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

If you can see this message, the SSL certificate expiration has been fixed.
Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 33 KB, 537x365, knights-vs-samurai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
31659020 No.31659020 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

>> No.31659040

Knights. Good luck to the samurai as they try to
>get in range
>pierce knight armour

>> No.31659071

Good luck to the knight getting into close range against an archer.

>> No.31659100

Samurai used bows from horseback. Good luck getting close, knights.

>> No.31659122

>pierce knight armour
totally agreeing here, the katana was pretty shit for piercing armor, great cutting sword but cutting plate just don't work right. and japan banded iron samurai armor was pretty shit compared to plat mail. not to mention that the knight frequently used weapons that were GOOD at piercing armor. good thrust from a longsword is going to go right through the samurai's chest.

>> No.31659124

>The average height of a Japanese Samurai was around 5"2 - 5"4

>> No.31659147

Not the same kind of unit. Didn't share combat roles. Not comparable in any context except a social one. Next question.

>> No.31659154

Yari versus spearman!

>> No.31659185
File: 20 KB, 337x342, question-dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


who against who? those are really broad terms, the feudal eras lasted many centuries in both areas and encompassed plenty of different levels of weaponry and technique.

and is it just one on one? is it all the knights versus all the samurai? or is there a preset amount of dudes on each side? or is there some kind of point system for different kinds of layouts for the different armies?

>> No.31659186

Spearman picks up yari. Yari can't do shit about it.

>> No.31659189

What kind of spearman?
What era
Who raised the unit
Man-at-arms or peasant levy?

>> No.31659216


>> No.31659219
File: 99 KB, 640x425, 1390469510001.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

> bow arrows against plate
> japanese horses

>> No.31659232

Yari Ashigaru from sengoku era vs. 12th century peasant levies from France, under one of the lords that actually chose to give them armor

>> No.31659239
File: 171 KB, 539x480, MongolArcher.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Insert here the mongols version of the gorilla warfare copypasta

>> No.31659257

>Lawful Neutral Fighter vs Lawful Neutral Fighter
The one who rolls better wins, presumably.

>> No.31659261
File: 16 KB, 438x439, 1336689907002.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31659295

Well, the Ashigaru probably do have better experience and training, since they were equivalent to men-at-arms.
Equipment is roughly equivalent and not really much of a factor. A functional spear and some shitty armor on both sides.
I'm going to say the Ashigaru wins 1v1.

>> No.31659303

Knight wins
Samurai only gets dual wielding and a shitty intimidate trick. Knight gets some nasty bonuses in a one-on-one fight

>> No.31659338

A katana could easily bisect a knight wearing full plate with a simple vertical slash.

>> No.31659340

The only answer is to settle this with a good old fashion Riddle of Steel FECHT!

>> No.31659341
File: 4.30 MB, 3648x2736, 1388272274476.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Here's a question? What's each one loaded out with?
Contrary to what most people think: samurai and knights did not just wear armor and use only swords, not to mention how far back and forward in time each caste can reach.

>> No.31659368

A Knight could easily snap a Katana wearing 100 folds with a single horizontal block.

>> No.31659371

Yeah, they wouldn't even need a helmet or armour, just a fedora and trench coat

>> No.31659372
File: 6 KB, 115x115, Elitesamurai.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Samurai are very effective against heavy infantry, with a quick, powerful attack which can safely take out other infantry with ease. Their attack bonus makes them especially deadly against civilizations that rely on their unique unit towards the end of the game.

Well I guess that kinda solves that then.

>> No.31659388
File: 47 KB, 458x301, 1370303193313.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

The only japanese things I can think of being decent vs plate are this can't-remember-the-name and a gun.
Disregarding a gun, this is still unoptimized for such things.
Strap some spikes on it and we could talk.

>> No.31659396
File: 15 KB, 640x480, Units_9.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Bitch please
>The Teutonic Knight is the most powerful infantry unit in the game. When upgraded to Elite Teutonic Knight during the Imperial Age, they boast 100 hit points and 17 attack power without any upgrades. With all the upgrades from the Blacksmith, Elite Teutonic Knights boast 100 HP, 21 Attack, 13 Armor and 6 Pierce Armor. They can defeat fully upgraded Paladins more easily than fully upgraded Pikemen

>> No.31659409

Well, how did they manage to suck polish cock then.

>> No.31659420
File: 121 KB, 363x500, tetsubo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

What, you mean a tetsubo?
Concussions are a nasty thing that no amount of armor will protect your from.

>> No.31659428
File: 395 KB, 989x1200, Viking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Oh boy, overblown petty thug against overblown petty thug!

Call me when you get some real warriors in here who don't try to cover their asses with silly things like chivalry and bushido.

>> No.31659439

Honey Badger vs Greater Daemon of Khrone

>> No.31659450

>Honey Badger vs itself
I don't see the point.

>> No.31659455
File: 137 KB, 550x414, Epic Win.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31659456

It's hard to raid this days when everyone has built a castle, eh?

>> No.31659459

>Oh boy, overblown petty thug against overblown petty thug!
>Call me when you get some real warriors in here who don't try to cover their asses with silly things like chivalry and bushido.
And you're talking about an overblown thug too. Masturbate to MUH VIKINGS somewhere else, why don't you?

>> No.31659464
File: 75 KB, 800x533, 1346234171252.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not to mention that plenty of variety of Tetsu/Kanabo DID have spikes, or at least nasty metal studs.

Also, didn't samurai get guns around the time when guns started getting good enough to do nastier things to fullplate than something a Ding-King could fix?

>> No.31659471
File: 1012 KB, 1844x1357, Camo tank.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Sounds like someone is not wearing enough armor

>> No.31659478

To be fair, the vikings were less overblown thugs and more the ancient equivalent of mafia goons.

Tradin' one day, raidin' another. Farmin' in between.

Okay, less Italian Mafia, more Redneck Mafia.

>> No.31659482
File: 226 KB, 701x573, 1373820531446.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I always wanted to post this Tumblr gem.

>> No.31659501
File: 51 KB, 557x474, what.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31659503

Samurai shoots the knight with his gun.

>> No.31659508
File: 129 KB, 664x900, Beowulf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Oh shush you.

All I'm saying is that while everybody glorifies knights and samurai as oh so honorable warriors, the truth of the matter was that they were more often than not no better than those they called barbarians. Don't get me wrong, vikings were pretty horrible too, but at least they were honest about it.

>> No.31659524

I wish I had a picture with this resolution from the fucking Champion unit. Can't figure what is suppose to be what in that.

>> No.31659534
File: 475 KB, 1280x2880, Final Fantasy Tactics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Knights vs Samurai

>> No.31659538

That sexual fantasy is all of bizarre, physically improbable, and likely to be incredibly painful rather than pleasurable in real life. So it's pretty average on /tg/.

>> No.31659545
File: 49 KB, 491x245, Japanese Clubs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31659549

Gun shoots the knight with its samurai.

>> No.31659567

ugly ass fuck knight armor.

>> No.31659568

>Knights win
>Too many chinks in the samurai armor

>> No.31659570
File: 20 KB, 490x338, 1381016978502.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I'd say it's less they were honest about it and more that, from their cultural standpoint, there was nothing wrong with it.

On a quasi related note: Vikings, Samurai, and Knights

Which one smelled better? In Europe, it wasn't common practice in Christian countries to bathe, so the knight seem's right out, but I know the vikings loved their baths and so did the Japanese.

>> No.31659588
File: 1.66 MB, 640x3960, Final Fantasy Tactics extended.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

It was made by an asian westaboo, cut him some slack.

>> No.31659589


The silliest thing is that the Norse were just as obsessed with honor.

For example, commit random murder? You now have to fight the male relatives of the man/men you killed. If you win, you go free. If you lose, well you die. If you run, all of society will try to kill you.

