spanish, despite being a part of Spain since Roman times.

>> No.28591926


The problem here is the claim is they're French because they had similar characteristics of other Franks at the time, which isn't true. Each region in France was very culturally different from one another, France would not become unified until much later.

>> No.28591932

Not that guy, but armor was fairly light and not very encumbering. Swords were also very light. By the 1500's, swords had evolved into primarily stabbing weapons, though they were of course perfectly good at cutting. Look here: http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/oakeshott-typology.htm

My knowledge comes from history books, looking at actual artifacts/reading about the properties of actual artifacts, and the occasional bit of second-hand knowledge from KM.

>> No.28591938

Read period sources or things citing them, and understand the physics in play.

Really, it's that simple.

i KNOW, from a physics perspective, that a longsword simply isn't heavy or slow.

on top of that, people replicated the originals, read the damn manuals, and practice with weapons now.
Plus, hwen i was 16, i had a shitty set of indian repro maille.

It weighted 50 pounds. my shield brought the weight up to 55. leg protection+boots, another 5 pounds, for 60.

I was an asthmatic 16 year old, 120lbs soaking wet, and i could run, jump, climb, and roll just fine.

Also, things like this:




that last one is in french. the point is still clear.
years and years of reading, watching, and critical thinking and examination of what i see.

>> No.28591940

>they spoke french
Corsicans spoke Corsican. Normans spoke Norman. The two languages sound very much like French and Italian, respectively, but are distinct. 1066 was only ~100 years after the Norman King (Robert?) swore fealty to the Frankish King IIRC, so the two peoples were still quite distinct at this time.

>> No.28591941

The European.

Mostly because, when you remove the other variables, he's going to win because he's European and the Samurai is Japanese. Don't mistake that for racism- it's just morphology, and it's especially true several hundred years in the past. The average European knight is larger than the average Japanese Samurai.

It's the culture surrounding them too. Both are nobles, for sure, but Japan just isn't rich with resources. There's a million squabbling nobles in Japan, and you're not likely to leave your little hamlet to see the rest of Japan unless you're at war. And fuck seeing the rest of the world.

The Knight? He's larger, and has a greater exposure to foreign cultures. Likely because he's been shipped off to one in order to kill infidels, which involved a long journey. He's likely to have a more diverse diet through more open trade, and will likely have a lot of knowledge about other places and cultures.

Samurai are cool. They're an interesting character type with interesting weapons and history behind them. But they lived in Japan, which was pretty much a shitty country that just had to make due with what resources it could find/trade until the Meiji Restoration. Samurai are really good at oppressing peasants, fighting wars in Japan, and being Japanese.

But those are traits that translate well to fighting against fully armored Europeans.

>> No.28591970

Not the guy you where questioning, but a lot of this information is from people who are actively studying the old fight manuals from the 12th-16 century http://www(dot)wiktenauer.com/. I am friends with an instructor who teaches harness combat and will demonstrate any chance he gets.

Broadswords are actually a single handed weapon and definitely not the Longswords you think you are talking about. Longswords are the do everything utility weapon. They cut, thrust, can be used for half-swording, can be held by the blade and used and a pick/hammer, and yes they are flexible.

>> No.28591990


I wish we could just go full autism and switch entirely to Oakshott and other typologies. It would eliminate so many misunderstandings with swords.

>> No.28591995

Also, these guys:
Their forums are full of peopel who WILL cite period sources, and even translate them to english.

I honestly know very little about 1500s french cavalry in the grand scheme of things.

>> No.28592006

Most people here are making the assumption that the Samurai used the katana as his main weapon. This is completely false; the katana was a fall-back weapon for when shit hit the fan. A Samurai's main weapon was the Naginata.

>> No.28592015

>a modern tank shell fired at a suit of armor will simply bounce back harder, bisecting the tank in two.
>plate-armored troops were targeted first
War is Hell.

>> No.28592020

>1066 was only ~100 years after the Norman King (Robert?) swore fealty to the Frankish King IIRC
Closer to 150, but your point remains valid.

>> No.28592039

Thanks to the both of you. The knowledge is appreciated.

>> No.28592042

too many roman numerals.

Love that site.
I larp, and even though i'm in a (tragically) lightest touch system, a lot of stuff still carries over and pops up independently. Fascinating.

>> No.28592045


No, this comic is historically braindead, it thinks England existed before the Anglo Saxons came.

If you want to say the Normans were French, then you have to concede that Canadians are Americans, Americans are English, Scots are English, Irish are English and even the Welsh, because they all speak the same language, share the same cultural heritage i.e - Anglo culture (even if they are mixed with other ethnics). The same goes for all the Spanish colonise, or German speaking countries etc.

It doesn't matter what anyone else thought of them, they held the authority to say who they were and what they were, and no one else would dare question them about it. This is why when you read about the Normans, they are not called French, Frank or any other sub cartography under France, they are their own group.

The Normans were a unique people, they lead the way in Dark Age architecture (Gothic), wore their own fashion, their own equipment style, their own tactics and method of warfare as well as their own dialect.

>> No.28592055

Or a yari, or some other polearm.

Did the Japanese ever have any equivalent to a polehammer or crow's beak?

>> No.28592056

Point stands. That horse isn't coming out form under the knight for all the samurai can do.

>> No.28592063

The eastern and western halves of Charlemange's empire evolved identically, up until the 100 Years' War. France centralised and became united much more than the Holy Roman Empire because enough of the French nobility was killed off between the fighting and the Black Death. Without the nobles acting as a check to the power of the King a program of centralisation could begin, which would require the French populations to identify as French first and their regional culture second.

>> No.28592064


Yari, in many cases. Or some other form of polearm.

The naginata had a fairly negative reputation attached to it, at least by the end of the samurai period.

>> No.28592082

we know this. it isn't of much import.

>> No.28592089

It became less useful in the pike and shot formations that evolved after the 1500's. I've never understood all this fetishization of the samurai when we really should be fetishizing how good Japanese matchlocks were.

>> No.28592118

>If you want to say the Normans were French, then you have to concede that

>Canadians are Americans,
They are.

>Americans are English,
Drastice cultural differences, language varies quite a bit. i may or may not understand an englishman when he speaks.
>Scots are English, Irish are English
They're not even human.

>and even the Welsh,

>> No.28592131
File: 78 KB, 800x784, 1379409605414.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The naginata is for women. If you're going to be a pansy, Shinji, at least pick something less feminine like a cross-shaped spear.

>> No.28592151


I'm not sure if that's the source of disdain. It'd explain a reputation as a bad weapon, but the reputation of the naginata seems to be more 'this is a bitches weapon' than 'this is a bad weapon'.

>> No.28592163

Holy shit, you are retarded. The Normans were a subgroup of the overarching French people, a group that included the Franks who were, in 1066, the most prominent group of the French and the group that most people think of when they think about the French c. 1066. Nobody is saying the Normans were Frankish, just French.

