Samurai vs Knight

[Scurrybt]

If a Samurai and a Knight fought each other, who would win? Both have time to prepare and both have all the conventional equipment they had during their respective heydays. Also, neither are on horseback.

[ジーク]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Das Commander Femboy Pümper:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ジーク:

wonder how they could destroy them if their swords broke on their armor alone, but they themselves had modest protection and were easily vulnerable

Not to mention that hilts on knights swords and weapons could just lock the katana in and snap the blade too

They think they are so cool forgetting that they lost shamefully to the Spaniards in smaller numbers all because of the presence of firearms and guns from the Spaniards

[King Of Lolis]

samurai no cap
they dont have hard moving armor like knights do and Fate series has already showed us a samurai like Sasaki can easily destroy King Arthur without a problem

[Good Night Owl]

Samurai. I feel it was likely a much more disciplined title for Japanese nobility than English or French Knighthood.

[aka]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ジーク:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von aka:

knights would be dead before they could even get their silly metal club junk out.

One annoyed Samurai could easily slaughter an entire kingdom of knights.. once people got into guns and cheating and plague spreading .. yea the Samurai got pwnt, but before that they could have invaded sparta with like 10 Samurai on foot.

wonder how they could destroy them if their swords broke on their armor alone, but they themselves had modest protection and were easily vulnerable

Why would a Samurai ever hit a knights armor ? Knights were not in metal box's .. A samurai would stab them in the back of the leg if they needed, or the eye .. knights were like huge dumb watermelons waiting to get chopped

Very few Samurai would even draw their sword, knights were that dumb ,, most Samurai would just walk past them and dodge all their attacks until the knights got tired and fell in the mud ... if a Samurai wanted to kill them they would just jump stomp their stupid wind pipe.

[trousers]

Assuming both using swords, both using average Sengoku Jidai/Early Ren equipment: the knight wins, with greater reach, better armour, and a martial culture with a longer history of pointless warfare.

Bows: nobody wins. Knights only used them for hunting and a samurai needs a lucky shot to actually get through or past plate mail.

Firearms: samurai wins as they didn't have bizarre prohibitions on the use of "peasant" weaponry and were very good marksmen with the European matchlocks they adopted. That said, a good cuirass was usually proofed against arquebus shot

Polearms: knight wins because while a naginata or yari has great reach, he can just step inside that reach unless he gets poked in the right place

Much later in that time period, and while not featuring knights; it's even more one-sided with examples like the Cagayan battles in the Philippines where the wakou pirates (loosely in samurai equivalent gear) got reamed by the Spanish lots and lots. It's off topic and off the remit of the thread, but it is interesting.

Love you xoxo thx for reading my opinions and my post

[Kamiyama]

Samurai didn't just use katana. They also used bows, yari (spears), and naginata (pole-arms).

Samurai also sometimes wore heavy plate armor like european knights did.

I think it's going to come down to skill, and the samurai doesn't necessarily have an edge. Knights did train and they did duel. Dueling was common in the past. The feudal age wasn't exactly peaceful and knights often received battlefield experience. So it's not like they were bumbling oafs in comparison.

I don't think either side has an easy win. It's going to be bloody.

[Under there]

knight
this has been discussed to death already, sorry weebs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_3W1zg683A

[steven1mac]

Removing the firearm aspect, Knights had better armor, and had weapons specifically designed to penetrate heavy armor. Individual martial arts both were probably around the same skill level, but European knights in general were more flexible in warfare, experiencing in fighting 1/3 of the known world, they adapted tactics multiple times, while Japanese armies rarely fought anyone other than themselves.

[Alliesaurus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von ジーク:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Das Commander Femboy Pümper:

Not to mention that hilts on knights swords and weapons could just lock the katana in and snap the blade too

They think they are so cool forgetting that they lost shamefully to the Spaniards in smaller numbers all because of the presence of firearms and guns from the Spaniards

Seemed to be just deputised ronin

[Irene ❤]

I think 50/50

Both are swordsmen with armor. So it's just different design but same power level.

[Scurrybt]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Irene ❤:

I think 50/50

Both are swordsmen with armor. So it's just different design but same power level.

Arguably so

[GlaceonChireiden]

Knights are cooler so knight wins
"B-but samurais ca-"

Don't care + knights cooler + shut up nerd

[Scurrybt]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von JustSomeLego:

Knights are cooler so knight wins
"B-but samurais ca-"

Don't care + knights cooler + shut up nerd

Based and correct, king

[Goldias]

Equipment wise samurai would lose.

In their era Japanese already trade with westerners, especially Portuguese. Not only they adopt matchlock firearms and make it their own, but western armor is also used among wealthy and christian samurai because of superior quality.
There's evidence that Oda Nobunaga (you should already know him by now If you gaming) have his own suit of western Lamellar instead of traditional samurai armor.

[Good Night Owl]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von JustSomeLego:

Knights are cooler so knight wins
"B-but samurais ca-"

Don't care + knights cooler + shut up nerd

No u. Samurai all the way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkk8z3f0GzU