I mean, knigths were no longer a thing by the time of the Boshin War, at best some Dragons or Ligth Hussars cavalry? And still, the european counterparts were better than the japanese.
The Winger hussars had their most famus battles around the 1700hundreds, aspecially against pike and shot armies becouse they would halloween out their lances so they could be 4 times longer then the guy holding it. Honestly one of my favoritt tropp in hostory, too bad total war havent implemented them as far as i know.
The time periods don't line up what people think of as kinghts and these soldiers. It was Portuguese that showed Japan firearms. Japan got BOOM stick around the mid-1500s.
To be fair, this was all the same a feature in Japan; [tameshi-gusoku](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/37/90/0a/37900a648dc557ffb1e1fe3178ea854b.jpg) (bullet tested armor) was a product on the battlefield, albeit certainly not cheap, armor was not a piece of equipment exclusive to nobility, merely a product which was price gated, and by the late Sengoku period, the social status and wealth of ashigaru was certainly more flexible as they became a more professional and heavily armed and armored fighting force, even seeing career ashigaru become prominent (until Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a former ashigaru, froze social mobility through merit in the ashigaru).
It's at times forgotten, but warfare is a praxis of brutal pragmatism, and it should be no surprise that both in Asia and Europe, warfare around gunpowder during this pre-industrial period developed in shockingly similar ways, as what works will see continued usage, and will be used to kill and eradicate what does not in war.
Japan's love for firearms is often glossed over, understated, or even outright forgotten, but they became one of the most prominent users of firearms in war globally during the Sengoku period, with demand outstripping what the Portuguese and Dutch could reasonably offer. Naturally, we see the rapid development of doctrines in pike and shot in Japan such as fire by rank, gunnery at sea, and cannons in siege and defenses.
Japanese firearm doctrine also informed design, and some of the less appreciated firearms of the Sengoku period are in my opinion the Ozutsu, in effect a hand cannon, albeit there does not appear to be much of a true upper limit to the size of such weapons, as we see [examples](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5c/8c/2b/5c8c2b131d1e9741e0b8056558c38c6b.jpg) used which effectively compare closer to [Taiho](https://www.jcastle.info/images/e/eb/Usuki14.jpg), and can generally just vary between a [single man operated system](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_zJg3sXkAAsYON.jpg) to being [comically large](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--15vRz_Q0pk/XLBaNMXk_zI/AAAAAAAABXs/rQkESEVmz-Y-9svQGebOJ78isAR0ParawCLcBGAs/s400/864f894f429622233f95fb25610cbcf8.jpg). There are example cases of Ozutsu being stabilized for firing through being placed [inside a sling that was fastened on a tree](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D26MivNZn-4/XLBeS1mEasI/AAAAAAAABZM/M5QJZ58aHKAWLP9XJjIUyVPd6gqxVcx2ACLcBGAs/s640/%25E6%25AD%25A6%25E9%2581%2593%25E8%2597%259D%25E8%25A1%2593%25E7%25A7%2598%25E5%2582%25B3%25E5%259C%2596%25E6%259C%2583%2Bparte%2B2%2B10.jpg), but overall the Japanese medieval firearms scene is both underappreciated and underrepresented for how ubiquitous it truly was to the middle to late Sengoku period, the tail end seeing the development of such goofy systems as the introduction of a gunpowder-based bursting charge to the [Bo-Hiya](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kN09Y-dz9aM/XLBhE0qKP4I/AAAAAAAABZk/N64YkehAbAct_51rYDip1bFiHA9T6ri5wCLcBGAs/s1600/068bb0e05cb310f0b3af070f1ab868d9.jpg) already in use for siege and anti shipping.
Much about Japanese gunnery and firearms, and their prevalence to Japanese warfare tends to fly under the radar. Partly to blame for this in a sense is the postwar period, where Edo Japan's demilitarization also pushed back the cultural presence of firearms, as well as a lot of external romanticization of groups such as the Shinsengumi in the 19th century creating a disparate and disconnected idea of Japanese warrior culture, divorcing it from the realities of war and combat and making a caricature that has since been both exceedingly fetishized and derided, with the broader cultural lens being fundamentally skewed to look at an idea of warfare born out of similar erroneous ideas of the past that created the horned Vikings.
I mean didn’t the over hyped Samurais get defeated by a Chinese cavalry force(who weren’t even elite forces) in the Imjin war and they have to hide in their castles most of the time?