>> No.28592167

Tough call. Both are pretty bad ass. Though I think the Samurai takes the win, simply because the Samurai have made skillz in the saddle with a bow. Shit's pretty crazy. Knights in general didn't practice all that much with ranged weapons (musketeers not withstanding). In melee combat, both are pretty tough sons of bitches, so I think the bow skills of the Samurai would edge it out.

>> No.28592175

Really though, I think it's pretty much impossible to determine this. I know it's a hypothetical and that's a boring answer, but I think it's legitimate here.

Basically, if these guys are of equal skill, random chance is the ONLY thing that's going to determine the fight. One might have a slight edge over the other on paper, but in the actual fight it's stupid unaccountable stuff that really makes the difference. The samurai stubbed his tow real bad the other day. The knight's hands are unusually sweaty. It's cold or warm and one of them is more acclimated than the other. Someone trips.

It's fun to make up scenarios like this, but the reality is that there'd never be a clear winner in a truly "equal" test of skill since both combatants would be...well, equal. It'd be a toss up, the loser being the one that fucks up first.

>> No.28592184


This is what you should be thinking of when you bring up the french knight, yes its top of the line and yes its English, but this shows the level of protection.

>> No.28592185


You're just being intentionally naive now.

Americans are not drastic in culture, they are Anglo in culture, and the language is the equivalent of Norman French (even less, but I'm giving you more).

>> No.28592186

When it became less useful, it was sent home for use in defending the home when the samurai was away. Women used, then. It became 'feminine'.

>> No.28592189

I see you trollling.
you're bad at it, like my girlfriend at driving, but not as fun.

>> No.28592197

>They're not even human.
I giggled.

>> No.28592200
File: 46 KB, 600x480, Midevil_Flail_by_The_Pwnisher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The long sword makes the difference.
The long sword while not great for cutting is good for stabbing and bashing.
Getting hit by a long sword its like getting hit with and iron club that can swing around and stab you.
While Japanese armor is great against stabbing and slashing it can't hold up a good knock from something solid.
Give that night a mace or long sword and he can just bash the dude to death.
Or a flail I fucking love flails.
Come at a samurai with one and he'd just wtf at you.

>> No.28592202


And the French were Franks, retard.

The very name France comes from Francia, which is Franks

>> No.28592223

Who has the hooks image with the plane dropping them en masse? this post calls for it.

>> No.28592240


Samurai, but only because I think they look way cooler in all that armor; I have absolutely no idea about period armor/weapons and how functional they were or any thing about them.

>> No.28592245
File: 49 KB, 491x245, 1381877024904.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why use something like an iron club when you can get a weapon that IS an iron club?

>> No.28592260
File: 10 KB, 145x382, chigiriki03.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The Japanese had flails too.
And to be fair, not very many kinds of armor can stand up to a solid hit. The standard practice in dealing with knights was use a blunt weapon to fuck up his spleen or hit the shit out of his head.

>> No.28592264

>Samurai armor
>Better looking than plate
It looks like ungainly shit.

>> No.28592278

The second from the bottom seems really nice, easy to wield and effective.

>> No.28592288

Grip the Foible of the sword with both hands and smash the Quillons into that mother fucker head

>> No.28592290

Those were expensive as fuck because of Muh Iron
thats why they were never standardized.

>> No.28592292
File: 48 KB, 525x700, knight.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Most of the people in this thread assume the both are using swords. Unless they specifically agree to a duel (which will be difficult with the language and culture barrier), they are EXTREMELY unlikely to ever draw swords on one another.

Both knighs and samurai used their arming swords/katanas as backup weapons, more a status symbol and sidearm than anything. Their primary weapons in a typical fight would have much longer range.

For long range attacks, which were always the preferred method to deal with anyone, we've got crossbows and bows for knights, and yumi bows for samurai. Let's be kind to the samurai and assume both sides are equally effective, even though samurai armor was inferior (the only reason why a thin slashing weapon worked at all was that samurai armor was often incomplete or leather llamelar).

At a closer range, they'd still be using pole arms to fight. Lances and spears/halberds on horseback for knights, and spears or naginatas on horseback for samurai. On foot, halberds for knights and naginatas for samurai. A halberd has a strong axe blade and sharp spear point, while a naginata is basically a katana on a long stick. The knight is going to win here pretty much every time. Halberds are much sturdier than naginatas, and a taller european knight will be much stronger and have much better reach than a small japanese samurai. Even on horseback, a lance is more effective than a spear, and knight full plate was superior to samurai armor.

>> No.28592308

>The very name France comes from Francia, which is Franks
And the Franks were the largest, most prominent group in France, hence the name. Are you going to argue that the Burgundians weren't a French people, too?

>> No.28592314


4:20 is gold.

>> No.28592346


That depends, are you going to say it wasn't the French who captured Joan of Ark, tried her, sentenced her to death for wearing pants and handing her over to the English to be burned at the stake?

>> No.28592352
File: 55 KB, 400x685, samurai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

At very close range, samurai would probably be using a Kanabo against an armored target. It's basically a heavy club, and works far, far better against armor than a katana. Plus, he wouldn't want to break his katana, now would he? The knight has a lot of options here. He might use a morning star, or a military pick (pierces armor extremely easily), or even a broadsword used in a stabbing motion. Once again, the knight's superior size and strength will win the fight here even if his superior armor and broader weapon choice won't.

Honestly, just look at the image to the left. Do you really think that guy can stand up to a knight? The answer is no.

Bonus round: the reason japanese smiths folded their iron over and over again was because japanese iron is shitty. It's so full of impurities that folding evolved out of necessity. The japanese were folding iron from around 1300 AD onward. Celts started folding iron in 700BC, two goddamn millenniums earlier.

>> No.28592373

>Lances and spears/halberds on horseback for knights, and spears or naginatas on horseback for samurai.
no, just lances for the knight, especially in this time period.

>On foot, halberds for knights
Poleax. Shorter, different construction method, thinner, smaller axehead.
Size is better for individual combat, small head is better for armor.

>> No.28592390

Dat pommel smack
holy hell how can you stand up to something like that.

>> No.28592392

What? I've been arguing that the Normans are a French people, of course I'd call Burgundians French.

>> No.28592396

Its because of that guy that ARMA imploded.

>> No.28592399

Look at that. LOOK.
I like the Japanese aesthetic, but I can't argue with armor that looks like that picture. Shiiiieeeet.

>> No.28592406


Good job, you've just angered the entire population of France for saying they killed their Saint.

>> No.28592417

Yes, yes, fuck clemets. The video is still great.

Apparently, you don't after round two.

From experience, you CAN get used to blows to the head, so long as you avoid brain injury (which makes you prone to being knocked the fuck out)

>> No.28592435

Anyone have that KM screencap where he talks about how Japanese metal isn't actually all that bad and the whole idea of Japanese steel being shit is a weird exaggeration?

>> No.28592476

>enter into a world war over resources
>our steel is perfect its not like we needed yours or anything...

>> No.28592486

Okay. Both are wearing armors from their respective lands and have guns from their respective lands. Both have bullets that can pierce their own armor, but only one can pierce the other one's armor.