Then there was the whole Valhalla thing.

Honestly, I don't know what that anon was talking about.

>> No.31659593
File: 1.55 MB, 310x191, kata.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Knights vs Samurai
>knight smashes samurais sword
>samurai commits soduku

>> No.31659604

I have a better question.
Vikings, Samurai, and Knights.
Who boned other men most often? Who was the gayest.

>> No.31659607


Whichever one hasn't just stepped off the boat.

Spending all that time at sea is likely a big part of what made Vikings so fond of a good hosing down.

>> No.31659635
File: 2.78 MB, 380x224, kata2.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>knight then go's on to smash his own sword to prove a point

>> No.31659650

Given that they're culture glorified homosexuality as the love of warriors, probably the samurai.

Fuck yeah Samurai, where two strong, castle razing men can meet up and share some love.

>> No.31659661


>> No.31659664

... I'd say the samurai, because if nothing else, their diets.

Well, there's a difference between things like bushido and chivalry and the Norse concept of honor. With the first two, it was mostly courtly things, or if it was warfare and combat related, simply impractical. With Vikings.. it was more of a might makes right sorta deal and don't shit where you eat sorta deal.

>> No.31659670

Are you retarded? Katanas are thrice as sharp as European swords and thrice as hard for that matter.

>> No.31659671

Goddamn it.

>> No.31659677

You're thinking about Sparta. And you have the grammar of a toddler.

>> No.31659699

I think in this case, none of them nearly as much as the Spartans.
>Spending all that time at sea is likely a big part of what made Vikings so fond of a good hosing down.
Huh, didn't think of it like that.

>> No.31659718

Eeeh, sorta, sorta not.

And I'll admit that my grammatical abilities have failed me, but only because I am tired and my fingers are cold enough that even simple typing is a goddamn chore.


>> No.31659719

If the knights have English Longbowmen on their side then the samurai are fucked

>> No.31659741


It was present in certain eras of Japanese history as well.

Semi-institutionalised homosexuality (especially versions that leaned heavily on the mentor/trainee sort of approach) crop up a fair bit in martial societies throughout history.

>> No.31659754

Barely even comparable in that context because Samurai were a big thing 16-19th centuries, pretty well after western Europe's medieval knights trotted around.

Japanese Medieval period =/= European Medieval period at all.

>> No.31659755

Dont forget every katana has a powerful samurai's spirits forged into the heart of the blade, making it impossible to break, as a true samurai's spirit will never break!

>> No.31659758

What's...who the....How they....
Sorry...I just mean...

What is...Where th...Why are they...

Someone please give me context here.

>> No.31659759
File: 69 KB, 429x700, 1385927161129.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

to be fair, Japan can be pretty gay.
That's a military recruitment ad.

On a side note, anyone else see the OP pic and think "Samurai vs. Knight in a rap battle"
Well that's just nice.

>> No.31659763

Yeah, because English Longbowmen are literally europian samurai.

> muh guroriousu engrish rongboruru piercing armour with ease!

>> No.31659770

>English Longbowmen
Hilariously overstated.

You may note that the French won that war.

>> No.31659779

color me surprised

>> No.31659798

That looks so obviously inspired by this it's not even funny.

>> No.31659803

muh crecy

>> No.31659804

It was one of those weird school festivals they do in animus and they were a couple with differeing tastes, IIRC, the samuroo was a girl

>> No.31659827


Yeah, long periods at sea will make you long for a bath like little else.

There's fuck all fresh water available, so you're not getting your clothes cleaned or getting much more than a wet cloth for yourself (and if supplies are tight, you aren't getting that). Add the salt spray and physical labour to that and by the time you've gotten ashore you stink like an ox in heat and your clothes are practically stiff enough to stand on their own.

>> No.31659847

So between this and >>31659534
I'm now seeing the knight and samurai at a bar and...

Knight: I-I can't do this! As an good Christian man I cannot give into temptation!

Samurai: Knighto-kun, is honesty not a virtue our cultures and faiths share? Part of that honesty should be with ourselves and our feelings...

Knight: S-Samurai-

And then the Spartan bursts in, stark naked

Spartan: Hey, boys! Do you know what time it is? That's right! It's party time!

And out of nowhere in the tavern, the Spartan summons a gay disco with "Everybody dance now" blaring while the samurai laments the mood has been ruined

I am not a sane man.

>> No.31659861

One of them was a girl

>> No.31659899

my mud, complete lack of actual tactics, well prepared position, and huge number of weather advantages

Same with Agincourt. They were won by damn good terrain, weather, and dumb Frenchmen.

Longbows are good, but hardly magic.

>> No.31659917

I still firmly imagine the Spartan as a flaming, camp gay, mood-killing party animal.

>> No.31659936

>and >>31659534(You)
The Samurai is a girl. Her name is Susan and she has drill hair.

>> No.31659942

Nah. He's greek gay.

>> No.31659984


>> No.31660006

You fucking bastard. I shouldn't be laughing right now.

>> No.31660016


>> No.31660017


japs can't draw for shit

>> No.31660046
File: 65 KB, 225x225, 1389990637730.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Samurai = Mobility, better at eliminating unarmored/lightly armored targets. Proficient at archery as well.

Knights = Tanks. Not nearly as mobile, and due to lack of mobility also lacked proficiency to use archery within armor. But God-Emperor save you if he got close.

Both can use horses.

It all comes down to environment. If the Samurai can keep a distance and use the appropriate armor-piercing arrows then the Knight is fucked.

If the situation calls for CQC, the Samurai is Fucked.

End of story.

The katana would not cut through the plate.
The knight would not sprint after a samurai as easily.

Speed vs Might

Agi vs Str

>> No.31660070

I think I laughed harder than I should have.

>> No.31660072
File: 188 KB, 897x1000, 1392672107735.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Still going with Knight because proper Knight Armor looks more badass than that gay ass Samurai shit.

>> No.31660088
File: 1.29 MB, 214x153, 1270616816044.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>Not nearly as mobile

>> No.31660092

So... you're saying Samurai, Knight, viking, they all lose to AMURRICA!

>> No.31660109
File: 422 KB, 1040x1409, 1348698537655.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>proper knight armor
>that abomination

>> No.31660115

Knights would always win. No exception

>> No.31660137
File: 200 KB, 750x1100, 1394460909687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


And has a lot more variety in appearance.

I want this jap craze to end.

>> No.31660148
File: 264 KB, 768x1086, 1329735556053.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>further chortling

>> No.31660162

>no codpiece

>> No.31660166

It's a well known fact the trillion-fold nippon steel was so sharp and well made, just missing a slash would leave gouges in the earth miles deep.
Continental plates are just where samurai have (rarely, because they are so skilled) missed and sliced the planet off

>> No.31660199

Early Kamakura period (1185-1333) knights have samurai beat. However in the late Sengoku period (1467-1573) when firearms were introduced to the Japanese by the Portuguese Samurai would easily overtake both rank and file foot soldiers and mounted knights.

It's not even a question of martial prowess, European forged weaponry is of higher standard than anything of Japanese make at the time.

>> No.31660261
File: 39 KB, 450x244, Landsknechte.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>implying that Landsknecht don't horribly slaughter both

>> No.31660285


What video is that from?

>> No.31660287

They only win because everyone is laughing at how ridiculous they look.

Wait that's actually a solid game plan...

>> No.31660305

It's from Highschool DxD.
The Samurai is a weeaboo white university student who fancies her history lecturer, who is a huge westaboo. The protagonist is given a magical contract by the weeaboo to ensure that they get together, but he's shit at magic and just encourages her to write a love letter instead...then >>31659588 happens.