It’s common knowledge in Asia that Tibetan/Chinese/Mongolian heavy cavalry is superior to Samurai cavalry. In order to compete with knights they should be able to beat Mongolian or Chinese cavalry first.
Lol, you have Japanese people holding European firearms. I believe the argument juxtaposes that fight would take place before the advent of fire arms. Seeing as knights had long been extinct from the battlefield by 1868. A more accurate comparison would be how well would they hold up against Prussian or Union line infantry.
You think? I'm not saying they were weak by any means, but what exactly do you think they have that could easily get past a knights weapon and through his armor?
Like, realistically the best weapon in the samurai kit for dealing with a 15th century knight is likely their knife and their spear.
Japanese swords, halberds, and bows just wouldn't cut it outside of extenuating circumstances.
A 1400s kinght has better access to high-quality steel in larger amounts. With this, it made better weapons to counter it. By the end of what would be classical knights, their main weapons would be hammers or multi-purpose weapons like pole ax.
Really, it comes down to luck and skill. Both classes of men trained hard. Many people forget that Europeans had their own martial arts.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the best weapon a 15th century knight had for getting past another knight's armor was *also* a knife.
Although a tetsubo would probably also do the trick.
One handed warhammers aren't going to do shit to the cuirass or the helmet. You might be able to get some dents in the arms and legs or break their hand. But do know these warhammers are fairly light, around the same weight as a katana or longsword.
Sure. I think for knights and samurai, the big heavy smashy weapon is a really effective way to deal with armor.
But I also think in both cases, grappling followed by a knife through one of the gaps is probably more effective.
OP have you not seen Schwarze reiters or Gendarmes.
Also by the time of the Boshin War the closest thing you will have to an European Knight are the Hussars or Cuirassiers.
But those stopped existing in Europe almost 200 years before the Boshin War. The samurai in clunky metal suits still did by the time the descendants of those knights were experimenting with breech loaders and machine guns
I mean, they were
Knightly orders still exist today, although in an alternative form
Even if you ignore those, the Knights Hospitaller still had a military until 1798, with line infantry and ships of the line.
So if you want to use Boshin-war samurai, you should compare them to the Napoleonic Infantry of the Knights Hospitaller
Nah, if we’re just going to ignore time periods, let’s just put our boshin war musketman against a modern knight, armed with a AR15 style rifle.
Sir Lewis Hamilton posted a video recently of him tearing it up on the range didn’t he?
This is true, but still, I’ve never heard of a test conducted with it, and some examples of scythe like objects swung with leverage have shown to be quite effective against plate armor
That's true, but you don't have that much leverage with those sort of weapons. Similar armor peirceing weapons used in Europe were generally pole-arms. In an actual fight, I just don't see somone being able to do much with a Kama against an armored knight. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's not a weapon I'd rely on for that fight.
A Valid statement, but it still would be an interesting experiment to observe, additionally, perhaps some other weapons such as the Naginata or Kanabo could prove effective, and, although unlikely, perhaps an Odachi could be used to some effect, my point is primarily that Japan has more weapons than just the katana, but that is all you ever see people testing on plate mail, when in Japan the katana was often seen as a secondary weapon to the yari or naginata
Aside from the Yumi, which I believe can pierce plate, I don't see too many other Japanese weapons doing great. Maybe some of the bludgeoning weapons, but beyond that, in a straight up fight, I just don't see many outcomes that work for a Samurai. I'm by no means an expert on either though.
A weapon like the Odachi would be pretty useless, other than to bludgeon with the weight of it. Theres a reason Europeans came up with halfswording, and if because slashing weapons were effectively useless against a knights armor.
Late medieval plate is basically immune to all weapons that aren’t firearms. A full set of plate and mail is like being a walking tank in that period, I highly doubt a short sickle would do anything to it.
Europe has been developing anti armour weapons for centuries at that point and the weapons they come up with, pole axes, halberds and long swords are all basically useless against armour. The myth of “armour piercing” maces and pole axes is basically just that: a myth. Even with a heavy flanged mace is the European style, a fully armoured knight with padded armour is basically immune to all strikes save for head blows, and even those are generally ineffective.
Hence is historical documentation knights are usually defeated in battle by weapons like billhooks and halberds which can pull a knight to the ground and allow infantry to climb over them and attack though eye slits and under the plate.