Obviously the one who can pierce the other one's armor is going to win even if they both hit.

Is each one's skill determined by the skill of the craftsman?

>> No.28592525

It's not so much that Japanese steel isn't shitty, it's that everyone's steel production was shitty. For most of history we weren't using steel so much as steely iron. The Japanese folded to reduce impurities in the iron, and ended up with steel about as good as the bloomeries over in Europe were pumping out.

>> No.28592526


the japs had better guns, and bulletproofed their shit just like the euros did.

>> No.28592549

Poleax is similar enough that I just said halberd, was trying to be as generic as possible to cover knights from multiple periods, but yeah it only makes things even worse for a samurai

>> No.28592563

They kept using those matchlocks way into like the fucking 1800's and did perfectly fine a lot of the time. They were legitimately good.

If there's one thing you can say about the Japanese, they love snapping up new ways to kill each other.

>> No.28592567

>Both knighs and samurai used their arming swords/katanas as backup weapons, more a status symbol and sidearm than anything. Their primary weapons in a typical fight would have much longer range.
I hate to point this out but you are only half-right. while this is true of samurai, who were essentially heavy horse archers, knights were used in a completely different manner...

In Europe, knights were line breakers primarily, they would charge enemy ranks clad in heavy armor and armed with a spear or lance to break shield-walls and sow panic and discord among the ranks. once they have made the charge would go to either their sword, axe, hammer, or pick to fend off footmen and hopefully get away so as to mount another charge. A knight typically would never pick up a bow. so their sword is more their secondary weapon than an auxiliary.

Samurai on the other hand, are horse archers first and formost, their o-yoroi armor was specially designed to stop arrows, not so much sword blows, and they were heavily trained in the use of a bow. If a samurai was competent he'd never draw his katana, so it would be considered an auxiliary.

this is why ultimately it is hard to gauge a "who would win" scenario because ultimately their combat styles and focuses are so wildly different that it could be anyone's game... the samurai may pride themselves in their swordsmanship, but melee combat is the knight's element, his equipment and training puts a heavy focus on close-quarter combat. on the other hand the samurai has bow training so he could, in-theory keep his distance and shoot arrows at the knight; and if either is on horseback it's anyone's guess.

>> No.28592589

The Samurai could always pull an Englishman and shoot the knight's horse out from under him, make him charge up a muddy hill, beat him to death when he reaches the top, and then go home loudly talking about how awesome he is.

>> No.28592601

Everyone likes thinking up ways to kill the japanese.

it's what makes the world go round.

Fertile crescent?

Started as a giant tribal meet to figure out how to get rid of the nips.

>> No.28592613


Of course, now you are putting them in a situation for which their primary style makes no sense, hand -to-hand combat, and for some reason, they are both heavily armed for this non-military event.

At this point, It would seem likely that the knight would have the advantage if they were using swords.

>> No.28592626

>shoot the horse
>1500s frenchman
The horse literally has better armor than the samurai does.

French got them back at patay.

Problem being the samurai, though an archer, was not a skirmisher, they weren't big on retreating from things.

>> No.28592633

that's assuming the samurai had better strategy and tactics than knights.

Consider for a moment that the Japanese were closed off from most of the rest of the world in medieval times, and primarily only fought among themselves. Knights, collectively, had experience fighting foes from all over Europe, the middle east, Africa, and even parts of East-Asia.

The idea that the samurai would have better strategy, in spite of their vastly inferior experience with war, is laughable

>> No.28592647

he is actually just mocking the english.

>> No.28592653


Your argument relies on people speaking the same language, which is incorrect.

>> No.28592656

Assuming both of them arrive wielding Anti-Armor weapons, IE the Knight brings a Warhammer or Pick, and the Samurai brings a Big Fuckoff Iron Club, the winner is THE MORE SKILLED ONE.


>> No.28592681

What he just did was describe how the English won their most famous battles against the French, Crecy and Agincourt. The French ultimately won the war, but in those two instances they went full retard.

Those poor Genoese.

>> No.28592695

Yes they did.

all the time. Fechten mit dem kurtz schwert.
It's for armor.

>Warhammer or Pick
Not likely, no.


Or the one with solid armor that is excellent at distributing shock over his entire body.

>> No.28592706

Define "skill." Just like modern day, the winner of most fights in medieval times was the one with better tactics. Here are some general tips for you, should you find yourself facing real combat.

1) Avoid wars if at all possible.
2) Find ways to kill your opponent that don't involve fighting. Cutting off their supply lines are a popular method.
3) If you find yourself in combat, bring weapons that perfectly counter your opponent's. If he brings a sword, use a bow. If he brings a shield, use a hammer.

Once you've done all that, you can start worrying about "skill."

>> No.28592761

The martial arts involving fighting people in armor involve negating the armor by wrestling him to the ground and shoving a dagger in his eye or using a sword in a way that is not a sword. Generally as a hammer.

>> No.28592770

also depends on the battlefield

>> No.28592771

Strictly speaking, those resources they wanted were Oil and (comparatively) rare materials like Rubber, tungsten, etc.

>> No.28592788

Look. There are too many fucking variables. There are many potential loadouts of many different weapons. Hell, is this guy even a knight? Is he a heavy infantryman? Is the Samurai an elder retainer, or is he a youth?

Do they favor the sword? Spears? Axes? Hammers?

Are they cavalry? Does the Knight have a Handgonne? Is the Samurai from the Meiji or Edo period? What regions are these guys from?

>> No.28592789

Or you force it into his joints.

regardless, still happily carried into situations where armored foes were a certainty.

>> No.28592797

>into like the fucking 1800's and did perfectly fine a lot of the time.

Because they were only fighting each other, also with fucking matchlocks.

Once Westerners showed up with contemporary guns, they got their arses pasted. Granted they had the sense to modernise fairly quickly, but that doesn't mean that continuing to use Matchlocks that long was indicative of their quality.

>> No.28592801

No, that's most definitely using a sword as a sword.

>> No.28592813

not if you're a samurai. They understood slashing, and not much else

>> No.28592816

>he could, in-theory keep his distance and shoot arrows at the knight;
Not if he's wearing O-yoroi he's can't. It's a giant box.

On horseback Europeans still won. Japanese horses were basically ponies in comparison to French warhorses of the 14-1500s.

>> No.28592818
File: 118 KB, 600x1123, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Seriously. This alone makes the European knight better than the Japanese Samurai. Mounted or on foot.

Even in similar quality and style of armor. The guy with the shield is gonna have a huge advantage.

>> No.28592827

On a belt. As a sidearm. A sidearm perfectly useable in the event of fighting an armored man, but not your go-to weapon. This is why poleaxes, warhammers, maces, and crow's beaks were things specifically designed for fighting an armored man, and so you carried one into battle. If you fought on horseback, you would carry your lance as your main weapon on top of a pick or hammer and your sword. If you were Polish you probably carried three of each plus four pistols. That's a bit late period, though.

