Samurai vs Knight.

[The Lizard Queen]

Medieval knight vs medieval samurai. Pre-use-of-gunpowder weapons, any equipment and weaponry they would normally carry into battle, any period of history.

Assuming both of them are at the top of their game, who would win? And why?

 

[HG 400]

The knight, and it's not even a fair contest.

 

[Doctor Professor Timon]

Medieval knight vs medieval samurai.

Assuming both of them are at the top of their game, who would win?

Samurai, highest mobility - plus a katana used metal-folding that hadn't been used yet in Europe.

Knight has joints the armor that a Samurai would exploit. Depending on the amount of chainmail / leather below the knight's armor, I'd give it to them. But, if they weren't armored out the anus under the plate (as that required money some didn't invest in), the Samurai wins in all cases. So, average vs average? Samurai every time. Samurais dedicated their lives to learning fighting techniques - especially in 1 v 1 scenarios.

 

[Locksnap]

This is such a bizarre, broad question. What constitutes a knight? What constitutes a samurai? These terms have meant quite different things at different times. What time period are they from? Where exactly are they from? What exactly are they armed with?

 

[Azazel]

The Knight probably would win. OP said "At the top of their game" so I take it to mean the Knight would be in top-tier plate armor, with a shield and longsword. Samurais didn't have shields like that and had far less armor. The metal folding thing isn't an advantage either, they had to do that because iron in Japan was so shit-tier they need to fold it in order for it to be worth a damn. Knight wouldn't need to exploit gaps in the joints, he would just shield bash him and then bring his long sword down on his fucking skull and the samurai could do nothing about it. Samurai armor was designed to protect against arrows and glancing spear thrusts, not heavy swords. Knights were surprisingly spry in their plate, known to do cartwheels and flips to show off how well trained they were. You weren't considered worth a damn as a knight unless you could jump onto your horse from the ground. Remember knights had been training in their craft since they were old enough to hold a sword.

If truly at the top of their game, both should be mounted on horseback too, which would give the knight an even bigger advantage because they had better horses with armor, and long lances designed to kill enemy horses or their rider. The Samurai would most likely have a Yumi bow which I don't think would be enough to punch through heavy plate, and a spear which wouldn't be as long as the knight's lance.

 

[HG 400]

The Knight probably would win. OP said "At the top of their game" so I take it to mean the Knight would be in top-tier plate armor, with a shield and longsword. Samurais didn't have shields like that and had far less armor. The metal folding thing isn't an advantage either, they had to do that because iron in Japan was so shit-tier they need to fold it in order for it to be worth a damn. Knight wouldn't need to exploit gaps in the joints, he would just shield bash him and then bring his long sword down on his fucking skull and the samurai could do nothing about it. Samurai armor was designed to protect against arrows, not heavy swords. Knights were surprisingly spry in their plate, known to do cartwheels and flips to show off how well trained they were. You weren't considered worth a damn as a knight unless you could jump onto your horse from the ground. Remember knights had been training in their craft since they were old enough to hold a sword.

If truly at the top of their game, both should be mounted on horseback too, which would give the knight an even bigger advantage because they had better horses with armor, and long lances designed to kill enemy horses or their rider. The Samurai would most likely have a Yumi bow which I don't think would be enough to punch through heavy plate, and a spear which wouldn't be as long as the knight's lance.

The samurai would just shoot the knight because samurai had guns.

 

[Azazel]

The samurai would just shoot the knight because samurai had guns.

True. Like Locksnap said it would really depend what they were armed with. A Knight could just be armed with a crossbow and produce the same results.

Another thing to consider, Samurai were all manlets (Average height -5'3") whereas European Knights were all real men (average height between 6' and 6'5")

Manlets never win.

 

[The Lizard Queen]

This is such a bizarre, broad question. What constitutes a knight? What constitutes a samurai? These terms have meant quite different things at different times. What time period are they from? Where exactly are they from? What exactly are they armed with?

Any knight, any samurai, as long as its pre-gunpowder, using whatever their standard gear was at the time they are from. It could be the bravest knight vs the most honorable samurai, or an average knight vs an average samurai, or any combination. But, who would win?
It's an East-West throwdown folks.

 

[HG 400]

True. Like Locksnap said it would really depend what they were armed with. A Knight could just be armed with a crossbow and produce the same results.

Guns are better than crossbows that's why we all switched to guns.

Any knight, any samurai, as long as its pre-gunpowder, using whatever their standard gear was at the time they are from. It could be the bravest knight vs the most honorable samurai, or an average knight vs an average samurai, or any combination. But, who would win?

Samurai did not exist pre-gunpowder.

 

[The Lizard Queen]

Samurai did not exist pre-gunpowder.

You know what I meant, but I will revise the condition to pre-use of gunpowder based weaponry in their respective cultures.

 

[HG 400]

You know what I meant, but I will revise the condition to pre-use of gunpowder based weaponry in their respective cultures.

Samurai's did not exist before the Senguku period and they always did their killing with introduced western guns.

 

[exball]

Depends on the time period. I personally believe most knights would murder a samurai as historically they were manlet horseback archers who made girly speeches before a fight.

 

[Count groudon]

The knight. Asian people are really tiny plus the knight would probably have like really thick armor and shit.

 

[Hyperion]

Knight. High quality plate armor. 'nuff said.

 

[John Titor]

True. Like Locksnap said it would really depend what they were armed with. A Knight could just be armed with a crossbow and produce the same results.

Another thing to consider, Samurai were all manlets (Average height -5'3") whereas European Knights were all real men (average height between 6' and 6'5")

Manlets never win.

Everyone in the 1450s were manlets.

And my money's on whoever has the longbow. Those things are more terrifying than what pop culture gives them credit for.

 

[BILLY MAYS]

Folded Japanese steel katamas FTW

Also I think OP needs to add a poll.

 

[Azazel]

Everyone in the 1450s were manlets.

No, not everyone. People who were able to afford a diet rich in meat were of course taller than the 5'7" average of the day. Which means....knights. Social status was a huge factor in height in the medieval ages. They've analyzed sets of armors and their weapons and determined most knights were over 6 feet tall if they were going to fit into their armor properly. I doubt they just had them crafted so people generations later wouldn't know they were manlets. Just look at Henry the Eighth for example. Just going by his armor it's obvious the man was over 6 feet. Same with King Edward. It all depended on the diet you were able to eat, and naturally well off knights were going to be feasting on fresh meat since childhood, enhancing their height. Even for the average height of the day, 5'7", was still a good bit taller than the average of the time in Japan, 5'3". Combine that with Scandinavian genetics who were also taller (averaged at 5'11" ) intermingled in the blood line and you start to tower over the Japanese.

Manlets never win.

And while Samurai may have a great bow in the Yumi, it's a toss up as to whether or not they can reliably get a hit that will get through the shield and heavy plate and cause serious injury to the knight. The knight on the other hand can use his crossbow and pretty reliably be expected to punch through a samurai's lamellar armor at 100 yards. Whether it's melee, mounted, or ranged, the knight unequivocally has the advantage.

 

[Jaimas]

Medieval knight vs medieval samurai. Pre-use-of-gunpowder weapons, any equipment and weaponry they would normally carry into battle, any period of history.

Assuming both of them are at the top of their game, who would win? And why?

/tg/ did an extensive series of tests on it. Knight wins handily, then dies due to shit medieval medicine.