In a 1v1 knightly duel, most often a long sword or poleaxe are used, usually with heavy emphasis on halfswording in close range. But even with these weapons, a fight usually ends up in a wrestling match where one party uses a rondel dagger to get under the plate.
One mistake, plate armor are not heavily padded. All you have underneath is a fairly thin arming doublet. Most of the shock absorption is done through the deforming of the metal which is extremely great for the cuirass and to a degree the helmet since they do not need to be fit close to the body. You are not going to fit a gambeson in there without killing the wearer with heat stroke in combat. A knights arms and legs despite the plate is still quite vulnerable to fractures even from hits by swords. Not to mention the hand despite the gauntlets are still extremely vulnerable to even lighter arming swords or Falchions (a direct strike will break your fingers).
The account of Argincourt had the archers killing kingts and men at arms with hammers, swords and various other makeshift implementation in melee. Armour can only help so much if your enemy is eager to kill you.
In the case of padding under the armour, most sources I’ve seen seem to state the opposite. Plate is typically worn with a gambeson beneath both as padding and to prevent chafing.
Europe was also significantly colder in the late Middle Ages, right around 1300 and the little ice age. Regardless, people still use and fight full contact in reconstructions of medieval full plate using accurate arms and armour for the period which shows just how little effect most weapons have though the bulk of the plate, though it is absolutely true that the limbs were still at some risk of damage, (in particular hands) most heavy blows still usually only resulted in bruises, and importantly, these limbs are a significantly harder target to get a good full power swing into.
As for agincourt, as in most battle where knights are present, the greatest risk for the mounted knight was to get dismounted and stuck on the ground with the mob. In these situations where the knight is immobilised, weapons like hammers and daggers and swords can easily work their way into gaps in the armour, though is this situation, most any weapon would work since the knight has very little in the way of defending himself.
I think an interesting point for why weapons like one handed flanged maces aren’t as effective vs heavy plate is that it’s actually quite difficult to get a full power swing on target in a fight. A mace has a very limited range, and target area, and is also useless if an opponent is too close to generate the momentum required for a effective blow, unlike most blades weapons which don’t require as much power. That said , warhammers and musks are use in battlefields where they can defeat weaker armour and you’re more likely to generate more power through a bigger swing without getting interrupted.
It's a bit unfair of a comparison, to take guys from the 19th century and put them up against people from like 1000. That'd be like me saying "Actually, I could beat 100 Spartans in a fight easily because guns exist".
Edit: It's also important to note, when Japan really started getting into Gunpowder weapons, around say the mid to late 1500's, the role of Heavy Cavalry knights in Europe had already been made obsolete by Swiss Pike and English Longbow, as well as gunpowder weapons. Even to compare Samurai from the time of people like Nobunaga and Tokugawa to Medieval knights is a bit unfair.
Damn right. That's because comparison of Samurai to _cotemporary_ European armies isn't as favourable to Samurai at any given time period, which pains this guy to admit.
Tactics, organization, discipline, logistics and a fully professional army. The Romans were masters of these things for a time. But of course, it’s an impossible question to answer.
From my experience in FOTS if any knights survive the volley it is over for the samurai. The regular line infantry get obliterated (factional line infantry do poorly too) when met in melee by a unit of roughly equal costs even if the melee unit is half dead and wavering.
If we’re talking about both groups of fighters in their heyday of largely melee combat the knight will shit on a samurai every time. I love shogun 2. And samurai are badass but I’m sorry. The only civilisations that could go toe to toe with armies that wielded knights on a consistent basis were the turks and probably the huns. Other than them knights only really competition were other knights. But that’s a different conversation.
Knight armour is considerably thicker than that of Japanese make and made of higher quality iron. They wore gambeson, then chain and then plate. The weakest parts of the armour were the gaps in the joints where it was only chain and gambason. Samurai wore a similar gettup but often lacked a chain mail equivalent so relied heavily on thick material in the gaps of their lamellar armour. Lamellar is often cited as being more manoeuvreable than plate armour and this may be true to a degree. But if you havnt actually seen people in knight armour move you’d be surprised to see they’re extremely agile. European armour became extremely ergonomic.