It's about half an episode and about the only interesting thing that happens apart from the protag being cock-teased by his naked harem

>> No.31660319

>Not nearly as mobile
Gr8 B8 M8

The weight of their armour was comparable, good european armour had a larger range of movement than the human body and were fully capable of archery... there is just no point when you can be 10x more efficient attacking other ground units or doing archery not wearing a suit of armour that limits your visibility.

>> No.31660326

Until the black death swept through most Europeans LOVED bathing. They produced soap almost on an industrial level and bathing with houseguests was fairly common.

>> No.31660335

>implying that landsknechts don't lose horribly to Schweitzer pikes

>> No.31660348
File: 296 KB, 1600x986, 1331052038623.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>implying you don't die horribly anyway

>> No.31660367
File: 100 KB, 251x238, 1390204125779.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31660373

dude, when, a century before their prime? The swiss, as much as they brought down the heavy cavalry of their time, have nothing on Landsknechts.

>> No.31660393

>firearms were introduced
Early firearms would need a direct hit on a flat surface of plate to penetrate.
It wasn't until later when powder and shot sizes were refined that they could reliably penetrate plate.
Granted, they were far better than bows.
They also took upwards of 20 seconds to fire, were inaccurate as fuck and had the disadvantage of ya know... not having another weapon in your hands.

It depends on the situation, unless the knight is like on foot 100 ft away the jap is going to need a lucky hit to the heart to insta-kill him.
At any reasonable distance say 15-40 ft, the knight would be able to charge him before he could reload.

>> No.31660721
File: 115 KB, 929x1024, DSCN6643.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31660738

You realize that those bullets mean "IMPACT"?

>> No.31660806

I love this dumbfuck argument.

Samurai were NOT steppe warriors. They did NOT ride away while shooting. They'd sit still or ride AT the target. On top of that, they had fucking small, slow horses. They'd qualify as ponies to westerners.

>> No.31660837

>Concussions are a nasty thing that no amount of armor will protect your from.
Except that's wrong.

Armor doesn't rest on the skin, is padded, and absorbs some of the force of attacks. It would be worthless otherwise.

>> No.31660874

You do realize bullets don't actually carry that much force.
An arrow has more kinetic energy than a bullet.

The impact from a bullet would be noticeable but nothing serious unless it penetrated.
The whole point of bullets is to have the force spread out over the smallest area possible to penetrate the other person.
If you put the same amount of energy into a club or a sword, it'd be moving at like 1-5 mph.

>> No.31660876

Padding doesn't do shit against something like that. Especially if they hit your head. Your brain can be damaged just from the sudden impact making your skull move from the force.

>> No.31660882
File: 353 KB, 675x1000, e829c85e39a828f959aade3b7c2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Yeah, we used bows too.

>> No.31660934

It's enough to kick a horseman out of his saddle, wound him, or his horse. Additionally, it requires only one hand to shoot.

People often sperg over bow superiority and forget that bullet-based weapons like pistols weren't weapons to be treated lightly.

>> No.31660936

A knights armor is no heavier than that of a samurai.

Don't talk about things you don't understand.

>armor-piercing arrows
Didn't exist. At all. You're not doing shit to an armored man unless at point blank range, and even then, not against properly heat treated steel armor.

It's more them being vicious cunts.

They don't. More armor, more guns.

So does anything else you dumb cunt.
Play less games, blunt trauma doesn't ignore rigid armor in real life.

>> No.31660944

Well actually, sometimes they did. But even most budou masters today say that, if a Samrai saw that the knight was bowless and coming alone to face him one on one, then he would use a spear instead. And we all know who would most likely win that contest.

>> No.31660973

>So does anything else you dumb cunt.
Point is - it's the element such spergers like you forget.

Bullet = being struck with a hammer. From a distance.

Watch less Punisher movies, kiddo. The armor might save your miserable life, but it doesn't mean your bones are still intact, and that your inner organs didn't just met with a bulldozer.

>> No.31660974

Helmets would be held off the head with a suspension system of straps, with more padding under that.

You realize there were men who ate a lance to the chest and walked away from it wearing maille, right?

Pistol armed cavalry were told to wait and put the gun right against the breastplate before firing on armored cavalrymen.

I'll let you guess why.

also, learn physics. A gun shooting so hard as to knock a man from the saddle would break the wrist of the user.

>> No.31660996

You realize that anything that moves the helmet moves the skull.
And anything that moves the skull moves the brain.
And moving the brain in a violent and sudden manner is how concussions happen.
See also: (American) Football and Rugby head injuries.

>> No.31661009

>It's enough to kick a horseman out of his saddle
It's not.
Unless it was a fucking cannon or their taking constant hits from a fucking machine gun, it flat out doesnt have enough force to knock someone off their saddle.

The amount of force from the bullet would mean that it would have to be about as powerful as ww2 anti-tank guns.
Hell even if it did have that much force, it would pass straight through them instead of knocking them over.

>> No.31661013

Sometimes they did, but it was not the usual tactic.

Even if they did, they're as heavy as the knight on a smaller and weaker horse, he isn't getting away anytime soon.

People need to remeber that westerners, especially in central and northern europe, had a hardon for mounted crossbowmen and had them as a central component of armies.

Knights killed them just fine.

>> No.31661051
File: 210 KB, 534x663, stechhelm.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>You realize that anything that moves the helmet moves the skull.
The helmet doesn't move when it's bolted to the damn cuirass.

>> No.31661055

Haha oh wow.

My god.

>Bullet = being struck with a hammer. From a distance.
No. It doesn't.

>but it doesn't mean your bones are still intact, and that your inner organs didn't just met with a bulldozer.

If it did this through armor at range it would do absolutely terrible things to the man shooting it.

There's also the simple fact that firearms coexisted alongside armored INFANTRY, much less faster horse, for centuries as nothing more than a support arm.
Even by the 30 years war, the pikes were the center of the fighting, not the guns.

You realize that helmets are shaped to make blows glance off, and that a suspension system means much of the remaining force DOESN'T make the head move, right?

>> No.31661066

Those were tourney only helms.

Not being able to raise the visor or turn the helmet=no bueno in a real fight.

>> No.31661067
File: 7.61 MB, 1920x2718, Like I'm wearing full plate.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>they're as heavy as the knight

citation needed

>> No.31661075

It's like your only knowledge of firearms and physics comes from playing FPS with the cheats turned on.

>> No.31661105

Then the opponent stands in one of the knights many, many blind spots. And still hits his head with enough force to move it, along with his torso.

>> No.31661106

>we all know who would win that contest

The samurai, because he knows how to use his lance in two hands like a fucking normal person.

>> No.31661109

Okay, I don't even give a fuck about the actual question, but the science in this thread is fucking atrocious.

1) Platemail is designed to deflect, not absorb the impact. It is in fact not like a bulletproof vest, and more like angled tank armour. If it wasn't, getting hit with a sword would still fuck you up immensely simply because you're taking the full force of a big metal stick being swung by a really buff dude head-on.
2) Being hit with a bullet does not knock you back several feet like in the movies. This is physically impossible, as the laws of nature state the shooter would have to be experience the same force and therefore be knocked back as well. You would not fall off your horse from getting shot, even if you died. You would most likely have your corpse dragged along in the saddle.

>> No.31661115


How else would roving barbarians bend those female knights over the table?

>> No.31661117

You realize that you are describing a helmet that literally prevents the knight from moving his head, right?
And that a helmet that prevents moving the head leaves the knight with a field of view similar to that of a WW1 tank driver.
Whoever he's fighting could literally just ride right past him and the knight would be completely at a loss to even see him, nevermind fight him.