>> No.28592834
File: 121 KB, 363x500, Samurai_Tokugawa_Era.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

"I see your shield and raise you a 200 pound lump of Fuck Your Shit."

>> No.28592836

This is why no one invites you to the Tournaments, Franz. What, are you too poor to afford armor?

>> No.28592840

>Hell, is this guy even a knight? Is he a heavy infantryman?

>a French knight.
I don't know retard, what is he?
>and both come from the year 1500
Making him a gendarme, meaning an armored horse, a lance, sword, and excellent plate.

>Both are typical examples of their type
That, and the ordnance companies were standardized.

>Does the Knight have a Handgonne?
Well, uh
>They get all their equipment that doesn't involve gunpowder.

>Is the Samurai from the Meiji or Edo period?

>What regions are these guys from?
Really irrelevant.

>> No.28592842

The shield was largely rendered obsolete by turning the entire body into a shield.

>> No.28592853

Because you didn't use a shield when you where covered in Plate. Seriously, you blocked that shit with your forearm and then pummel strike that fucker in the face.

>> No.28592863

20 would be pushing the limit of a weapon that could actually be used.
It was probably closer to 10 pounds.

>> No.28592865

A sidearm utterly guaranteed to see use if the fighting was hard.

>> No.28592872

Aztecs tried that shit on some dirty half-armored spaniards, you know.

they all died.

>> No.28592876

Oh, of course. It's very easy to have your weapon broken or torn away or otherwise rendered useless in battle. That doesn't make it not better than the sword at fighting an armored man. It just means the sword is useable against an armored man.

>> No.28592884

half-right, but you wouldn't want to block anything with your forearm no matter armor you're wearing. Even a tiny Japanese samurai wielding one of their kanabo clubs can swing hard enough to break an arm even through a shield, much less a bracer.

>> No.28592892

Its like asking "one man is armed with a modern semi-automatic pistol, the other is armed with a civil-war era revolver. Who wins?"

We don't know. Its impossible to be 100% certain of the victor even though one has a clear advantage.

>> No.28592907


I'm sure the smallpox helped.

>> No.28592911

which is why you circle-block, same as you deflect punches.

Same mechanical principal as parrying with your weapon. all the foce is merely redirected, and the plate keeps your arm from being nicked.

Oh, and you cna wrap your arm around his weapon after, too,

>> No.28592921
File: 61 KB, 317x300, frankaboo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Post picture of the Bayeux Tapestry with half-assed snarky comment
>Leave topic
>Come back hours later
>Argument about whether Normans are actually French

Never change /tg/

>> No.28592927

Not really relevant during a one day battle.

>> No.28592928

or you can just kill your opponent with a crossbow, or a poleax, or just get out of the way of his swing and come in behind it. There are a lot of options that don't involve taking a club to the arm, circle-block or not.

>> No.28592943

>French Knight in full plate VS Samurai with his own armor

It's like comparing a tank to an armored jeep to my eyes.

The samurai is more about 1-hit/1kill strikes to dispatch enemies quickly

The knight can just scoff at most, if nearly all kinds of attacks made against him because of the suit he has.

Now if we were to compare a samurai to another warrior that specialized in a similar fighting principle (killing slashes), we could have a better match-up.

Knight wins simy because of his armor, nothing else.

>> No.28592949


Its not our fault the French try to rewrite history all the time.

>> No.28592989
File: 203 KB, 920x903, 1359322364011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Why are we always talking about knights when they were on their way out? This is a time when the heavy charge was no longer the king of the battlefield, it was a German fucker with a pike or gun and all 9000 of his buddies also armed with pikes and guns. Charges of heavy cavalry were starting to not really work all that well, and warfare was changing into the more 'modern' form of pike and shot. Sure, a knight had armor above and beyond anything a samurai could come up with, but he was starting to become a relic of questionable value in his own time. Why not compare samurai and knights from a time when they were a larger, more vital part of the battlefield?

>> No.28593000

The Knight has better armor. The Katana will fucking shatter.

>> No.28593004


to be fair, it's not just the French.

... but fuck 'em anyway.

I have see the first 5 seconds of the grey goosse commercial too many times.

>> No.28593023
File: 128 KB, 500x375, TurtleboatbyKoreantrekker.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Feudal Japan never did well against forces with access to better metal resources. Just look at when Hideyoshi attempted to invade Korea. Hell, the Koreans were even able to armor plate their ships.

>> No.28593035
File: 106 KB, 680x793, 1385790157233.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>samurai's katana can't pierce through froggy's plate-armor
>froggy can't move fast enough to catch samurai

Nothing fucking happens. If they're fighting outside they both just probably catch cold and die from that.

>> No.28593090

>>froggy can't move fast enough to catch samurai


>> No.28593093

Okay, how about a more interesting challenge?

Medieval French Farmer vs. Japanese Farmer of the equivalent period. Assume the default farmer.

>> No.28593121

Medieval farmer, probably. He's mandated by his lord to keep arms and armor of some sort, and if I recall correctly the Japanese guy was explicitly barred from owning weapons.

>> No.28593131

I think Euros were a bit larger right? And were supposed to have emergency weapons

>> No.28593151


Better Diet, larger and stronger due to genetic traits.

Not strictly correct; the Frenchman was mandated to have arms and armour, but so were many Japanese peasants pre-Tokugawa. The exceptions were the radicals like Nobunaga who had all-professional armies.

>> No.28593178

>froggy can't move fast enough to catch samurai
You are aware that plate was actually really well-made, surprisingly lightweight, and had enough joints that any change in their mobility would be negligible? certainly not enough to be of any use to an opponent. like, slow enough to see an opening but not slow enough to make any use of it.

>> No.28593191


Probably favours the farmer a bit.

Neither is likely to be particularly well armed or armoured (in both cases, we're looking at light armour and spears, more or less), but IIRC the average Frenchman of the time would've been significantly bigger than the average Japanese.

The western diet ain't always the healthiest of things, but it does breed big bastards.

>> No.28593207

You are very ignorant, armour is not that debilitating. People have even managed to swim in it.

>> No.28593213

Now, let's give both the farmers a standard glock. Which one of them figures it out first and kills the other?

>> No.28593267
File: 11 KB, 396x267, 2u6ofmt.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>I want to settle this once and for all
You never will, not on /tg/ and not in threads like this.
>no stupid maymays
The word "maymay" in reference to memes is a stupid meme.

Basically, stop shitposting.

>> No.28593317

>Which one of them figures it out first and kills the other
whoever first tosses it out and just shanks the other.

>> No.28593329

Well, Japanese farmers were often ninjas, so I suppose they might confuse it for a ninja star.

>> No.28593338


Yeah no.

>> No.28593351

Dude, Atlatls could PUNCTURE STEEL BREASTPLATES. Do not underestimate those fuckers, sure they lost to 200 poxy Spaniards with a cannon, but the Spaniards had surprise, confusion, disease and about 2,000,000 angry local allies on their side as well.