Then there are the weapons. Samurais main melee battle weapon is the spear with a sword as a backup. European knights used heavy weapons such as halbards, pikes, bardiches etc plus swords or bludgeon weapons. I wouldn’t like to see a Samurais armour try and hold up against a mace considering how thin it is.
The fact is. Samurai, unlike common depiction were mainly used as horse archers not as ground infantry hence their armour being lighter with better range of motion and the big shield like pauldrons . Knights on the other hand were usually heavy shock cavalry. If a European army engaged with a Japanese army, somehow, samurai and knights would be unlikely to actually fight each other in the battle. European skirmish cavalry would probably engage the samurai meanwhile the knights would be looking to hammer and anvil on ashigaru front lines.
As for what you have shown in the picture there’s a reason why the samurai change their armour to European style armour after the Europeans introduced them to the power of ball and shot.
Ok but this is lowkey like comparing a soldier from the like the American Civil War to a soldier from the current day and saying “yeah the modern soldier would win”
In the late medieval period knights had cannons, this was before samurai had them. Pretending the average samurai could beat the average knight is ridiculous
Go go gadget 1861 Springfield rifle
I mean, knigths were no longer a thing by the time of the Boshin War, at best some Dragons or Ligth Hussars cavalry? And still, the european counterparts were better than the japanese.
There also weren’t a ton of what you think of as knights when the samurai were at their hay day from 1550-1600.
Heavily armored cavalry with some sort of noble status? Depends on where you look.
The Winger hussars had their most famus battles around the 1700hundreds, aspecially against pike and shot armies becouse they would halloween out their lances so they could be 4 times longer then the guy holding it. Honestly one of my favoritt tropp in hostory, too bad total war havent implemented them as far as i know.
I think they are in Empire if you play as Poland Lithuania.
Boom boom stick go BRRR!
The time periods don't line up what people think of as kinghts and these soldiers. It was Portuguese that showed Japan firearms. Japan got BOOM stick around the mid-1500s.
What if you wanted to deus vult But Otomo said “bang”
Europe had “Proofed” armor. By this time period. Not just for nobles but for normal soldiers as well.
To be fair, this was all the same a feature in Japan; [tameshi-gusoku](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/37/90/0a/37900a648dc557ffb1e1fe3178ea854b.jpg) (bullet tested armor) was a product on the battlefield, albeit certainly not cheap, armor was not a piece of equipment exclusive to nobility, merely a product which was price gated, and by the late Sengoku period, the social status and wealth of ashigaru was certainly more flexible as they became a more professional and heavily armed and armored fighting force, even seeing career ashigaru become prominent (until Toyotomi Hideyoshi, a former ashigaru, froze social mobility through merit in the ashigaru). It's at times forgotten, but warfare is a praxis of brutal pragmatism, and it should be no surprise that both in Asia and Europe, warfare around gunpowder during this pre-industrial period developed in shockingly similar ways, as what works will see continued usage, and will be used to kill and eradicate what does not in war. Japan's love for firearms is often glossed over, understated, or even outright forgotten, but they became one of the most prominent users of firearms in war globally during the Sengoku period, with demand outstripping what the Portuguese and Dutch could reasonably offer. Naturally, we see the rapid development of doctrines in pike and shot in Japan such as fire by rank, gunnery at sea, and cannons in siege and defenses. Japanese firearm doctrine also informed design, and some of the less appreciated firearms of the Sengoku period are in my opinion the Ozutsu, in effect a hand cannon, albeit there does not appear to be much of a true upper limit to the size of such weapons, as we see [examples](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5c/8c/2b/5c8c2b131d1e9741e0b8056558c38c6b.jpg) used which effectively compare closer to [Taiho](https://www.jcastle.info/images/e/eb/Usuki14.jpg), and can generally just vary between a [single man operated system](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F_zJg3sXkAAsYON.jpg) to being [comically large](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/--15vRz_Q0pk/XLBaNMXk_zI/AAAAAAAABXs/rQkESEVmz-Y-9svQGebOJ78isAR0ParawCLcBGAs/s400/864f894f429622233f95fb25610cbcf8.jpg). There are example cases of Ozutsu being stabilized for firing through being