>> No.31661129

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 Subatai's army, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Persian settlements, and I have over 300 confirmed shortbow kills. I am trained in horseback warfare and I’m the top rider in the entire Army of Ghengis Khan. You are nothing to me but just another peasent to be speared. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on the plains of Mongolia, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me on my messenger hawk? Think again, infidel. As we do calligraphy I am having my network of spies infiltrate your city and your Hut will be the prime target so prepare for the arrow storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can ride of 100 miles a day, and I can kill you from over 500 feet away, and that’s just with my grass string shortbow. Not only am I extensively trained in horseback combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the Mongolian Horde and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the plains you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon your village, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue when speaking about the great Khan. But you didn't, you couldn't. You will be drawn and quartered by 4 horses and your head added to the collection. We'll cattapault it over a wall kiddo.

>> No.31661139

>because you're taking the full force of a big metal stick being swung by a really buff dude head-on
You actually don't, even if it doesn't glance. The armor will spread out the force when struck, reducing the felt impact.

Were this not the case, lamellar and the like would be useless, rather than excellent.

Plate also doesn't rest directly on the torso.

>> No.31661142

"Platemail" never existed in history. The coat of plates was a thing, as was splinted mail, laminar, and brigantine. I'm assuming you're talking about the coat of plates, but it would be better to specify.

>> No.31661150

Modern makes of samurai armour made with stronger, lighter composites.
Weight 55lb.
Before the padding they wore underneath.
Medieval full plate only weighed like 60ish lb.

If i had like a week or gave enough of a fuck i could probably find archeology finds or museum pieces that list weight, but i doubt you'd hang around that long.

>> No.31661173

>You realize that you are describing a helmet that literally prevents the knight from moving his head, right?

Go wear a construction helmet.
Same concept.
You don't need to put a helmet directly on your scalp, and suspending it means it still moves with you while not transmitting much force to you when struck.

Actually, everyone who encountered western lance tactics adopted them.

This includes the rus, the eastern romans, turks, and arabs.

>> No.31661200

And if someone blindsides your construction helmet, your entire head gets jerked to the side. Do that hard enough or enough times and you will literally have brain damage, despite nothing ever so much as touching your scalp.

>> No.31661213

>blindsides your construction helmet with a baseball bat or similar Big Stick
Not to mention neck injuries.

>> No.31661224

Are you retarded?
The lamellar he wears uses just as much metal, just in smaller pieces.

Those pieces are held together with a ton of lacing, which adds weight.

It evens out to be within five pounds or so. Look up museum exhibits if you're skeptical.

That armor WITHOUT modern tech gets fucking heavy.

Oh, and the pules and magyars.

>> No.31661249

>That armor WITHOUT modern tech gets fucking heavy.

Not to mention it's 1500 era armour, the "golden age" of jap armour crafting.
Anything before then would have probable weighed more/offered less protection/genrally been more shit.

>> No.31661257

And it still greatly reduces the harm each strike causes.

Seriously, why the fuck do you think people wore helms?

They were getting struck with fucking 1.5 pound steel bars that focused all their weight on a thin edge at the LOW end of the scale.

If they were easily defeated by trauma, nobody would have fucking worn them.

>> No.31661301

Trauma is better than splitting your skull all the way down to the far side.
But to say that they completely negated trauma is stupid. Knights would have gotten concussions all the fucking time, not to mention bruises in general.
Again, look at football helmets. Those things are rigorously designed with modern techniques and padding materials to prevent damage to their multi-million dollar investments (The players) and they STILL can't stop these guys from getting fucked in the head from brain damage.

>> No.31661308

>Bullet = being struck with a hammer. From a distance.
Have you actually seen what blunt force trauma looks like, as opposed to a gunshot? Because I can tell you right now, they look nothing alike. Even taking into account the fact that muskets used lead balls rather than bullets (which would be less aerodynamic and rely more on blunt force than penetration), there would be no comparison.

Pic related, it's a primitive entry wound on the left and getting your head bashed in with a blunt object on the right.

>> No.31661309


>Knights were a threat to medieval Europe
>Because no peasant ever thought of swinging a big heavy stick at their head
>Sticks as big and as heavy as a tetsubo did not exist in Europe
>Nor did anyone ever put spikes or studs on their weapons

Do you stop to think about the shit you're spouting?

>> No.31661327
File: 119 KB, 942x347, gun blunt difference.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Fuck, image wouldn't post. Probably because I am a massive retard.

>> No.31661333

Did you ever stop to think about why knights never fought huge mobs of peasants on foot by themselves?
Or why the number one way to deal with heavily armored individuals is a big heavy blunt trauma stick (Maces,hammers of all types, ect)?

>> No.31661342

Not that guy, but the difference between 2 250lb linebackers hitting each other at like 15 mph is a shit-ton more than getting hit with just about any blunt weapon.

>> No.31661359

No, being concussed is NOT better.

I've been concussed in a fight, it turns you into a helpless retard who gets killed in the next few seconds.

The vast majority of hits are going to give the wearer a headache, if that.
Writers at the time told men to attack other knight first with lance, then sword, THEN mace.

The sword was to be used on the visor or reins, and considered more effective than trying to smack him around.

The only weapon known to leave a guy too dazed or fucked to fight by outright hitting him with it was the poleax, and even that wasn't realiable.

>> No.31661366

Would you rather be a helpless retard behind huge chunks of armor, or a guy with a sword through his brain stem?

>> No.31661368

>Sir, there's a peasant uprising!
>Mobilize the knights! We'll run the godless dogs down!
>But... sir, they have big sticks!
>By God! Not big sticks!
>It gets worse, sir. Big sticks with spikes.
>God is punishing us for our sins.

>> No.31661391

>Did you ever stop to think about why knights never fought huge mobs of peasants on foot by themselves?
Becuase they'd get fucking swarmed, dragged down, and stabbed in the eyes?

>Or why the number one way to deal with heavily armored individuals is a big heavy blunt trauma stick (Maces,hammers of all types, ect)?

Have you considered /v/ and d&d aren't real?

You killed armored men via wrestling followed by attacks to the eye, groin, throat, or armpit, or did this while standing.

Go look up harnessfechten.

>> No.31661392

Again, you didn't see knights go against mobs while on foot. Because the knight would be overwhelmed and beat to death inside his "invincible" armor eventually.
You saw them run down peasants while on horseback, surrounded by other knights or men-at-arms.

>> No.31661401

You're dead either way.

>> No.31661415

Less likely to be dead with the concussion, since your fellow knights could intervene.

>> No.31661417

No, they didn't do this because that situation never came to pass. People didn't send peasants off to fight outside of france.

The closest you get are a few rebellions in england, which involve the peasantry being fucking massacred.

>> No.31661434
File: 38 KB, 500x375, img16374ig.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Never heard of a bodkin arrowhead?
They don't pierce armor very well, but they're made to pierce armors. Up close they will punch through, and on any armored man there is going to be weak points.

Though the point is moot as japanese did not develop bodkin arrowheads, having no real need to.

>> No.31661439

Do you have any idea how fighting works?

You're likely within three feet of your target, as they are with theirs. You're not getting help in time for it to matter.

On top of this, european arms would NEVER have shifted to completely discarding shields in favor of longer weaponry if it was so laughably easy to fuck up armored men with nothing more than a big stick.

>> No.31661442

I'm not the person who brought it up.
>Well, if knights don't have magic brain protection that can't be replicated even by modern helmets, then why didn't everyone just use peasants and big sticks, hurrr
The correct response is because knights were heavy cavalry and would trample the peasants.

>> No.31661448

Because even if you're literally invulnerable and the strongest man alive, enough grown men piling on top of you would still immobilize you? Yes, that's a thing. It has nothing to do with the effectiveness of blunt weapons. It's all about the limits of the human body.

Most knights killed by peasants were the ones who were already injured or immobilized in some way, who were then stabbed through the eyes or balls with a long spike. I have not seen any historical record showing peasants with blunt weapons to do much of anything against a knight.