>> No.28593354

Ninjas were spies first, assassins far second, and fighters never.
If a ninja is attacking someone, something's a bit weird.
If a ninja is fighting something, he fucked up and might as well go commit sudoku,

>> No.28593384

>a ninja would be worse at fighting than a medieval peasant

>> No.28593410


>japanese villages not all secret ninja communities

Clearly you need to watch more chinese cartoons anon

>> No.28593439
File: 32 KB, 275x379, fig2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Germanic medieval army would utterly crush Japan in both land and sea battles.

While Japan is fucking retarded, "muh honor weapon", European armies constantly adopted new technologies, a fucking shield (duh.....), better swords and armors, developing different tactics and so on.

Source: common sense and picture related. Medieval European prosthetics capable of horse riding, playing cards, holding swords and spoons/forks and even holding a feather pen thing.

Weaboo's get bent.

>> No.28593483


>> No.28593512

Two knights are locked in a room, one French and one English. There are no windows, and the door is unable to be broken down for the purpose of this simulation. One of them must kill the other to leave the room, but neither of them have weapons. The only way to leave is to take a baguette left on a nearby table and insert it into a the door's baguette-shaped keyhole. Only one knight is allowed to leave the room. If both knights leave, or do not kill each other before an hour is up, they both die from the microchip kill-switches installed into their brains by the Spanish.

What happens?

>> No.28593532


Frenchman beats the poor brit to death with his national weapon, the stale baguette.

>> No.28593570

gay sex

>> No.28593623
File: 34 KB, 372x337, 108.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Muh honor weapon

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Marxbrüder, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on the Täufer, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in judicial combat and I’m the top Doppelsöldner in all the Landsknechte. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before in Christendom, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, Swede. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the Reich and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, Protestant. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kind. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my oversized pointy shield. Not only am I extensively trained in judicial dueling shields, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment about honor weapons was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit Teutonic fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, heretic.

The Germans had their own share of retarded bullshit, and the Japanese were actually very quick to adopt gunpowder tactics often more advanced than their European counterparts.

>> No.28593682

Also, I should point out in the interest of fairness that these are weapons intentionally retarded for the purpose of judicial duels. Not battlefield weapons. However, that doesn't explain the use of the Caracole.

>> No.28593698

But this doesn't make them French. They're still Normans. They're Normans because literally no one else identified them as anything BUT NORMANS. This means that they were distinct enough to warrant everyone, including the french at the time, to identify them as NORMANS and not FRO-FRENCH.

>> No.28593820

Hideyoshi won almost every major land battle he fought in by orders of magnitude. He only lost land battles because the gooks jumped in to help him and even with an awesome professional and very experienced army like the Japanese one he couldn't resist the million plus Chinese the Ming just chucked over the border. Especially not when the Japanese never bothered with naval development and got shit all over by the Korean's significantly better fleets.

Make no mistake the Japanese performed very well against the Ming and their mountain bitch but there's only so much you can do when you can't live off the land or push forward due to your enemy having literally inexhaustible amounts of troops. If Hideyoshi had a navy on par with the Korean one, or even if he had a few Spanish galleons the war would have been much much different but you can't carry on an overseas war without a navy capable of actually fighting an overseas war. Without one he was destined to lose because he could never supply his soldiers in Korea or be able to make a beachhead somewhere else so they'd simply lose by attrition thanks to unlimited chink works. The Japanese would play Imjin War Pt.2 and shit all over both of them in only a few months so they do get vengeance in the end.

Because if we have this discussion then the country with more guns and better tactics wins and in the 1500's that isn't the Germans. That's the Japs who have more guns and more trained gunners than every other contemporary nation and that's impressive considering it means they also beat out the Chinese.

>> No.28593835
File: 463 KB, 175x177, 223.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>implying you wouldnt design retarded weapons for retarded duels of retarded people if you were given the authority

m80 do you even fun?

>> No.28593917

My money's on the luckier one, actually. But even then I'd stay off betting on this fight. Hand-to-hand combat with hand weapons is messy. An opponent could still shank you with his dying breath.

>> No.28593923

Samurai is a horse archer, knight is heavy cavalry. They have completely different roles in a battle.

>> No.28593954


Plate doesn't hamper short-term mobility but it does have a significant effect on long-term endurance. That being said similar disadvantages apply to all armours and properly fitted plate harness does have some relative advantages.

>> No.28594024



Proven in 'Greatest Warrior' or whatever that show was. They had 'Samurai vs Viking'. Simple, old fashioned iron rings around a slab of pig - samurai recreator couldn't even put a scratch on it, swinging as hard as he could.

>> No.28594026

>hat's the Japs who have more guns and more trained gunners than every other contemporary nation
Not until the very late 1500s, i.e post 1560 at the earliest.

And once Tokugawa's running things European development outstrips Japanese by orders of magnitude.

Basically, the Japanese have a small window of a couple decades where they could theoretically stand up to the Europeans. That's it.

>> No.28594043

Using a secondary weapon that wasn't designed to fight armored opponents.
That's kind of like someone taking an M9 and shooting at a Kevlar vest from 100 yards, then saying that a modern infantryman can't hurt someone wearing armor.

>> No.28594121
File: 473 KB, 320x240, Typical L5R thread.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Well thus whole thread is awful.

>> No.28594133

i thought it was basically well done and informative.

samuari looses to superior armor technology and a better diet.

>> No.28594150

And much should be common knowledge, this is /tg/ afterall.

>> No.28594155

Well... not necessarily "better."

>> No.28594163

Samurai would have more luck with the...ah whatsit called?
Kanbo? something like that...
The huge-ass spiked club!
'course, the knight would have a flanged mace....
it would have been a spectacle, for sure.
whoever loses...WE WIN!

>> No.28595314

Putting the katana's edge aside, samurai easily wins this:
>Samurai wears invincible demon mask, Knight will shit in his armour when he sees demon visage from hell and the stinky shit fumes caused by his poor roughage diet will incapacitate him letting the samurai strike a killing blow easily. Even if Samurai shat inside his armour, proper Eastern diet would make it smell like lotus blossom and chrysanthemum
>Samurai is master of ranged combat, powerful long-range bow and rapid rate of fire mean Samurai could even outshoot modern day snipers
>Samurai blade shines with the radiance of Heaven, could easily be used to blind the knight by reflecting light into his eyes during the day.
>During the night, Samurai uses cultural ninja skills to explode the Knight's blood everywhere before he even knows Japan exists.
>Samurai is protected by good karma, Heaven will not allow him to die. Knight is hated and accursed by an angry god and forced to live a sinful life of violence due to his feudal position. Hell is a certainty, God will speed him there. Deus vult!
>Samurai bamboo armour is far more protective than Knight's pathetic full plate. Bamboo is still used as a modern construction material, where do you see full plate these days? Point proven.

>> No.28595338


Easy. Knight. Samurai blades can't penetrate plate armor. Broadswords and the like can fell small trees. If they were both wearing no armor and both used light blades, samurai every time but that just isn't the case. You're pitting a foot soldier against a foot tank here.