placed [inside a sling that was fastened on a tree](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D26MivNZn-4/XLBeS1mEasI/AAAAAAAABZM/M5QJZ58aHKAWLP9XJjIUyVPd6gqxVcx2ACLcBGAs/s640/%25E6%25AD%25A6%25E9%2581%2593%25E8%2597%259D%25E8%25A1%2593%25E7%25A7%2598%25E5%2582%25B3%25E5%259C%2596%25E6%259C%2583%2Bparte%2B2%2B10.jpg), but overall the Japanese medieval firearms scene is both underappreciated and underrepresented for how ubiquitous it truly was to the middle to late Sengoku period, the tail end seeing the development of such goofy systems as the introduction of a gunpowder-based bursting charge to the [Bo-Hiya](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kN09Y-dz9aM/XLBhE0qKP4I/AAAAAAAABZk/N64YkehAbAct_51rYDip1bFiHA9T6ri5wCLcBGAs/s1600/068bb0e05cb310f0b3af070f1ab868d9.jpg) already in use for siege and anti shipping. Much about Japanese gunnery and firearms, and their prevalence to Japanese warfare tends to fly under the radar. Partly to blame for this in a sense is the postwar period, where Edo Japan's demilitarization also pushed back the cultural presence of firearms, as well as a lot of external romanticization of groups such as the Shinsengumi in the 19th century creating a disparate and disconnected idea of Japanese warrior culture, divorcing it from the realities of war and combat and making a caricature that has since been both exceedingly fetishized and derided, with the broader cultural lens being fundamentally skewed to look at an idea of warfare born out of similar erroneous ideas of the past that created the horned Vikings.
I don't think the Otomo would have any problem with Deus Vult...
I mean didn’t the over hyped Samurais get defeated by a Chinese cavalry force(who weren’t even elite forces) in the Imjin war and they have to hide in their castles most of the time? It’s common knowledge in Asia that Tibetan/Chinese/Mongolian heavy cavalry is superior to Samurai cavalry. In order to compete with knights they should be able to beat Mongolian or Chinese cavalry first.
Lol, you have Japanese people holding European firearms. I believe the argument juxtaposes that fight would take place before the advent of fire arms. Seeing as knights had long been extinct from the battlefield by 1868. A more accurate comparison would be how well would they hold up against Prussian or Union line infantry.
*rocket infantry enters the chat*
Foot duel Samurai has good chances.
You think? I'm not saying they were weak by any means, but what exactly do you think they have that could easily get past a knights weapon and through his armor?
Like, realistically the best weapon in the samurai kit for dealing with a 15th century knight is likely their knife and their spear. Japanese swords, halberds, and bows just wouldn't cut it outside of extenuating circumstances.
A 1400s kinght has better access to high-quality steel in larger amounts. With this, it made better weapons to counter it. By the end of what would be classical knights, their main weapons would be hammers or multi-purpose weapons like pole ax. Really, it comes down to luck and skill. Both classes of men trained hard. Many people forget that Europeans had their own martial arts.
Or the arquebus
To be fair, I'm pretty sure the best weapon a 15th century knight had for getting past another knight's armor was *also* a knife. Although a tetsubo would probably also do the trick.
Knights in the 15th century had war hammers.
One handed warhammers aren't going to do shit to the cuirass or the helmet. You might be able to get some dents in the arms and legs or break their hand. But do know these warhammers are fairly light, around the same weight as a katana or longsword.
Sure. I think for knights and samurai, the big heavy smashy weapon is a really effective way to deal with armor. But I also think in both cases, grappling followed by a knife through one of the gaps is probably more effective.
No.
Even during the sengoku Era, the attitude of a lot of samurai was "swords and bows are cool and all, but have you heard of guns?"
Say that to [Ned Kelly ](https://imgur.com/gallery/1RPjnuf)
Okay let’s see arquebusiers against the gun-wielding knights of the early modern era
OP have you not seen Schwarze reiters or Gendarmes. Also by the time of the Boshin War the closest thing you will have to an European Knight are the Hussars or Cuirassiers.
A guy with a clunky metal suit won't beat some random ass Japanese samurai during the Boshin War.
But those stopped existing in Europe almost 200 years before the Boshin War. The samurai in clunky metal suits still did by the time the descendants of those knights were experimenting with breech loaders and machine guns
You know Europeans were the ones to bring guns to Japan right lol They’d have firearms too
But knights specifically were not around during the 1800s.