>> No.31661457

Those magical helmets sure were great. It's too bad they can't be replicated with modern techniques and metallurgy. Dem Europeans sure were great at armor.

>> No.31661468

Wasn't bodkin designed to be used against chainmail and pretty much proven useless against anything tougher? I assume there was a reason the bodkin fell out of favor.

>> No.31661475

Again, I'm not the one who claimed that happened.

But helmets did not protect against concussions nearly as well as you think they did. They still don't.

>> No.31661476

>but they're made to pierce armors
No. They're not. Go look at one. They're fucking blunt, and excavated examples are all soft iron.

They're flight arrows. The profile resembles modern target arrows perfectly, and it's a form that is fast and cheap to make while being long ranged.

Now consider that england was a poor backwater, and the crown had to supply tens of thousands of them for every campaign, every time, and resupply after battles.

It's cheap, shitty munitions gear like goverments have always handed out, over-romanticized in myth because it gives commoners power they never had.

>> No.31661482


They are historically acclaimed to pierce plate, but only at short ranges and with high quality warbows.
Though utterly devastating against chainmail, yes.

>> No.31661489

They can, though. We totally have replicated fucktons of them. It's just that we don't have much use for heavy visored metal helmets that are literally bolted to a suit of armor these days. Go figure.

>> No.31661491

Except for the many who fought dismounted.

By the mid 14th they'd mostly be on foot.

Before that, any rough terrain sees them on foot.

Pretty much.

They're also shit against padding, which everyone wore with maille. It's useless as armor without it.

>> No.31661497

>Literally bolted
WRONG. Tourney plate =/= real combat armor

>> No.31661511
File: 522 KB, 1632x1224, Bodkin1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


I don't know what you're talking about, but it's not bodkins. You're probably thinking about standard broadhead arrows.


The use of bodkin arrowheads before the development of plate armor nearly threw out the use of armor entirely in the medieval era. Padding does NOT help.

>> No.31661516

If they can replicate these magical, concussion nulling helmets, then why don't Football teams use them? It would save them a ton of time and money for medical bills resulting from head injuries. It would be a paltry sum to create compared to their current, very expensive helmets. Or the very, very expensive players those helmets go on. I'm sure any league in its right mind would approve helmets that solve the problem that's been plaguing the game for almost half a century.

>> No.31661524

>They still don't.
Helmets for fucking soldiers sure as shit do.

Also, you need to put shit into context here, bub. A footballs helmet is not designed for a war situation. For one, the visor leaves the face way too open. For another, it's not fastened the way a knight's helmet would be. For a third, it's not part of a suit of armor only the richest 1% in the US would be able to afford, it's a cheaply mass-produced piece of plastic. For a fourth, it's designed for a completely different purpose.

It's like saying "axes weren't as good at cutting people's heads off as you think they are, modern kitchen knives can't even do that".

>> No.31661544

>Cheaply mass-produced piece of plastic
>Spend millions on the player
>$10 on his protection
Yeah, nah. And sure, it doesn't have to protect against intentional attacks, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about that magical concussion protection that knight helmets supposedly had.

>> No.31661546


>The use of bodkin arrowheads before the development of plate armor nearly threw out the use of armor entirely in the medieval era. Padding does NOT help.

Bullshit. Provide a source.

>then why don't Football teams use them?
Are you implying the NFL will ever acknowledge concussions exist?

>> No.31661557

You don't even understand how a helmet works, do you? Of course it's not going to help with being tackled, because that's not what it's made to do. It's the fucking reason knights learned wrestling as one of their main ways of taking out other knights! Football helmets are not designed to protect against swords! As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet they're extraordinarily shitty at it. You're comparing apples and oranges here.

>> No.31661564

Considering the odds of surviving a motorcycle crash DRASTICALLY improve by wearing a helmet? I'm pretty sure they're worth their money and then some. Also, where the fuck did you find a helmet for 10$? Even bicycle helmets are 15+

>> No.31661570

The sword protection is not the issue here.
The concussion protection is.
If they can replicate that technology, then why is it not implemented in every form of helmet, from football, to construction, to motorcycles, to soldiers.
And yet... None of those helmets can protect you from a concussion resulting from sudden and violent head movement. Not a single one.

>> No.31661576


>Beat to death in his invincible armour.

No. Not at all.

Stabbed in the eyeslits. Stabbed in a myriad of tiny holes in the armour. Have their armour ripped from them and -then- killed. Drowned. Burned. Suffocated. A great shitload of things, but never by going directly through the armour.

>> No.31661584

Funny that you are supporting my point. More often than not, motorcyclists who would have died from head injury if they weren't wearing a helmet get a concussion.

>> No.31661598
File: 25 KB, 93x100, Arquero de tiro largo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

lol fite me brah

Huskarls can fuck off

>> No.31661602
File: 103 KB, 850x638, 1337226463034.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


There is one weapon designed to go right through the armor, though in a peasant mob you'll only see a blacksmith holding it.

>> No.31661616

Why is it always a 'knight' from a time period of full plate? Why not the more modern symbolic title combined with newer technology compared to the Samurai that were stuck in medieval times?

>> No.31661620

... That's not supporting your argument....
>it blunts off a shitload of damage, the difference between basically nothing, and death.

That does not look like a pick.

>> No.31661622

Well then the "knight" gets shot by an arquebus and dies.

>> No.31661623



It is a WAR-pick.
And warhammer, on the other side.

>> No.31661631

>point on the back
>hammer on the front

No, it looks like a superior weapon.

>> No.31661633

No, that's perfectly supporting my argument.
>The helmet doesn't stop you from getting a concussion if some huge fucker whacks the side of your head with a blunt object.

>> No.31661662


>implying those big sticks even remotely reached the concussive force of a motor accident
>implying those big sticks even remotely reached the concussive force of IEDs
>implying, for that matter, that concussive force is what makes most modern weapons lethal
>implying those big sticks even remotely reached the concussive force of two 250lbs men slamming into eachother
>implying NFL helmets could be made out of metal, which also would help in comparison to plastics
>implying it's the concussive force is at fault, not the frequency at which this happens
>implying knights got hit in the head nearly as often as NFL players

>> No.31661663

If you let someone get a full swing to the side of your head, yes you'll probably end up with a concussion. The chances of this happening are pretty slim tho and in most cases a helm greatly reduces your chance of being concussed

>> No.31661672

Knights on horses also fucked up Turkish horse archers pretty bad. The first actual battle between proffessional armies during the first crusade pitted European knights on large male horses against Turkish horse archers on female horses of a smaller breed. The battle was never detailed but the Turkish defeat was described as "humiliating".

>> No.31661698
File: 55 KB, 634x430, article-2297243-18D909B6000005DC-898_634x430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>implying those big sticks even remotely reached the concussive force of two 250lbs men slamming into eachother

Next you'll say the swing of a baseball bat would not give a man a concussion.

Imagine that with an iron-studded rod.

>> No.31661714

But if someone does get a swing on you, the helmet really won't help much. It's not the armor that protects you from big, blunt attacks to the face. It's your skill as a fighter.

>> No.31661722


Against a knight's helmet with adequate padding? Sure thing. Even better with a modern military helmet.

Seriously, though. If your little bat was actually any good against full plate, full plate would've gone out of fashion centuries earlier than it did.

>> No.31661743

It'd nullify anything short of kneeling down and letting them take a wind up at you

>> No.31661762
File: 408 KB, 900x1688, pesants.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

this thread
I don't even...

>> No.31661825

I cant find a set mass for maces/club weapons, so i just looked up the biggest swords i could think of off the top of my head.
Zweihander ~3.2kg for ceremonial versions
Lets double it and round off to 6.5k kg for a mace.
A decent swing speed for a golf club is ~25 mph
Thats 11 meters/second.

