WHO WOULD WIN IN A FIGHT???

WHO WOULD WIN IN A FIGHT???

KNIGHT OR SAMURAI?

strawpoll.me/12204394

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo
youtube.com/watch?v=QhF1i23vwps
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>Make an imaginary scenario on a pretty stupid and obvious topic
>Ask for opinions

Knight would go batshit and beat any motherfucker with that huge piece of steel.

Katana might be sharp but without it's edge the european sword is a fucking giant steel club.

The knight. People give too much credit to the samurai. Yes, their katanas were neat, but the iron used to produce them was actually quite substandard. The japanese were just great at making the best of what they had.

Also, the japanese value honor moreso than the knight. The knight would be free to use whatever tactics he wanted, no matter how dirty they were. For the samurai, death itself is honorable, and he would not engage a fight through dishonorable means.

OP here, think about the speed and agility the Samurai has over the Knight, all that weight would wear the Knight down, and if you even wanted you could just run backwards and forwards he gets tired.

Samurai wins.

>without it's edge the european sword is a fucking giant steel club
what? european swords were kept sharp
>all that weight would wear the Knight down
common misconception about plate armor that it great reduces mobility

That is the stupidest fucking shit i ever heard, knights wear their all but 24/7, it is like his second skin. Knight wins, katanas were made with shitty metal and couldn't even dent the knights armor.

samurai would just need to wait until daytime as knights cannot afraid of the sun so even wherever he could win

>as knights cannot afraid of the sun so even wherever he could win
what's your first language?

>Implying the Samurai armour doesn't weight shit
Truth be told, european armor weights more but that doesn't mean necesarily a disadvantage.

Off course they were kept sharp. But the point wasn't that. The Katana's edge is far superior but it weight alone is by far less than the european's one.

So, in the end, the Katana has a disadvantage on strenght and taking the sharpness away you have a stick of steel agaisnt a fucking bat of steel.

true

#SAMURAIWIN

First knights can still be agile in armor because of its desing. Second while blunt weapons and piercing attacks are effective against knight armor a slashing weapon like the samurai sword would be pretty uselless against it

knight

chink "warriors" are no match

Knight would win, Samurai can't defend himself against that much steel.

Nope, every strike the Samurai made would be deflected by steel, knight would gut him.

The knight is a human, not a badly programmed AI. Stop spending so much time playing video games you fucking autistic retard.

Just OP same fagging and bumping his own post. Sad.

chinks and gooks have always lost to the white man

A sword fighting expert who posts on youtube, a nordic chap, with countless hours of sparring experience, believes no contest. NO swordsman without a shield can beat one with. The combination of sword and shield will beat a guy with just a sword most times

that much steel makes him slow and would be tired in a couple of minutes.

this

Knight

>Samurai doesn't have jet fuel to melt all that steel

Fuck your knights and samurai, viking victory! Til vallhal mine brødre!

A knight fights for booty. A samurai fights so that a geisha might let him hang out with her for an hour if he has the money.
Pic related even the Japanese have seen the error in their ways.

Yeah, well, tell that to Alexander.

On the other hand there is a possibility the Samurai could close the distance. If he got close enough to force hand to hand, he could win, as Katana's are far superior to a knight's blade close up.

>alexander the great fought the chinese

>Alexander
>White
Pick only one.

He was Greek and those faggot's aren't white.

Naruto wins

10000 redcoats or 1000 US Marines would destroy them both. So would a sun made of ice.

Sorry, but most knights were trained in steel for years. Plus armor is something you learn to use, if you don't know how to use it that might be true, but if you know how to move, moving in it is not hard.

So... a skinny underfed chink with a shitty sword and armor vs a bigger more healthy white man wearing better armor with a better sword and a shield. Shit man idk this is so hard.

Are you shitting me, OP? The samurai will be lucky if he even hurts the knight.

>implying Alexander was white.

I'd vote knight if we are talking full gear and garb. Simply due to resources of the time plate armour would deflect a Katana and chain mail beneath would protect against all but a stab. So really knight has an easy time.

