@@teyenzazindorji2684 Kinda true, but they used tachi instead which isn't a whole lot different, and you could say that it was actually polearms that were their main weapon but this goes for all warriors, once you're in a duel and not a formation, you're gonna want your sword because polearms aren't as useful as you'd think in a 1v1, and this is where longsword vs tachi comes in. The main issue alot of people dont understand is thay samurai Is quite a broad term and to my knowledge applied to basically most feudal Japanese warriors, where as knights were at the very very top of the chain, you hear knight and you think of full steel armour but in truth many warriors had full steel, such as man-at-arms, knights just had the best of the best. People gotta realise that in battle, the enemy would for the most part actually avoid killing knights because of how extremely hard to kill they are and also because you can capture them instead, which means you can ransom them back for big money which is obviously alot better than killing them, this speaks to their value, as a Knight you had very little concern of being killed, because you'd essentially be a juggernaut who can run.
Yeah also katana’s weren’t even really made for combat they were more so a vanity item. Spears and other long ranged melee weapons were much more commonly used for combat since they are superior to swords like katanas and medieval European swords in most ways.
Katana cut much more better than a knight sword, but katana have curves while swords not, swords required brute force to be able to cut an armor, but katana was specialized to cut flesh smoothly
@@TheSpeedyLoonyCanoli that's why I say katana isn't the perfect one for mauling enemy armour's, but for hitting open/soft spots, while Europe sword will cut through armor if you put brutes force on the swing/stab
Most Samurais use light, weaker armor for more maneuverability, when the Europeans attempted to trade with them, they didn't really care for their armor but rather the fashion of their helmets. Of course later on, they used heavier armor but it was no where near matching the defense and strong weaponry of the knights
@@BeardsandBeeractually you got a tad wrong. Samurai armor is almost always heavier than Medieval Armor. Mind you the Average Metal Plate Knight Armor weighed 40 pounds and was fairly dispersed amongst the body so it feels even lighter and easier. It also didn't really prevent a lot of maneuverability or agility. Samurai armor for most of the time was extremely heavy only the first generation of Samurai had very light armor that made agility very essential. But the armor was not all that good. Most Samurai armors can weigh 60-80 pounds and most of the weight on shoulders and backs which will cause it to feel even heavier than it is and limits your speed and agility. Knights seem in most time periods superior to Samurai due to technology, training, and equipment just being better.
2 месяца назад
@@fistfightersclubdidn’t they use compressed paper for their armor for a time?
The experience goes to the knight, because in Europe they had enemies not only in Europe, but also in the Middle East and Asia, while the samurai only fought against the Japanese since the country was closed to the rest of the world.
Knights mostly fought knights,Japan also fought against other people Europeans even hired Japanese mercenaries as bodyguard our soldiers have been quite the reputation.
@@eagle162 knights fought Saracens, Moors, Vikings, Magyars, Landsknecht mercenaries, pesants, Nomadic invaders, Baltic pirates, Baltic Tribes, Slavic tribes, Gaelic tribes, actually a lot of different peoples. And Japanese hired European mercenaries because we were good at making stuff go boom boom. Plus, Europe was in a perpetual arms race on a continental scale so our way of war was always rapidly advancing rather than stagnating like in the rest of the world.
@@thicclegendfeep4050 you serious,you really just put peasant on the list, Vikings and knights no, actually it's more like Vikings evolve into knights, Viking era ended because of the spread of Christianity and more defined kingdoms,nomads Invaders those basically were knights or early proto knights,landsknecht mercenaries came around by the time Knights were starting to die out and basically was one the reasons for that,saracens I know you're talkin about the crusades only two of those can be considered to accomplish something even in at the end it was a failure and most foreign wars in failure,moors okay now this is a complex topic (I'll share a video later) but basically Christian and Muslim Kingdom fought side-by-side each other against other Christian and Muslim different from the common image people think. Samurai also fought different people. There are no examples of European mercenaries in Japan and actually firearms showed up earlier in Japan before contact with the west that story with the Portuguese is a myth. You really got to brush up on world history then. Here's the video. ruclips.net/video/ijvkJDLhYZs/видео.html
@@eagle162you are right in many things, but most of the time Japanese fought Japanese. There were exceptions but most of the times when japanese in times of samurais fought with foreign countries or empires they didn't do very well.
Samurai armor is a lot heavier than people think and knight armor was a lot more lighter and maneuverable than people think But it varies between the type of samurai and knight armor (thanks to Michaelbrooks3220 for the armor types take)
@@THE_NEW_CRUSADER Knight equipment was actualy much lighter than the package of the average soldier today(around 30 kilos for an average french soldier, versus 21 kilos for an armor and 25 max if you include the sword).
@@marzeilliyaaj8816 Knight armor where actualy pretty light, only 21 kilos maximum, in comparison, the average frenche soldier's stuff is around 29/30 kilos.