K = 1/2M*v^2
K= 3.25*(11^2)
=393 joules from the mace.

2 250 lb dudes hitting each other
Linebackers can run 40 yards in a touch under 5 second, lets say 4.9 seconds.
~8 yards/sec = 7.31m/sec
K=1/2*113(250 lb converted to kg)* (7.3^2)
K= 3010 joules per guy.

Each guy has like 9 times the energy of a club swing.
Thats over an order of magnitude for 2 guys running into each other.

>> No.31661878
File: 37 KB, 1200x540, 1319032232349.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

That's also spread out over their shoulder and upper torso areas, not concentrated down to a point.

>> No.31661901


But then you go back to armour piercing, and veer away from concussive force.

>> No.31661910

and the purpose of the helm is too spread that concentrated energy out over a wider area

>> No.31661935

Yeah, but i'm just saying you implying that 2 guys slamming into each other being equal to a mace swing is just not right.

If were talking pure blunt force, only 1/18th of the total energy would need to be directed towards the head/neck for it to be equivalent of a mace swing.

It's kind of silly being all:

>oh so this guy sat on a firework and survived
>That means his magical pants must be able to stop nuclear bombs
>We dont have pants that stop nuclear bombs today do we ?
>See, i'm right, your wrong.

>> No.31661936

But not nearly as wide of an area as a football player's upper torso.
And the transfer of force from that one point to the entire side of the helmet can never be perfect because materials science and physics.

>> No.31661951

2 guys slamming into each others upper torso. Make two football players slam into each other head first, and you're going to see some serious damage, if not death from neck snapping.

>> No.31661992

European peasants are better than japanese peasants.

>> No.31662004

I think your calculations are off.
393 joules is more than half as strong as a 9mm pistol's average muzzle energy. It's more than twice as strong as .22LR. An average mace point is only a bit larger than .22
So basically, anything .22 can shoot through, that mace can blow right through it.

>> No.31662026

he's using way too much weight for a mace

>> No.31662035


Not that guy, but I'd hedge it.
The point of a mace is fucking devastating with a proper swinging arm behind it.

However, actual knights didn't spend their entire life perfecting their clobber, as it were. They mostly spent time learning how to move quick in heavy armor, ride horses really well, and tactics and strategy in addition to leadership.
It was more of a sellsword's thing to spend all their time learning how to kill as best as they can.

>> No.31662038

Not to sound like a condescending dick here, but go watch some tackles in football games, helmet-helmet collisions or shoulder to upper chest are not uncommon, and most of the time people stand up and walk it off afterwards.
Passing is by no means 100% effective, but it works damn well.

It's not, kinetic energy is affected more by the speed of the object than the mass of it.
Bullets being super-sonic blow pretty much any physical kinetic energy humans can muster right out of the water.

>> No.31662044

*passing = padding.

>> No.31662057

I don't think you understand what muzzle energy is. It's the sum total of the bullets joule rating.
A .22 has just over 150 joules. As an object that weighs practically nothing, that's pretty impressive.
But the mace in your calculations is more than twice as strong, with an impact point that's only very slightly larger.

>> No.31662079

hes using a 6.5kg mace when a mace would weigh 1.5kg a two handed steel hafted axe would get to 5kg at most

>> No.31662098
File: 102 KB, 1085x545, 1367643040267.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Though ultra-massive two handed maces did exist, they were of course never particularly popular.

>> No.31662125

Yes, I'm serious. It was one of those things promoted by the Romans that most of their former lands decided they liked and stuck with after the Empire left.

William, the Duke of Normandy smelled better than the conquistadors for that reason.

>> No.31662127

fighting is exhausting enough without having to lug around extra weight

>> No.31662133

No, i get what it is, i'm just confused as to what you're trying to say.
Lack of sleep is probably not helping.

Using >>31662079's figures, you get like 84 joules from a swing.
Thats in the area of bone fractures but not so much 1-swing knockouts or kills.

>> No.31662154

You'd have to discount the weight of the haft as well

>> No.31662192

All right /tg/, new fucking questions.

How did they encounter each other?
What lord does the knight fight for?
What shogun is the samurai in allegiance with?
Is the knight English, French, German, Spanish, Swedish, etc.?
Is it 1v1, or are they in groups?
What location are they fighting in, somewhere in Europe, East Asia, the city gates of Jerusalem, the buttfuck of nowhere in the Eurasian Steppes?

>> No.31662207

Well, spain had one of the best forged steels on the old times, don't know much about their militar instruction.

>> No.31662270

>Proper knight armour
>Thinking the picture is in any way "proper knight armour"

Go back to doing your homework

>> No.31662460
File: 95 KB, 600x800, 1397701764655.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

First of all, drilling and leadership are king. These are why the Finns beat the Soviets, the Normans won at Hastings, and the Mongols won constantly.

Second, era is important. Both classes of soldier evolved considerably over time.

Those things established, let's look at the facts.

-Europeans were generally bigger and stronger. This is a considerable advantage right from the start. Life is not an anime, size matters.

-European horses were bigger, faster, and stronger. As both classes were primarily cavalry, this is also very important.

-Both employed horse archers, in Europe, the slavs especially. Neither can expect this to amount to much vs. maille. Conventional bows were virtually useless against a plate harness.

-The katana was a heavy cavalry saber. Its shape was a product of the manufacturing style. Japanese steel was broadly inferior. As a slicing sword, these weapons were incredibly deadly against lightly armored or unarmored foe. Against armor they're poor, but they CAN thrust.

-The European equivalent of a katana for a late period knight was the longsword, a hand-and-a-half weapon. European steel was generally superior, sometimes vastly so - genuine ulfberht swords were comparable to modern day steels, made using central Asian techniques. These swords were primarily thrusting and chopping weapons, and could be used as warhammers in a pinch. They were better - equipped for armored foes.

-European swordplay emphasized binding a foe and killing him when he couldn't move properly. This was especially necessary as armor improved.Japanese swordplay focused on single lethal strikes, as ttheir swords were fairly easy to damage.

-European armor was superior, period. Better metallurgy and heavier. European weapon development was driven by armor. Plate harnesses precluded the need for shields.

With this established, we begin to see a picture develop. On horse, the European has the advantage of speed and strength, as well as reach.


>> No.31662509
File: 488 KB, 946x900, 1396653841652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

In a clash of swords the knight keeps these advantages but his enemy's choice of weapon and his superior armor favor his sword style. The samurai is reduced to thrusts, which the knight is trained to counter, and the inferior steel the Japanese use makes even this risky. Meanwhile European swordplay has many surprises for our poor sammy.

tl; dr the knight is bigger, stronger, better - armored, better-armed, and faster on horse. The X Factor is drill and leadership.

>> No.31662551

I want to read that one copypasta they made, involving serfs of both sides and plenty of potatoes.

It was hilarious.

>> No.31662569


>Modern day steels

Not to burst your bubble, mate, but late19th, early 20th centure mild steel is not modern day steel.

>> No.31662748
File: 139 KB, 640x427, 3022188016_9a03088865_z.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


This thread again?

>> No.31663030
File: 36 KB, 447x768, Three-Quarter Armor, German, 1620.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


Smarter, but still not quite right. Where did those guns come from? Europe. European plate armor never went away until the modern era, it just got thicker and more bulletproof. At the same time, common soldiers dispensed with more parts to cut down weight. So even after the period you describe, Europeans continued to use armor, albeit 3/4 armor for heavy horse with half armor for foot.

>> No.31663211

>genuine ulfberht swords were comparable to modern day steels, made using central Asian technique
They were made by folding metal just like all japanese swords.

>> No.31663233
File: 15 KB, 481x362, 2_mileage[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


It could've died.

You could've let it be.

>> No.31663253

I hate this topic.

Instead, let's decide which mythical beasts would be better at which job.