In casual garb with just a sword and shield? Samurai everytime.

right but also wrong
alexander not white. also not truly greek

>samurai
U
kort va hammarens skaft hos deb segrande Tor blott en aln långt va svärdet hos frej det är nog har du mod gå din fiende när och för kort är din klinga då ej

The point of a fight is to defeat the other you jackass, you think the samurai would run in circles while the knight chases him like a retard till he gets exhausted? Like are you stupid? The knight wont get tired, samurais are weak. He could literally just stand there without moving and as soon as the samurai gets close fuck him up. Saying a samurai will win against a knight because of speed is like saying a 5'6 tall manlet who does tae kwon do will beat a heavy weight boxer because of his speed. Its bullshit.

>skinny and underfed
Hahahaha.
No.
>Shitty sword
No pt. 2, Samurai blades were well made, and given what they had to work with, they were a marvel of metallurgy.
The knight would still probably win, but only if he could keep the Samurai back. If the Samurai got really close, all he'd need to do is pull the neck up for a half second and its RIP sir white boi

>Greek
Shiggy

Its actually not, you can force Knights to chase you easily, historically all that armor and nobility made them cocky and headstrong, forcing them on the offensive was not difficult, and Samurai, while never having as good of steel or armor as Europeans, were never weaker physically, stop being a fucking moron.

>a samurai with a katana can beat a knight who has a shield and a superior weapon
do you know anything about sword fights?

>Asians are better at warfare than whites

If you mean that white people have never won a war against Asians, then sure.

Knights nearly always don't. It's what they do do though, that's the thing.

Whites have fancier tech, but thats the only reason they took over the world, they wont the resource lottery.

eh, debatable. One of the tactics of European sword fighting is to literally hold the blade and club with the handle.

Really? You're really asking who would win between a white warrior and an Asian dog? Pffft.

That was kind of the point of martial arts actually. Look up how Brazilian jiu jitsu started and why it has become so popular.

Little dude pummels big dude with training.

That was for fighting heavy armor when you had a blade. Blades are next to worthless against metal plates.

Historically would a samurai run away from a one on one fight and circle around? Are you fucking kidding me? Knights were in no way retarded. OP is talking 1 on 1. Knight would win.

Knights were dude. Do you know how many times knights died because they charged in headstrong because
>MUH CHESTPLATE
>horse takes an arrow to the eye, get caught on the ground and popped like a zit with a stake
>I'VE FALLEN AND I CAN'T GET UP

if you're talking literally equipped with op image then not wearing gauntlets is a major disadvantage

>Historically would a samurai run away from a one on one fight and circle around
A Shamefur Dispray!

kind of. I think whites sort of went too far with the warfare thing in general when the rest of the world was looking to make peace. It was mostly timing.

I'm just saying that you couldn't really hold a samurai blade the same way without cutting yourself to shreds.

Didnt mean shitty in that way but the shield and sword offers so much more protection than a simple katana plus knight has armor.

Come on guys, the knight would win 8 times out of ten, but give the samurai some credit. Samurai are skilled with the bow as well so there is a possibility that they could kill the knight from range. And even if it did come down to close quarters, and taking into account the fact that the katana is made for slashing, the katana wasn't the only sword a samurai carried. I think that every so often a samurai would get a good stab in with the other sword, which would have every chance of piercing a knight's armor.

No they didn't, the purchased the resources they needed to secure access to better resources elsewhere which would guarantee them an advantage on the continent which eventually forced them to take by force the resources that foreign markets tried to manipulate or that random ass adventurers would try to monopolize.

It is a battle of brute strength vs. cunning. I think the samurai would find a weak spot in the armor and go for that while dodging the knight's awkward lumbering swings

They were back then.

In a straight up battle where they both just go at it, knight wins. In the same 1v1 but as a duel (such as for land or women), I honestly believe the samurai would win. In a battle, the two sides would just hack at each other. In a duel, more is riding on the outcome of the fight and it's on a smaller scale. I think the samurai would do what any other lightly armored opponent would do vs heavy armor: keep out of reach, knock the knight over, make him swing and miss a lot, make him fight in the heat of the day, etc. until an opening presented itself. A knight would be overconfident in a duel, but that's a mistake because the real value of armor is in unassigned random damage such as charging opponents and random arrows. Heavy armor vs a focused opponent? Not a chance.