No. Know what you're talkin about that's unlikely to have ever happened, also Japanese mercenaries were hired by Europeans and SE ancient kingdoms as body guards or soldiers having quite the reputation.
@@eagle162 Aleksandr Lekšo Saičić Successfully defeated a Japanese Imperial officer in a duel during the Russo-Japanese war. Only one Japanese “Samurai” ever fought in a “European” war, and that was during the Russo-Turkish war. I know exactly what Im talking about and I can provide sources. Take your weeaboo lies elsewhere.
@@eagle162knights never fought samurais, but europeans sailors yes, and even in duels europeans earned a good reputation in Japan, mostly in harbors like Nagasaki.
Samurai warriors fought as teenagers. Yoshihiro Shimazu is old yet he still fought the Ming army with only a portion of an army. These dudes live and die in the battlefield like the Knights.
Neither were flat out fighters....they both are nobles who were "expected " to fight well in war and if you read book you will learn that the comman man with a long stick was able to kill both these elite warriors pretty easily
@teyenzazindorji2684 If knights and samurai were so easy to kill they wouldn't have formed the core of their respective culture's militaries for the better part of a millennium.
I love how people say “knight” and ignore how weapons and armors evolved in hundreds of years “knights” were a thing But yeah, Knights win, their whole kit was designed to fight other people in armor and being as flexible as it could be to fight armored enemies of many different cultures unlike Samurais who were only taught how to fight other samurais and would be out of their element
@@Hk-ox4bb Yeah a knight in any era would destroy a samurai just because they fought different types of cultures and a longsword is way better against armour than a katana because it could be turned into a makeshift warhammer whilst both these weapons were actually rare to see in a battlefield even the simple lance would destroy the samurai on the charge and european armour and the shields would make the bow and arrow useless
@@aeoncalcos7830Hi, I study both feudal Japan pre Edo period and Europe's medieval period since I was in highschool. I'm here to personally tell you that a knight would flat out win, because in short knights had way more resources to use than the samurai. Something people forget to factor is the Samurai did with what little they had, since they couldn't trade with anyone. This means a lot of their gear was lower quality than what the average knight had.
Sorry but I study samurai and knights night and day and realize that samurai will win think about oda and shingen a really skilled samurai vs a really skilled knight a samurai could out minover the knight and probably break through his armor due to it being flat remember. skilled samurai have been trained by a master rank at the age five until they are grown and there armor is lighter so they are faster and there armor is very strong
I love how there are so many debates here, and all samurai sided debates usually revolve around 3 things. 1: Guns. Guns back then were powerful to be sure, but they also are a single shot cannon. Yes, they are still dangerous, but good luck hitting a knight who is moving, with one shot, with a gun that isn't very accurate, in a place that is fatal. Not saying they weren't effective, and they were incredibly deadly, but they aren't as big of a game changer that samurai enthusiasts think they are. 2: Samurai are faster than knights. Jack squat they are. Medieval armor and samurai battle armor weigh roughly the same (There is medieval jousting armor that is thicker and heavier, but that's for ceremonial jousting, not battles.) and if they do weigh the same, knights win in both speed and defense. Europeans made armor for joints that follow the body's natural bend, allowing for armor that protects the joints, and allows almost free movement. Samurai gear usually left joints free from armor for movement, lowering defense, or they made armor that made it uncomfortable to move in, covering joints, but losing agility. If I were to compare the armor, I would say that medieval armor is basically an exoskeleton following the human anatomy's movement, protecting and allowing movement in all parts of the armor, while the samurai armor is more like multiple shields strapped to parts of the body that don't need to hinge or move. (I know these are slight exaggerations, but you get the point.) All in all, Either knights and samurai tie in speed and knights win in defense, if the samurai expose joints. Or, if samurai wear their more protective gear, knights still win in defense, but not as strongly, and knights win in speed and agility. Medieval armor is not the tin bucket most people think they are. 3: Vision. People say you can't see squat when you wear a medieval armet, barbute, sallet etc etc. This is true for helmets like the frog mouth, that is designed to basically be bolted to the chest piece. The eye vision is low, because the eye slit is small and angled upward. The frog mouth specifically is designed to do these things purposefully, as it is not a battle helmet. It is a helmet that you wear during a jousting match, where you only need to see where the enemy jouster is, and aim your lance at their shield. You don't need to move your head, because the enemy is always in front of you. If you could move your neck, and if you fall of your horse, you could snap your neck at worst, and at best, get bad whiplash. Breathability is also so terrible in the frog mouth that you can only wear it for a few minutes because the only breathing hole is the visor. This helmet isn't meant for battle. The helmets I mentioned, armet, barbute, sallet, are meant for battle. You are protected at the neck by chain and with small steel plates that allow you to turn your head freely while still protecting, no matter where you are looking. That is the maneuverable part of your vision, but what about actual sight? You can barely see out of that tiny eye slit, right? Wrong. I wear homemade helmets all the time, and, admitted, sometimes I trip over a box because I cannot see my feet. However, vision is a lot higher than you think. Some people think that when you wear a sallet, which is the helmet used in this video, you could only see roughly 1/3 to a half of the samurai fighting right in front of you. This is a myth. Don't believe me? Put your hands in front of your face sideways, palms away from your face, with your middle fingers touching. Now bend your middle fingers. you will get a hole between your pointer and ring finger that is probably 16-20 mms wide(According to google). touch your nose with your pointer fingers, so that your fingers are a little bit away from your face. You've just made yourself your own makeshift visor. If that is how much you can see from your helmet, you do lose some vision down and up, but not a lot. You could probably see the samurai's entire body if you were standing two swords length from each other. I am a big history nerd, and love both the knights and the samurai(Albeit I do like the knights better). For some reason people think that medieval armor is supposed to be tanky, slow, impossible to maneuver, but defensive. In reality, medieval armor was nothing short of artistry with how intricately it was made.