Is a dragon a better knight or a better samura?

>> No.31663264


If he were a knight, he'd get pretty conflicted about killing dragons.

>> No.31663279

They already kill peasants without reason and horde gold, nobody would notice.

>> No.31663296


The traditional samurai in popular culture has hobbies that requires quite a detailed manual dexterity. Unless the dragon is willing to let go of its pride and turn into something smaller, I doubt he would excel in things like bonsai.

>> No.31663337

So did knights. Chivalry were the special safe rules for knights and nobility. Peasents could go fuck themselves for all they cared.

>> No.31663340


They team up to oppress peasants.

>> No.31663371

Yeah but knights wouldnt go near the smelly filthy bastards unless they really needed to.

Japs would go and test their new swords on peasants walking around for shits n gigs.
Plus the dragon can just incinerate anyone who "dishonror muh framiry" but would probably be attacked for being the "wrong type of dragon"

>> No.31663529

Which is a better architect, the Nuckelavee or a Gashadokuro?

>> No.31663543

Who is a better minstrel, Enkindu or Hercules?

>> No.31663595

What's with those assholes? The turk considered chivalry as a rule for everyone

>> No.31663644
File: 165 KB, 260x260, viking.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Uh...no. The steel was heated, probably in clay furnaces, to bake out impurities then beaten down from an orange-hot ingot. Probably.

Considering the tools and the time frame this steel was made in, it's pretty modern. And anyway, anon said "comparable."

>> No.31663657

I'm not sure about Minstrel, but i'm pretty sure Enkidu is a better Bard based on the fact that he had sex with a whore for 6 days and 7 nights continuously.

>> No.31663689

Welt der Wunder Katana vs Schwert

>> No.31663749

Early-mid 16th century Swiss Pikemen vs mid-late 16th century Oda Nagae Yari

Level ground, Oda are denied their usual MO of setting everything on fire

Who wins?


>> No.31663753


>> No.31663786

In a battle between a tank and a samurai with a katana that has been folded over a million times who would win?

>> No.31663834

Considering that our brave samaroo is coming at it with with fishing line...

>> No.31663857

>ctrl + f
>no buddy cop

goddamn it you newfags.

>> No.31663898
File: 150 KB, 800x533, rome_legion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31663910


>> No.31663918

>bows and arrows
>not piercing plate


>> No.31663959
File: 485 KB, 1600x900, macedonian_phalanx4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.31664104

You're thinking of dorylaeum.

Sit down, kids, let me tell you a tale.

>turks attack the crusader camp, riding into the camp, darting around killing people
>non-knights are shitting bricks
>knights form dismounted lines, eventually an armored fence in front of the women and lesser soldiers
>turks can't kill them, but they can't get at the turks
>knights get shot a whole bunch, laugh it off, lose men a few at a time when they charge out alone or in little groups to kill turks
>fighting grows EXTREMELY desperate-the Turks cal the white devils "men of iron" and compare them to hungry lions
>messengers reach other crusade forces in the area, one of which literally charges through the entire turkish army in one go
>another attacks the turks camp and burns it
>turks lose thousands of men when they get sandwiched between the dismounted army and relief forces
>Kilij Arslan never fucks with a crusading force again

>> No.31664172

Watch less game of thrones.

The turks couldn't even be trusted not to fuck with emissaries, much less peasants.

Forgot to add:
Peopel really need to shut the fuck up against horse archers.

Every great, resoundugn victory you see them get turns out to have been against retarded foes. When western armies were prepared to resist them, they tended to vary from giving an even performance to shitting all over them.

>> No.31664322

You guys do realize the Battle of Dorylaeum was a close run thing, and only won because the Turks got flanked? Both before and after they crushed crusader armies. Kilij Arslan himself took out the 1101 Crusade.

>Every great, resoundugn victory you see them get turns out to have been against retarded foes. When western armies were prepared to resist them, they tended to vary from giving an even performance to shitting all over them.
How is this a unique trait for any army? A well prepared and supported army is tough to beat no matter what. That's neither an innate ability or malus against either Western or Turkic forces.

It's pretty clear that contemporaries thought Turks weren't anything to fuck around with, and there's plenty of references to them fighting on equal terms not only in the field but on the walls and on ships. The only ones that did think lightly of their light horse in history tend to be dead and forgotten.

>> No.31664450

I'm well aware the turks were capable, fighters.

y problem is with idiots who think "horse archer" is kryptonite to westerners as a whole, and knights especially when in reality, they'd been killing them for centuries by the time of the crusades.

They go on to cite a relative handful of battles where western style armies got dominated, and virtually EVERY TIME it turns out to have been a garbage force with bad leaders and/or desertion issues.

>> No.31664492
File: 107 KB, 500x388, same shit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Who knows? Who cares?

>> No.31664514

>and virtually EVERY TIME it turns out to have been a garbage force with bad leaders and/or desertion issues.
Which is the case with nearly every one-sided battle in history.

I'm just saying that swinging the pendulum one way isn't any more true than the other.

>> No.31664568
File: 331 KB, 625x370, filthy peasants laughing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

only true if you live in a monthy pyton skit

>> No.31664680

>The turks couldn't even be trusted not to fuck with emissaries, much less peasants.
I once read a neat narrative for the Battle of Lepanto talking about the lack of class distinction when it came to Turkish chivalry. Was kind of interesting.

>> No.31665416

my understanding is that Uthbert swords were made of crucible steel, steel that had been melted at a higher temperature not a hammered out bloom of iron with lots of slag inclusions that had then been carbonized.

>> No.31665606

Actually it was crucible steel probably from Persia/India. The vikings of the day had trading expeditions along the great Russian rivers down to the Black and Caspian Seas and this high grade steel would be a perfect trade good.
The Damascus steel swords were also made from this Indian crucible steel. The ancient Indians had a lot of science they are never given credit for.

>> No.31665834

Why don;t you post an image of a norse warrior that isn't an insult to their legacy?

>> No.31666572

Rolled 10

I love these fights. Mainly because no one ever asks if it's like Musashi miyamoto vs a knight from bumfuck no where. Or say Charlemagne vs a samurai from bugfuck no where. Or two random guys from bugfuck no where. Or Musashi miyamoto vs Charlemagne in bugfuck nowhere.

>> No.31666708

Charlemange wasn't a knight.

The concept didn't exist yet, he's as much a knight as a 7th century byzantine member of the cavalarii.

It also doesn't matter.

>Musashi miyamoto
So a guy who pretty much entirely fought unarmored and on foot vs opponents he understood and knew how to manipulate+ had a physical advantage over, vs a foe he knows nothing about, who is usually presumed to be armored, doesn't share his cultural tendencies, and has a noticeably different fighting style?

>> No.31666768

Rolled 7

no but Charlemange was fucking awesome anyway. He didn't need anytitles.

>> No.31666852

Awesome or not, you can't clal him aknight.

It's fairly likely he wouldn't have even fought with couched lance, which is very much a hallmark of what made knights a distinctive entity and not just another medium/heavy cavalry.

>> No.31666901

>couched lance, which is very much a hallmark of what made knights a distinctive entity
No, not really.

>> No.31666962

Eh, Musashi approached killing people with a fanatical dedication. I wouldn't be too quick to discount him just because he was going to be in unfamiliar territory. Musashi did show the capacity to be creative when it came to winning a fight, so I think that at the very least he'd stand a chance. It all depends on how quickly he adapts.

>> No.31667115

It's more that dedication doesn't do a thing when some Portuguese cunt puts a side sword through you in a lunge from outside what thought was effective range.

The Japanese were badly disadvantaged against Europeans in one on one fights, unless fighting someone who got stuck in statis for a century or three.
Yes, really.
It's literally all they were known for.