Knight. Asians are weak beta males

Using this scenario, a duel would likely last hours as the knight continued to try to killl the samurai. Then he lifts his visor to breathe and wipe sweat out of his eyes. There's your opening.

A knight's swings weren't slow or awkward. Knights werent about brute strength either. You know they trained and practiced a lot right? Also dodging? Are you serious? How often do you watch anime or play rpg games?

So are anglos, so...

tfw all of those areas were conquered before the british empire existed.

Knight, hands down. Jist think about it people. The average jap height and weigjt vs european? The knight is much mich larger, just fact. Also, plate armor nigga. I mean to really talk about this, please define era, size of opponents, weapon types, etc. Anyone who watches ufc knows its never a sure thing. I mean imagine a young frenchy with a long sword. U get a big fuckin jap with a kanabo and that yellow fucker is gunna crush the knight in no time. Please refine you question parameters

Watch this then
youtube.com/watch?v=vwuQPfvSSlo

You dont just dodge a sword m8 and wym knock the knight over? You know how much they weight? The samurai would have to get close.

Knight would have the advantage easily.
Larger size and better armor.

They had some agility, but were counting on fighting against other people in plate armor. There are tons of videos of knight fighting techniques that regularly take advantage of how cumbersome the armor actually was. Not to mention exploiting the openings and weaknesses.

Anglos are pretty weak tbh.

Interesting video it's always nice to learn how things were actually done not the shit show in movies.
Ill bet most people think swords were swung blade agianst blade like u see all the time in movies.

Would like to see him do that with a samurai sword.

A thinking mans post, i like it.

Also, lol@all the morons ITT who think bigger = better

He was Macedonian

Samurais wouldn't stand a chance.

youtube.com/watch?v=QhF1i23vwps

see: Vietnam

shittiest wallmart medieval armor ever. at least make an effort, op.

>here, take this

>pict somewhat related

>no sabatons

"Whites" were not who wrote Art of War...

By the time they needed to purchase things, the English were already a massive power and could force control over the resources savages held.

Katanas can't penetrate armour. Knight wins every time. If you use agility as an argument to tire the knight out, like OP, that's retarded. The knight isn't going to follow a samurai around without maiming the fucker. European swords were made to pierce. Katanas aren't tough. They break and can't penetrate. No matter how sharp they are.

Nice shoes

"Japs" aren't who wrote On War...

>military texts don't necessarily mean victory
>especially when said text is mostly just philosophy that equates to a chinky version of chivalry

holy shit did someone link the pol to Sup Forums?
knight wins every time. fucking katanas were made for slashing, not so much stabbing. plate armor wins.

>implying armor is impenetrable and doesnt have weak points

You do know the need to be able to move right? And noone is just gonna sit there and whack away at the man covered in metal right?

>chinky version of chivalry
kek

It's always the knight. Samurai are great and all, but they're built for a different sort of warfare.

Never said there aren't weak points retard. Katanas legit can't pierce shit dumb cunt. Knights are able to move more easily then you must think lmao do some research
Tell me one thing a magical samurai god can do that would take down a peasant knight

Hay humans, ghe katana was a last resort weapon or was ment to be uses in those with out armor. They had numerus othet weapons.

2-handers were state of the art before guns took over. it was essentially a pole arm, swords were primarily stabbing weapons, so nobody could get near him. reach, reach, reach.

"chink in the armor"

go look up chivalry retard, knights and samurai were both pretty autistic about honor and codes of conduct

If anything youve go that backwards

Samurai, because who wants to have a sword fight when you can just shoot the enemy?

And ronin, hedge knights, and merc knights disobeyed their codes more often than not lmao

Sumaurai.. I know spelling..
Used to train in hand to hand much more than say an 11century Knight. Any input for me?
I think that kind of decides it.

>implying knights didn't have guns
>implying euros didn't introduce true hand held firearms to japan

yeah, because obviously the knight would be chasing the samurai around