Earlier knights typically had pretty basic armor compared to the fully blinged out late medieval ones. That being said, the same also goes for samurai. Either way knights tended to have better coverage and more steel as a part of their armor (almost like europe was rich in iron!) so generally I think they win throughout most of history
@@jooot_6850 that’s my thought process as well. They both grew stronger and richer throughout history, but it seemed that Europeans were farther forwards armor technology wise because of them being rich in iron, and also there was steep competition in Europe as all nations were basically surrounded by other enemy nations. This meant that they had to improve their armor and weaponry very quickly.
@@eagle162Europe had much better education then Japan due to its greeco roman roots. The communication with the middle east helped significantly as well
@@rayzas4885that kind of culture does not even start to show up again in medieval Europe until the Renaissance with the fall of the Byzantine empire. What little was there before was about learning Latin not that useful outside of areas that also learn it, even byzantines weren't big on Latin. Europeans themselves had a high opinion of Japanese society, people and culture.
Katana's weren't even used as a sword, they were used as a last stand weapon. Samurai's were cavalry based. Meaning that they used Guns, Spears, and Bows.
Knight's are more useful in h2h combat, they had longswords, flails, maces, and shields to protect them, knight armor isn't really that heavy. It just looks like it is
It's unbelievable how little people know about both Samurai and Knight. Seriously? IQ goes to Samurai, and Battle IQ goes to Knights? Speed on the Samurai and Durability on the Knight?
@comradekarlvonschnitzelste8218 isolated how? 16th century, you find the Samurai all across East Asia. As pirates against the Ming, or as Mercenaries in SEA, or even launching an invasion in Korea. This isolation myth has been debunked many times by looking into outside sources.
@@eagle162they look at what they needed to do For example: knights had to be as strategy savvy as they were strong, because not only did they have to protect their lords land, but command their own smaller armies as well. And they were basically just rich noblemen in armor with access with the best education europe had to offer However samurai’s were more prone to more creative warefare (I’m sure there’s a bunch of other reasons as to why their smart but I’m not as knowledgeable of samurai as I am knights)
Average medieval knight would dog a samurai. A samurai would have to land a well place hit between the knights armour to kill let alone injure him whereas samurais armour wouldn't be able to tank many hits from a longsword. Equivalent of a us soldier with a bazooka 1v1ing a tiger tank
@@anamarveloFor most of medieval history fighting by both of them was done with lances and bows. Samurai preferred to use bows but they did usually have some form of spear or polearm for charges. Knights rarely used bows and instead picked up a lance alongside multiple other melee weapons. Since both were usually on horseback, said melee weapons could strike with the full force of a moving horse, especially with couched lances that transferred a ton of energy
@@jooot_6850 They did use lances though typically only when on horse back. Otherwise they would use things such as maces to bash armor to pierce it and crumple it
It may seem like a good argument, but knights would easily win against a samurai for the simple reason that long swords were made to pierce armor, while katanas (Japanese swords) were made for cutting, and therefore, incapable of piercing plate armor.
The knights were mostly noble man with the best education in almost all scientific subjects at the time. People underate that. The samurai's were well educated as well even though not as well as the knights , but used pretty smart tactics against there opponents.
Well I mean if we use the ones in the video then the Knight whos in acutal armour and has a helmet is obviously going to win against a samurai in his undergarments and a single crudely crafter shoulder pad.
any century the knight would win it just comes down to better training and better equipment and just being more physically robust and more menuverable than the samurai due to equally distributed weight and throughout histoey the average samuri was 5 foot 3 with a smaller wing span but just as easy to hit because of their crappy hevier than knight armour and with undistrebuted weight that made it hevier and feel worse to wear and made their movments slow samurai were some of the worst warriors in history ancient bronze age fighter could probably have a better chance of winning than the samurai they are just romanticized because of animae now
Nah knight wins flatout. Better technology, better weapons, better armor, better training, plus the samurai wouldnt be able to even penetrate the knights armor. The knight prob would be able to penetrate the samurais armor but even if they couldnt the knights practiced against other heavily armored opponents cause they occasionally fought other knights.