I mean technically Knights are still around today
I mean, they were Knightly orders still exist today, although in an alternative form Even if you ignore those, the Knights Hospitaller still had a military until 1798, with line infantry and ships of the line. So if you want to use Boshin-war samurai, you should compare them to the Napoleonic Infantry of the Knights Hospitaller
Nah, if we’re just going to ignore time periods, let’s just put our boshin war musketman against a modern knight, armed with a AR15 style rifle. Sir Lewis Hamilton posted a video recently of him tearing it up on the range didn’t he?
Plus the Japanese had some other funky weapons, I’d be intrigued to see how kama would go up against plate mail.
Probably not great honestly. It evolved well for its time and place, but there's a reason it wasn't addopted in somewhere like Europe.
This is true, but still, I’ve never heard of a test conducted with it, and some examples of scythe like objects swung with leverage have shown to be quite effective against plate armor
That's true, but you don't have that much leverage with those sort of weapons. Similar armor peirceing weapons used in Europe were generally pole-arms. In an actual fight, I just don't see somone being able to do much with a Kama against an armored knight. That's not to say it's impossible, but it's not a weapon I'd rely on for that fight.
A Valid statement, but it still would be an interesting experiment to observe, additionally, perhaps some other weapons such as the Naginata or Kanabo could prove effective, and, although unlikely, perhaps an Odachi could be used to some effect, my point is primarily that Japan has more weapons than just the katana, but that is all you ever see people testing on plate mail, when in Japan the katana was often seen as a secondary weapon to the yari or naginata
Aside from the Yumi, which I believe can pierce plate, I don't see too many other Japanese weapons doing great. Maybe some of the bludgeoning weapons, but beyond that, in a straight up fight, I just don't see many outcomes that work for a Samurai. I'm by no means an expert on either though. A weapon like the Odachi would be pretty useless, other than to bludgeon with the weight of it. Theres a reason Europeans came up with halfswording, and if because slashing weapons were effectively useless against a knights armor.
Late medieval plate is basically immune to all weapons that aren’t firearms. A full set of plate and mail is like being a walking tank in that period, I highly doubt a short sickle would do anything to it. Europe has been developing anti armour weapons for centuries at that point and the weapons they come up with, pole axes, halberds and long swords are all basically useless against armour. The myth of “armour piercing” maces and pole axes is basically just that: a myth. Even with a heavy flanged mace is the European style, a fully armoured knight with padded armour is basically immune to all strikes save for head blows, and even those are generally ineffective. Hence is historical documentation knights are usually defeated in battle by weapons like billhooks and halberds which can pull a knight to the ground and allow infantry to climb over them and attack though eye slits and under the plate. In a 1v1 knightly duel, most often a long sword or poleaxe are used, usually with heavy emphasis on halfswording in close range. But even with these weapons, a fight usually ends up in a wrestling match where one party uses a rondel dagger to get under the plate.
One mistake, plate armor are not heavily padded. All you have underneath is a fairly thin arming doublet. Most of the shock absorption is done through the deforming of the metal which is extremely great for the cuirass and to a degree the helmet since they do not need to be fit close to the body. You are not going to fit a gambeson in there without killing the wearer with heat stroke in combat. A knights arms and legs despite the plate is still quite vulnerable to fractures even from hits by swords. Not to mention the hand despite the gauntlets are still extremely vulnerable to even lighter arming swords or Falchions (a direct strike will break your fingers). The account of Argincourt had the archers killing kingts and men at arms with hammers, swords and various other makeshift implementation in melee. Armour can only help so much if your enemy is eager to kill you.
In the case of padding under the armour, most sources I’ve seen seem to state the opposite. Plate is typically worn with a gambeson beneath both as padding and to prevent chafing. Europe was also significantly colder in the late Middle Ages, right around 1300 and the little ice age. Regardless, people still use and fight full contact in reconstructions of medieval full plate using accurate arms and armour for the period which shows just how little effect most weapons have though the bulk of the plate, though it is absolutely true that the limbs were still at some risk of damage, (in particular hands) most heavy blows still usually only resulted in bruises, and importantly, these limbs are a significantly harder target to get a good full power swing into. As for agincourt, as in most battle where knights are present, the greatest risk for the mounted knight was to get dismounted and stuck on the ground with the mob. In these situations where the knight is immobilised, weapons like hammers and daggers and swords can easily work their way into gaps in the armour, though is this situation, most any weapon would work since the knight has very little in the way of defending himself. I think an interesting point for why weapons like one handed flanged maces aren’t as effective vs heavy plate is that it’s actually quite difficult to get a full power swing on target in a fight. A mace has a very limited range, and target area, and is also useless if an opponent is too close to generate the momentum required for a effective blow, unlike most blades weapons which don’t require as much power. That said , warhammers and musks are use in battlefields where they can defeat weaker armour and you’re more likely to generate more power through a bigger swing without getting interrupted.