>> No.31667176

That's like saying using swords and shields are what made knights distinctive

>> No.31667205

Lots of people couched their lances. And Knights did other things long before they did that as well.

>> No.31667414

No, because that was not outside the norm.

>lots of peopel couched thei rlances
No, actually. Steppe people didn't. The byzantiens didn't. Arabs didn't. The rus didn't. East asians didn't. The magyars didn't.

Arabs, turks, magyars, rus, and romans/greeks alike all adopted it en masse after being forced to fight against it.

Arabs used long thrusting spears and fought form horseback with them much like a man on foot would, thrusting with the spear until it was no longer feasible.
Turks, and Rus did much the same.

Other steppe cultures besides the turks would either grip their lances two handed, or fight as above. The same is true of virtually all of asia.
Weather it was gripped in tow hands for the charge in a manner akin to western tactics, or simply fought with as a cutting and stabbing implement varies.

Roman/greek forces would either hole the spear overarm, hold it underarm (both for the purpose of stabbing about with it), or hold it two handed for the charge.

All of the above would also hold lances underarm for something akin to a western lance charge, but not couch it, reducing the effectiveness.

Yes, individuals WOULD couch lances, but it DID NOT EXIST as a wholesale tactic until people saw westerners do it, or encountered someone who had.
The wholesale adoption of couched lance tactics was more or less a direct result of fighting against westerners. Nobody else used the lance couched, or viewed it strictly as a disposable asset for use in the charge and nothing else.

The usage of the couched lance and the tactics stemming form it are WHY other cultures respected "frankish" cavalry attacks.

>> No.31667493

That's fucking spooky armor

>> No.31667616

>Steppe people didn't. The byzantiens didn't. Arabs didn't
From their contemporary sources, they did. They just didn't think highly of it. Couched lance wasn't a tactic, it didn't offer any great advantage over other styles.

>The usage of the couched lance and the tactics stemming form it are WHY other cultures respected "frankish" cavalry attacks.
Said no contemporary source ever.

They were respected for their zeal, armor, and esprit de corps.

>> No.31667697

>Said no contemporary source ever.
Aside from virtually every tactical manual the Byzantines wrote dealing with them, and anna kommenous, sure.

>> No.31667928

Uh, knights used their lances in a variety of ways. And they were known for their aggression. None of the Byzantine or Arab sources mention anything about some magical quality to the couched lance, nor that they weren't already familiar with it.

>Aside from virtually every tactical manual the Byzantines wrote dealing with them, and anna kommenous, sure.
None of these sources mention the couched lance as the reason, only that the knights were powerful and effective. This is mythmaking on the level of the longbow and stirrup and their effectiveness in revolutionizing warfare.

>> No.31668109

It is something I have never heard before, when you think of what makes a 'knight' distinctive the fact they used spears in a certain way does not even come to mind.

>> No.31668117

Feel free to explain to Eddward Luttwak how his work in The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire dealing changes in byzantine cavalry tactics and lance use after facing down Norman charges is wrong, then.

There's also the simple fact that ALL of these cultures adopt the couched lance charge wholesale after exposure. All of them. Even the magyars, who were THE stereotypical steppe warriors for a very long time.

>> No.31668210

What does then?

They had less of it than plenty of people they faced.


They were known for being unreliable in foreign service as often as they were for extreme bravery.
Everyone else was aggressive too. The closest you get is "impetuous."

What set them apart was constant, furious, knee to knee, well disciplined lance charges.

>> No.31668264

>Eddward Luttwak
He doesn't mention couched lances but once in his book, and only to say charging shock cavalry was something everyone could use without the stirrup.

>> No.31668319

>There's also the simple fact that ALL of these cultures adopt the couched lance charge wholesale after exposure. All of them. Even the magyars, who were THE stereotypical steppe warriors for a very long time.

Like many people adopted the Western European stirrup, it had much to do with military tradition and culture, something most people ignore or have never considered.

>> No.31668512

>anna kommenous
She only says the Normans had a powerful charge, not that their couched lance technique had anything to do with it.

>> No.31668668

Wait, do you actually think the stirrup is a western european invention?

>> No.31668669

Wasnt it proven that 'bushido' didnt exist at all in reality in ancient Japan as a concept and that that shit was really spread in the 1900's?

>> No.31668702

The widespread use of the couched lance is the only thing that is at all different when comparing them to their contemporaries.

>> No.31668714


>> No.31668755

nah it originates on the steppes if im not mistaken

>> No.31668843

Besides their heraldry, their arms and armor, their horse breeds, their mobilization, their fashions, their command structure, their squad tactics and training, etc.

>> No.31669206

>Besides their heraldry,
Because this
>their arms and armor,
"maille, helmet, straight sword, kite shield, lance"
Literally everyone they fought had this. The Byzantines had it, the turks had it, the arabs had it, and all three had heavier cavalry available to boot.
>their horse breeds,
By the 1100s they weren't impressive at all.
>their mobilization,
The Fedual structure of a western European host was positively backwards by byzantine standards, and nothing special compared to anyone else.
>their fashions,
Again, REALLY fucking relevant to a cavalry charge.
Also, their fashions weren't considered very interesting by...
Anyone. The only thing ever commented on is their hair. Knights in outremer adopted eastern dress styles, but easterners did NOT adopt western dress.
>their command structure,
Western European command structure in the Ealry medieval could be politely called "Vestigial".
>their squad tactics and training, etc.
"Attack knee to knee and stay toegether when you do."
This is what literally all shock cavalry have always done.

>> No.31669556

But Frenchmen are still dumb.

>> No.31670410

They're all subtle differences that built up a certain military culture which made the knight what he was, no different from the couched lance, his style of saddle or stirrup, or anything else. However, the above differences I've stated that you feel are of no importance are also the only actual differences non-Latin contemporaries care to point out about the knight. They mention their abundance of armor, the weight of their lances, their fashion, their strategic caution, their aggression and independent initiative, and their small squad tactics.

>> No.31670658

Not really. They won the war, after all.

>> No.31670753

You know what?

you make a good point.

>> No.31670977

>The widespread use of the couched lance is the only thing that is at all different when comparing them to their contemporaries.

To be honest, the only thing that was really widespread about the couched lance before the 14th century was its appearance in Medieval art, which is problematic because people like to categorically accept them as bald archaeological evidence of fashion or style or tactics with little regard for the way Medieval art was conservative and took a lot of liberties to fashion a story for a certain social class.

No one would assume a battle where knights are depicted wailing at each other on horseback with swords didn't involve lances somehow, but we then assume a battle where knights are depicted using couched lances means that's the only way they used lances. And this assumption isn't really reflected in textual material - both Orderic Vitalis and the Templar Latin Rule mention knights throwing their lances still for instance in the mid-12th century.

For such a supposedly important aspect of Medieval knighthood chronicles are rather quiet about training to use it specifically, admonishing those who trained to use their lances in different ways, or even put down or just note how their foreign opponents did or did not fight the same way.

This all sounds like an art history question really, and we should be asking why the couched lance became so popular in art. Rule of cool is older than we know of course.

>> No.31671080

>rule of cool
That would be it anon.
I'd argue that, given that it WAS effective, and also "honorable", they'd want pictures of them being badasses, charging intto the foew ith lance levelled, and not throwing them at people.

It also may just be simpler to draw. That seems to crop up a bit in art-
IE, images of men being cut through breastplates. Can't really draw harnessfechten with medieval art styles, so they simplify.

>> No.31671100
File: 13 KB, 165x220, mfw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>mfw this thread

>> No.31671393

Similarly, the 'change' from overhand to underhand in the Bayeux Tapestry may be no such thing, but another assumption that 'shock cavalry/couched lance' tactics were being experimented with.

Instead it may as well be a change in art style from the late-Roman motif to the High Middle Ages form.

>> No.31671455

Took em long enough.

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