knight vs samurai.

Medieval eurpean knights used support forces.
In religious brotherhoods knight era they used help also from half brothers, they were candidates to orden brothers status and in general professional fighters, paid " soldiers " called half grey and grey, then their own land's folk and for service not rarerly kept good quality archers trained since early childhood. When War, then folk from their land too was mobilised.
 
Is ts 5? I hope he isn’t an adult man such stupid questions.
 
Two evenly skilled with full combat equipment. Knights wins. Armor makes the difference. Without armor and just a sword vs sword, toss up. Both had different but very effective techniques when fighting. Knight with sword and shield and no armor should beat a samurai with just a katana however.
 
Knights from Papal State era?

Knights heavily relied from their strength and size, to carry armour, however were trained since early chidlhood for self defense also without armour because main self defense tools were bladed weapons and tools.
Without armour and shield knight can move faster, swords they used were not shorter than katanas, usually longer and with guards. Strong and large knights prefered sword for usage mainly with both hands if they didn't had shield. Shields outside of battles not rarerly were carried by their team's mens but swords they still had.
These long, heavier swords strong knight might use also with one hand, reach there likely longer than with katana.
Double bladed sword allows to apply blade without reversal movements; strike from let to right, opponent managed to evade, but knight might just step forward and do next strike from right to left without even change in grip.
Guard on sword makes difficult many types of attack type " if didn't hit body, then at least arm holding sword.
Vertical strikes with step forvard from less athletic opponent might be dealt with block on sword's guard instead of option just evade or block with blade.
Because they had shorter back up swords or at least large knife for back up, fast counterattack with another hand holding short sword might be applied.
In later periods knights even used armour for legs, because their opponents, knights, used also attacks to legs with sword...
Another technique ; block vertical strike with guard when close distance and then more stronger knight might attack opponen'ts neck without many changes for holdings while opponent's sword's blade still on their sword's guard.
 
Samurai would get rolled by a Roman legion even with a 1500 year advantage to develop technology.

I doubt a katana could slash through chainmail let alone full plate armor.

Hell Japanese know it. In sekiro you can't hurt the knight at all. You have to push him off a bridge
 
I vote for the samurai.

“They can grow to over five feet tall, and in a fight, are known to kick with their legs.”
 
Loved this movie when I was a kid. The invisible guy tearing off Tanya Roberts clothes!
Was supposed to be a miniseries that got cut down into a movie. Its a longshot but heres to hoping somehow the original cut is released if it still exists.
 
Was supposed to be a miniseries that got cut down into a movie. Its a longshot but heres to hoping somehow the original cut is released if it still exists.
I’m not shitting you. I’m pretty sure I still have my beta max copy at my parents house. Lol
 
mongols fought on horseback using feints and retreats wearing down the infantry with arrows before the lancers charged. the mongols also had issues fighting knights if they were forced too. on foot a mongol also gets totally annihilated by knights. detachments of mongols were caught and defeated.

Post any evidence showing Mongols had problems with European knights. In the two pitched battles they fight, legnica and mohi, the knights were baited in by the Mongols, surrounded, and crushed.

prior to legnitz the poles were winning. during the 2nd invasion of hungary the mongols could not take on the castles.

Lol the Poles won nothing. Duke Henry fled Krakow and let the Mongols pillage it. He was waiting to be reinforced by Wenceslas from Germany when the Mongols caught up to his army, slaughtered the knights, then beheaded him and paraded his severed head around Poland.

the japanese samsurai would also beat mongols on foot aswell, as fighting on foot was not what gave mongols their edge. plus most of those werent mongols or turks but chinese and koreans who planned on mass surrending to the japanese.

No there were Mongols in the army as well. There are contemporary Japanese woodblock prints which depict the yuan army and you can clearly see the difference between the Mongol and Korean soldiers.

Point is the Mongols got their zhit pushed in by the samurai while they steam rolled European knights proving plate mail to be over rated.
 
It would look like this.
FelineEarnestBooby-size_restricted.gif



Expect on some 5ft manlet with a man bun
giphy.gif
 
I believe its already been proven that the Samurai was > knight .
 
Post any evidence showing Mongols had problems with European knights. In the two pitched battles they fight, legnica and mohi, the knights were baited in by the Mongols, surrounded, and crushed.



Lol the Poles won nothing. Duke Henry fled Krakow and let the Mongols pillage it. He was waiting to be reinforced by Wenceslas from Germany when the Mongols caught up to his army, slaughtered the knights, then beheaded him and paraded his severed head around Poland.



No there were Mongols in the army as well. There are contemporary Japanese woodblock prints which depict the yuan army and you can clearly see the difference between the Mongol and Korean soldiers.

Point is the Mongols got their zhit pushed in by the samurai while they steam rolled European knights proving plate mail to be over rated.
Plate mail wasn’t particularly advanced when the Mongols attacked Europe. It existed, but was just past the crusader sugerloaf helm and chain mail era. Plate advanced significantly in the next 200 years. Also, winning using battle tactics is not winning a a single combat fight. Why not bring up the Scots ruining Longshanks men at Stirling bridge? Or Agincourt? Good tactics beats all.
 
A lot of people don't know this, but most knights were homosexual.

Samurai's were gay pedo's.

"From religious circles, same-sex love spread to the warrior (samurai) class. Where it was customary for a boy in the wakashū age category to undergo training in the martial arts by apprenticing to a more experienced adult man, according to Furukawa the relationship was based on the typically older nenja, who loves, and the typically younger chigo, who is loved.[1] The man was permitted, if the boy agreed, to take the boy as his lover until he came of age; this relationship, often formalized in a "brotherhood contract"[4], was expected to be exclusive, with both partners swearing to take no other (male) lovers.

This practice, along with clerical pederasty, developed into the codified system of age-structured homosexuality known as shudō, abbreviated from wakashūdō, the "way (Tao) of wakashū"[6]. The older partner, in the role of nenja, would teach the chigo martial skills, warrior etiquette, and the samurai code of honor, while his desire to be a good role model for his chigo would lead him to behave more honorably himself; thus a shudō relationship was considered to have a "mutually ennobling effect"[6]. In addition, both parties were expected to be loyal unto death, and to assist the other both in feudal duties and in honor-driven obligations such as duels and vendettas. Although sex between the couple was expected to end when the boy came of age, the relationship would, ideally, develop into a lifelong bond of friendship. At the same time, sexual activity with women was not barred (for either party), and once the boy came of age, both were free to seek other wakashū lovers."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_Japan
 

Similar threads

Back
Top