>> No.28595364

>more likely to break
I agree...after all spear is made of wood plus the pointy metal thing.

>> No.28595402

>If they were both wearing no armor and both used light blades, samurai every time but that just isn't the case
Dude, Longsword fucks Samurai up. Greater Reach and Double edged vs what is essentially a sabre.

>> No.28595455
File: 369 KB, 2562x1772, 1361559516452.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>what is essentially a sabre.
Debatable, depending on time period and style.

>> No.28595469

>muh honor weapon
Someone has no idea what he's tolkien about

>> No.28595575

Heavy, impossibly thick sabre likely produced from the worst iron known to mankind.
Tis only isn't a curbstomp because we are in the only era when samurai were likely to have actual combat training.
Still we have a longbow, a spear and a comparatively short sword on an unarmored pony going against the rolling thunder that is one of the heaviest combinations of horse and rider ever to be fielded armed with armorpiercing weaponry, read war hammer, a lance and a sword or even a mace, shrugging off arrows and being plain taller than the puny yellow man.

>> No.28595680

If they have horses and samurai get a bow he wins.

Range is nearly everything in a fight.
I'm pretty sure arrow can pierce plate armor.

If it is melee French guy wins, having a lighter and faster weapon and having better amror.

>> No.28595690

those are all sabres

>> No.28595696
File: 458 KB, 1500x1374, 1384618827501.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Pre-Cohort Roman Hastati vs Post-Cohort Eagle Cohort.

Who wins?

>> No.28595697
File: 145 KB, 1280x1024, 1370944271707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Nothing is stronger then love
Except an Apache helicopter with a flail

>> No.28595705

>I'm pretty sure arrow can pierce plate armor.
Nope. Not a fucking chance.1500s plate harnesses were completely impervious to Bow-fired arrows.

And the Frenchman's horse is going to be bigger, faster and stronger than the Samurai's. It'll just run him down.

>> No.28595708

post, thats not even a question

the hastati werent even the heavy hitters even pre cohort, they were the first line

>> No.28595716

>thin slashing weapon
the eauropean sword is tHiner then a katana.

>> No.28595722

England only lost the 100 years in the sense that they got bored of wrecking shit, raping women etc for 130 years solid and eventually left the mainland altogether to secure their borders against Scotland

>> No.28595727
File: 28 KB, 300x300, shield.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Almost any one of us could kill a Samurai, armed with a shield and a spear.

It's next to impossible to fight someone with a shield if you don't have one yourself.

Literally any attack with a Katana is going to get stuck, indefinitely, in a wooden shield. Then you stab the motherfucker with your short spear. Done.

>> No.28595743

Samurai whips out his raging Bushido and bludgeons the frog into the earth with it

next question

>> No.28595755

Unless you wear plate armor.

>> No.28595758

but the knight has plate doesnt he?

that means he doesnt use a shield anymore, but I cant remember what year that evolution happened in

>> No.28595761


At the Battle of Patay the English were effectively ambushed. The French fully believed they couldn't defeat the English if they were prepared.

Most pertinently, the Longbowmen had no time to drive stakes into the ground and prepare their position, so as to be safe from immediate cavalry charge.

Otherwise it would be like falling onto a phalanx wielded by the ground itself

>> No.28595769

>Hurr Katana is his main weapon durr

Ok, you wear a shield, we'll use real samurai with muskets, yari and yumi see what happens.

>> No.28595781

Which side has the best hats?

This is important.

>> No.28595803

the rule was no gunpowder

>> No.28595806

The European knight's.
It really completes the ensemble.

>> No.28595817

>Samurai commits sudoku
>Knight, knowing he's better at everything tries to copy him
>It was all a ruse
>Shitty steel katana breaks in Samurai belly
>Awesome god blessed longsword obliterates Knight with touch
Samurai wins

>> No.28595836

>Ok, who wins In a fight, Knight or Samurai?, remember, remove any posibility of win from samurai, and give him his ceremonial only used against unarmored peasants tertiary weapon as main weapon...also no bows or spears, for the samurai. Give knight 100 men, horses and cannons and any weapon he may need.
>Who wins?

>> No.28595868
File: 41 KB, 383x505, Cod2823_fol150r.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


I'm literally scouring the internet to see if I can find an answer to the question "would a 16th century French Knight have used a shield".

But as to my post, it was about the effectiveness of shield alone, in the hands of a miscreant -- not a knight.

>> No.28595869

Sneaky fucking japs...

>> No.28595870


>I can't read

From the OP:

> They get all their equipment that doesn't involve gunpowder.

i.e. yumi, yari, etc. Last I checked spears don't require gunpowder.

Stop being a butthurt faggaboo just because someone made fun of the katana being a shitty weapon.

You're retarded.

>> No.28595879

Whatever helps you with the pain, man.

>> No.28595900


A yumi has an effective range of 50 meters. It's not penetrating Plate.

Closing 50 meters on foot or horseback isn't going to be an issue.

Now a Yari is pretty much the only weapon you're left with that's actually going to be effective, but a Knight with a two handed weapon is going to have equal reach with less to worry about.

>> No.28595918

That guy was talking about shield and other weapon, I guess one handed sword, mace or flail..."usually" spear (yari) gives you advantage in that situation

>> No.28595956

French knight.

Unless you have a mace or a big gun, you're not killing a 1500 AD knight.

>> No.28595957

spanish full old tercio vs japanese army
the japanse told them they where no honor fags.
the spaniards told them they had small peckers.
they're both getting near no pay.

>> No.28595976

I keep hearing those, Im new into historical armies, were kind of good-ish, is this true? I mean, they're Spanish, those never won anything.

>> No.28595996

Like a spear is going to work on a fucking plate armoured knight!

Dude, you can't shoot through plate with a fucking HAND CANNON, and you want to pierce it with a spear? Are you fucking retarded?

>> No.28595998

old tercios=cheating

>> No.28596000


The Shield/Spear combo was specifically that one of *us* could kill a Samurai with a Katana.

A 16th Century French Knight wearing full plate is almost exclusive going to be a Gendarme. Which means he is fights as Heavy Cavalry exclusively with a lance.

Which means he basically is going to joust the Samurai. The thing they practised doing since they were children.

>> No.28596018

A fancy way of saying the same huge block formation every other European power was using

>> No.28596021

Just checking up on my historical weapon knowledge.

Did knights joust knights in combat?

I imagine knights vs knights would be all about switching to maces, but frankly I don't know shit about jousting.

>> No.28596048


>never won anything

Niggah the Spanish and Portuguese were like the most powerful niggas at one point, they're just shit NOW. They had powerful armies and the Portuguese beat the japanese whilst the Spanish dominated bean land.

>> No.28596054


> Are you fucking retarded?

Gendarmes were vulnerable to Pike formations, so a mass of spears is going to do something.

But effectively "light" cavalry is going to get fucking messed up by them, particularly in Armour so heavy it protects semi-reliably against firearms.

Edo Period Samurai aren't going to have anything better than light chainmail.