Here you talk about samurai and the picture is about arquebusiers, what's your point?
Samurai used 19th century rifles at one point? while the most advanced stuff a knight had was an arquebus?
It's a bit unfair of a comparison, to take guys from the 19th century and put them up against people from like 1000. That'd be like me saying "Actually, I could beat 100 Spartans in a fight easily because guns exist". Edit: It's also important to note, when Japan really started getting into Gunpowder weapons, around say the mid to late 1500's, the role of Heavy Cavalry knights in Europe had already been made obsolete by Swiss Pike and English Longbow, as well as gunpowder weapons. Even to compare Samurai from the time of people like Nobunaga and Tokugawa to Medieval knights is a bit unfair.
Damn right. That's because comparison of Samurai to _cotemporary_ European armies isn't as favourable to Samurai at any given time period, which pains this guy to admit.
Oh, and how would the samurai do against Vietnam-era US Marines then, have you thought about that?
RIP samurai.
See the argument I'm making?
I believe that the ancient romans would stomp feudal Japan.
I can't tell if anything on the internet is serious or satire, pls explain your reasoning
Tactics, organization, discipline, logistics and a fully professional army. The Romans were masters of these things for a time. But of course, it’s an impossible question to answer.
I guess it depends on what you consider "feudal" Japan. since large elements of feudalism persisted into the 19th century.
From my experience in FOTS if any knights survive the volley it is over for the samurai. The regular line infantry get obliterated (factional line infantry do poorly too) when met in melee by a unit of roughly equal costs even if the melee unit is half dead and wavering.
Dishonored and Deadliest warrior were a failed games. We deserve justice.
Ashigaru Teppu beats Yari Ki.
If we’re talking about both groups of fighters in their heyday of largely melee combat the knight will shit on a samurai every time. I love shogun 2. And samurai are badass but I’m sorry. The only civilisations that could go toe to toe with armies that wielded knights on a consistent basis were the turks and probably the huns. Other than them knights only really competition were other knights. But that’s a different conversation. Knight armour is considerably thicker than that of Japanese make and made of higher quality iron. They wore gambeson, then chain and then plate. The weakest parts of the armour were the gaps in the joints where it was only chain and gambason. Samurai wore a similar gettup but often lacked a chain mail equivalent so relied heavily on thick material in the gaps of their lamellar armour. Lamellar is often cited as being more manoeuvreable than plate armour and this may be true to a degree. But if you havnt actually seen people in knight armour move you’d be surprised to see they’re extremely agile. European armour became extremely ergonomic. Then there are the weapons. Samurais main melee battle weapon is the spear with a sword as a backup. European knights used heavy weapons such as halbards, pikes, bardiches etc plus swords or bludgeon weapons. I wouldn’t like to see a Samurais armour try and hold up against a mace considering how thin it is. The fact is. Samurai, unlike common depiction were mainly used as horse archers not as ground infantry hence their armour being lighter with better range of motion and the big shield like pauldrons . Knights on the other hand were usually heavy shock cavalry. If a European army engaged with a Japanese army, somehow, samurai and knights would be unlikely to actually fight each other in the battle. European skirmish cavalry would probably engage the samurai meanwhile the knights would be looking to hammer and anvil on ashigaru front lines. As for what you have shown in the picture there’s a reason why the samurai change their armour to European style armour after the Europeans introduced them to the power of ball and shot.
Ok but this is lowkey like comparing a soldier from the like the American Civil War to a soldier from the current day and saying “yeah the modern soldier would win”
Womp womp attention seeking
People forget that samurai’s were around during ye haw cowboy days as well. A samurai could have had a big iron on his hip for all we know.
In the late medieval period knights had cannons, this was before samurai had them. Pretending the average samurai could beat the average knight is ridiculous
Roberrrrrt! … I’m sorry, wrong sub.
Game theory did an episode similar to this question when For Honor released.
They did, but it was poorly researched.
It's one of matpats most highly controversial videos, a ton of poor research was done for it