>> No.28596058

The primary tactic against the opponents of a mounted knight is to ride at them really fucking fast and spear them with a fuckoff big lance.

So yeah, they "jousted" agaisnt most things.

>> No.28596060
File: 442 KB, 1760x641, comparison.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


The image you should have used.

Edo Samurai vs. Gendarme

>> No.28596061

HORSES were vulnerable to pike formations.

Knights weren't. For fucks sake, you're goddamn retarded.

>penetrating plate


Reality nigger. Not Historical D&D.

>> No.28596068

Portuguese I'd agree with because they were fighting something that wasn't a million miles from equally capable. The Spanish however created the stereotype of European powers conquering stone age peoples and calling it a crowning achievement by the being the only power that actually did it. The huge empire they quickly amassed was incredibly weak to predation from other European powers, they couldn't beat the French on land or stop the English from raiding their convoys loaded up with all the gold they'd been busy pillaging

>> No.28596072

>Gendarmes were vulnerable to Pike formations, so a mass of spears is going to do something.

Not so much. Lances at that point were long enough that pikes were the only thing that outreached them. Conventional Yari and spears are going to get hit by the lance before the knight impacts the spear.

Also, Pikes only work in units. Solo they're shit.

>> No.28596083

You realise the Spanish dominated Europe on land and owned half of Italy and pretty much all the Benelux area for a huge a mount of time, right?

>> No.28596093

Knights usually were used against infantry as mobile elements. You would not try and counter heavy cavalry with other heavy cavalry without a massive advantage on your side. They are far too valuable to swap one-for-one.
You need to concentrate what you have on them and react quickly. Ideally you get them to ride past your guns and a good angle and try shooting them to shit, then shoot them with crossbows, muskets, whatever you have to kill rider or steed. Otherwise, disrupt their formation, have them caught between pikes and lances and then pile in.

Generally, avoid an honest fight at all cost and don't go jousting, you retard, they have sharp lances, too. Do you want to die?

>> No.28596112

And then the Dutch took Chinese gunpowder weapons and codified it into "artillery" and fucking kicked Spanish ass.

>> No.28596122

Yeah, I get the point, but would jousting other jousting knights actually do something?

I imagine, all that would happen is a whole lot of dead horses, a whole lot of knights with a big dent in their plate, and a whole lot of knights walking around and smashing eachothers faces in with maces and pommels and trying to get back on their horse before it runs off.

To me, at least, it seems more like a waste of time and a danger to the horse than a deadly affair.

A horse + jousting lance, no way that stuff has more kinetic energy than a handcannon right?

If a handcannon can't blow a hole in plate, a horse with lance sure can't.

>> No.28596126

>Did knights joust knights in combat?

What.. what do you think they did it for?

Cavalry, if they aren't stupid, uses lances.

Cavalry, if they aren't stupid, will face either other Cavalry or exposed infantry.

Therefore, you damn well better know how to dodge a god-damn spear or lance and fuck up that persons day simultaneously.

An Edo Period "Samurai" is pretty much going to just wear a Daisho (two swords) for backup and status - and use a Yari. Which is basically a lance. Which won't be very effective against Plate.

If he's luckily he'll be wearing the "modern" IRON breast-plated style armours. Which was pretty poorly copied from European styles.

I.e even they knew their armour sucked compared to steel plate, but couldn't even make enough steel to build it.

Even picked up an iron skillet? Image wearing half a dozen large ones, sewn into your clothing. Badly.

>> No.28596139

That's a Blackhawk you idiot, get it right!

Relax, not everyone knows their hardware.

>> No.28596148

Because the British incessantly fucked with the Spanish's ability to resupply via sea.

Having to maintain a logistical train through France was not always the most straightforward of tasks.

>> No.28596172

>Portugal was better than spain!
>Spain did not break everyone's legs in europe out of a ragefit
>Spain was killed only by the dutch
>Spanish tercio is just a block of infantry
>Spaniards never won anything.
Never change your retarded ways /tg/, never change.
japs, you didn't say era, or age they could be the ACTUAL army or WWII army.

>> No.28596185

>A horse + jousting lance, no way that stuff has more kinetic energy than a handcannon right?

It has vastly more mass, if less velocity. The Stirrup-and-harness system means that that lance blow is putting the entire mass of the horse, the rider, their armour all into that one sharp, penetrating point on the lance at 30+ km/h.

>If a handcannon can't blow a hole in plate, a horse with lance sure can't.

See above. A properly-used lance will kill a plate-armoured individual afoot through sheer bloody impact force imploding their ribcage, even if that same harness will reliably stop a handgonne shot.

>> No.28596196


> Knights weren't. For fucks sake, you're goddamn retarded.

From the Battle of Ceresole, 1544.

"On the first charge, Enghien's [Heavy] cavalry penetrated a corner of the Imperial [Pike Infantry] formation, pushing through to the rear and losing some of the volunteers from Paris. As Cardona's [Spanish & German Infantry] ranks closed again, the French cavalry turned and made a second charge under heavy arquebus fire; this was far more costly, and again failed to break the Imperial column. Enghien, now joined by Dampierre's light cavalry, made a third charge, which again failed to achieve a decisive result; fewer than a hundred of the French gendarmes remained afterwards".

Pike Formations did defeat Heavy Cavalry, but those were supported by Arquebuses.

>> No.28596206


> Pikes only work in units. Solo they're shit.

Friend, that was indeed the point I was failing to make clearly.

Yari and Naginata simply wouldn't reach past a Lance.

>> No.28596228

> Generally, avoid an honest fight at all cost and don't go jousting, you retard, they have sharp lances, too. Do you want to die?

Gendarmes often fought against other Heavy Cavalry and won decisively however, causing a victory at Seminara, Fornovo and Ravenna.

>> No.28596258

Er, a lance as used in battle, had a sharp point, not the blunted tip used in jousting. Also these were not to splinter harmlessly, but to pierce through the enemy and hopefully be good for another go.
A lance in jousting is easily capable of unhorsing you. If you get a sharp one, you better believe a good hit (meaning any hit that doesn't glance harmlessly) can kebab you dead. Also you will wear less armor. Late jousting armor was heavy, specialized gear specifically for jousting and was so restrictive, it was useless in battle, tiring horse and rider, liming sight to almost nothing.

And a hand cannon ca still do harm to you, even in armor. Even if your harness holds. A hit to the head could give you a concussion, or your horse might stumble/rear/get killed in the barrage, which is threatening, no matter your armor.

We are talking Sengoku. 1500. So far less European influence.

Being the best of your kind is what I would chalk up as a decisive advantage.
Also, did they charge head-on against formations of equal strength, which would lead to actual jousting as originally asked about?

>> No.28596264


You are getting confused between the "act" of Jousting, and the sport.

In the sport you would wear armour unsuitable for actual fighting, and a lance designed to not kill the person it hits by shattering. It was about unseating your opponent and deflecting his lance away from you.

In actual battle, the same thing applies, except the lance is a steel tipped monstrosity that will try to fuck your day right up. So you best be good at shifting in the saddle to avoid it, or making sure you catch someone unprepared for a charge.

A Gendarme charging a Yari armed Samurai doesn't even have to worry. His Yari isn't even longer than your lance.

>> No.28596277


> We are talking Sengoku. 1500

Oh I'm sorry, I think I made the classic "16th Century not 1600's" mistake at some point.

Well then the Samurai is so fucked.

>> No.28596296


> Also, did they charge head-on against formations of equal strength, which would lead to actual jousting as originally asked about?

You know what, my post was confusing - let me explain better.

> Which means he basically is going to joust the Samurai

What I'm saying here is that he is going to charge another opponent on horseback, on their own. It's very similar to a joust, because they would both be armed with a Lance or equivalent.

But I'm just referring to the Samurai vs Knight duel. He might try to flee the Knight's lance and just shoot from horseback - but I don't know of his Bushido would allow for that.

So what I'm saying is, in this situation, both cavalry will charge at each other (or one receive a charge from the other) armed with lance type weapons. One of those soldiers does this for sport.

>> No.28596351

Wouldn't he be even more fucked in late 17th century?
He'd be forced to do administrative shit and have no battle experience whatsoever.
Not to mention being forced to spend his money on fancy living and traveling.

Bushido? Bushido was codified long after the fact, the word first coming up in 17th century, comfortably removed from the reality of battle.
The book that codifies and popularizes it is an 1899 nationalist work by a guy who never even had a grandpa who was involved in a proper war. Our early Sengoku bushi would be willing to win at just about all cost, especially against a foreign devil about a foot taller. If he doesn't just throw down his weapons and welcomes his new demonic overlord, figuring out how best to justify his defection.

>> No.28596369


You know what, that's very true.

> Our early Sengoku bushi would be willing to win at just about all cost, especially against a foreign devil about a foot taller. If he doesn't just throw down his weapons and welcomes his new demonic overlord, figuring out how best to justify his defection.

Haha, then fair enough. I guess when it comes down to it, the Samurai is going to either surrender, die gloriously or high tail it.

>> No.28596370

A properly used lance.


A properly used handgonne will hit the knight in the eye bypassing all armour.

Properly used is a cheap argument.

>> No.28596437

That isn't the slightest bit what it means, and you know it.

>A properly used handgonne will hit the knight in the eye bypassing all armour.
That's not "Properly" using it. That's a matter of luck.

A "Properly"used Handgonne will hit it's target centre-of-mass, in time with the other firers in the formation, and probably not explode killing or maiming the wielder.

There's no need to be facetious.

>> No.28596577

I'd have a hard time doing this in a shooting range with a modern, carbon-fiber, bow and I'm not a bad archer.
Against a moving target, with armour on, wind conditions and a wooden bow with no sights?

>> No.28596595

what gets me though is every focusing on the knights sword
what about axes, picks, hammers, maces, what about the fact that he is likely to also have a shield? and that his horse is also going to be armoured where as a samurais isn't

>samurai vs knight
my money would be on the Knight quite honeslty, armor would allow him to weather most of the samurais weapons, barring a lucky shot by the samurais bow, the chance of which would rise if he stays on horesback and keeps his distance but even then they didn't field to many armor piercing arrow heads like the european bowmen did

If the fight stays on horseback but they come to close combat, then I think it will easily go to the Knight, either he catches the samurai on a heavy lance or they lock in close where the knight usually has a shorter armor piercing weapon and a shield while the Samurai has his swords or a tanto to aim for gaps in the armor and no shield

On foot its more even, the kanabo, axe or hammer that the samurai can field can be a threat but they are all two handers and the samurai again lacks armor and shield to counter the same weapoins that the knight can bring, it would be a question of who could get the first effective strike in

the yari is probablly the biggest threat as most knights did not use long weapons like that beyond their horse lance and the range could make up for a lack of armour and if the spear has a crossguard it could be used to trip the knight

but the samurai just never armed themselves to deal with armor as heavy as french full plate because they never had to where as the european knight was the result of generations of arms vs armor evolution, if they did have to face european knights regularly then they would have addapted and changed to deal with them

>> No.28596600

>Spanish tercio is just a block of infantry
But it WAS just a block of infantry. I mean, yes, it had arquebusiers, but it's not like they were emplyoed out of formation like skirmishers.
The tercios were pure infantry, unless you wanna talk of ranged tropps as not infantry, but that'd be a very old fashioned view in the 16th century.

>> No.28596604

(this was originally meant to be a reply to your post)

>longswords are fucking great for cutting
they are okay for cutting, but being a straight edge it is not their specialty
the were built to be able to stab, slash and slice(draw cutting) but they do none particularly better than any other sword (and it was this versatility that made them so awesome)
rest of your points are good though

>> No.28596617

>Samurai proceeds to make an Izuna, for those ignorant western barbarians who don't know what's an izuna, it's a wind cut; from several thousand of jos away, cutting in half the hideous foreigner.

>> No.28596761

Not to mention the fact that most eyeslits were, on the whole, not large enough to fit an arrow through in the first place.

>> No.28597182

They actually tested this. The lance still won't penetrate the harness deep enough to kill the knight. An arrow shot from a Yumi and an arrow shot from a longbow will only penetrate at less than 30 feet and even then won't go deep enough to kill.

Their weakness was the arquebus not the pike as your source clearly states. Ironically this was something the Japanese figured out really early. They didn't bother mixing their formation with pikes but kept the melee infantry and the guns distinct formations. Instead they mixed bows in with their guns so the rate of fire for the formation was too high to really approach. The arrows provided area denial and dispersion while the guns killed individual targets because the Japanese weren't trained for inaccurate volleys but were trained to aim.

>> No.28597230

It won't penetrate, sure, but the sheer transfer of force from the impact will shatter ribs and probably cause internal haemorrhaging.

>> No.28597695

not to say shooting through them was impossible(the force and make of the arrow could still force its way in) but it was mostly the result of pure luck after getting hit by a hail of arrows and not a single intended shot

now if the arrow was a heavy crossbow bolt or a bodkin arrow from a longbow

>> No.28597778

the Yari is also not built for use like a lance, it simply could be used like one
A Yari was really a two handed spear while a knights lance was built entirely for the act of charging and weighted to be used as such, while this means a knight wouldnt use his lance on foot it meant that he would have adecided advantage on the straight charge over the samurai

>> No.28599078

no, it was because the billhooks were heavy blades with a good deal of leverage and force on them. that and a decent stabby point and a hook.

>I'm pretty sure that by the time the French have plate armor, the Japanese have guns.

NO, the japanese did not get guns until 1543 when they got some from the portuguese, this was around a hundred years after plate armor reached its peak in the late 1400s with full suits of plate having been common from around 1420, and munition plate having started to become widespread.

you are out by more than a century

so the larger and stronger european in the lighter armor cant catch the smaller and weaker guy in the heavier armor?

for a fight taking place in 1500, the knight would have all the advantages its true, but by the time samurai have guns knights arent really a thing anymore and the age of pike and shot is begining

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.