> better technology Lol nope. The Samurai existed as soldiers and as a class long enough to use gatling guns and rifles. > better armor Ehh, barely > better training No > better weapons No, because both fought usually different kinds of warfare and therefore had different needs.
@@randomelite45621-los caballeros ya usaban armas de Fuego antes de la primera Invasión mongala (que fué atraves de los Mongoles que los Nippones obtuvieron las armas de fuego), siendo que estás ya eran más avanzadas, de mejor calidad y mayor calibre que las Japóneses, éso sin contar que los Caballeros siguieron existiendo cómo Casta de Combate asta bien entrado la Era Renacentista. 2-las Armaduras Europeas fueron de las más avanzadas y de mejor calidad de la historia, mientras que las armaduras Nopponas, aún que buenas y avanzadas para las necesidades de un país insular, con pocos recursos naturales y cerrado a todo como Japón, quedaban bastante cortas y primitivas acomparación de las europeas: sólo tienes que hacer una comparativa entre las Armaduras de Placas Õ-yoroi (que eran de las mejores armaduras de Placas Japonesa en cuanto a protección se refería) y la Armadura de Placas de Acero o Armadura Blanca Europea :v. 3-si, la gran mayoría de Caballeros pertenecía a una Casta o Orden: siendo entrenados desde niños en murtiples regímenes de entrenamiento y estrategia tanto propias de los europeos, cómo provenientes de Oriente Medio y Asia, aún que el entrenamiento de los Samuráis no es broma. 4-tienes un punto hay, es verdad que dependiendo de la circunstancia y necesidades, los Caballeros y Samuráis usarían diferentes Armas, aún que también es verdad que los Caballeros estaban más avanzados en cuanto a armas Pesadas y de distancia se refiere; Martillo de Guerra. Lucero del Alba. Mengual. Mayal. Arco Largo. Ballesta. murtiples armas de fuego cómo Pistolas, Arcabuzes, Cañones de mano Etc.
@@randomelite4562 samurai used leather in the armor with metal but knights had pure steel also poleaxe just sitting there also the armor deflected musket shots and the knights are trained since childhood as squires
@@crusaderanimations > Armor deflected shots Only late Renaissance/Early modern plate armor did that, and only the expensively made ones. The Samurai made bullet-resistant/proofed armor as well, based on European designs. Samurai armor was mostly steel as well, with extra materials being used to actually form it together.
A knight would floor a samurai almost every time. Besides the fact their weapons and armour were of much higher quality, knights trained almost their entire lives for the role and were far more agile than people give them credit for. The only advantage a samurai really has is range
I do agree with you. But i also wanna mention, Samurai were trained from childhood because Samurai were a warrior class. Being the most capable warrior was a big thing for them. Knights in the other hand. Kinda depends on the family. Many knights were lower nobility, and usually they are taught more important things first. Especially if the young noble is the firstborn son.
As someone who studies the samurai a lot, and dislikes anime a lot. This fight would actually be extremely difficult to figure out. Because sure while a knight from the 11th century might beat a Warrior Monk. An 11th century knight wouldn’t beat a 12th century samurai because they utilized the long bow, which would likely pierce the metal the knight used because of how strong the bows blow was. You must also realize that Legendary Samurai Unifier/Leader Oda Nobunaga armed his men with matchlock muskets in the 16th century. The samurai then continued to use Tanegashima (musket) for over 200 years. Also, we must realize that Knights were already high in rank and had already received high amounts of training, because one couldn’t be a knight till they surpassed page and squire. Samurai however were more of a military than an official rank. Let’s put this fight more into detail. If an Ashigaru fought a knight, then they would lose as they’re the lowest trained and ranked samurai, as it consisted of mostly peasants, it’d be the equivalent to a footman. However, if a Knight Fought a Hatamoto Samurai, then it would be a very close battle, as Hatamoto Samurai were considered high in ranking, loyalty, and were very experienced individuals, they were literally willing to kill themselves rather than have their lord (lord as in Daimyo , not lord as in God) die. If a knight fought a Daimyo, then the Daimyo would likely win, as they’re some of the highest respected, trained, and experienced people in Japan who had regional influence. If a knight fought a shogun, then they would’ve surely been destroyed, as a shogun earned their rank from the emperor for winning major battles, so they had complete control over the Samurai and practically the entire island of Japan.
@@SOJTSTthe tanegashima is literally a European musket, so you could argue at the time of oda nobunaga the Europeans were more advanced and had better weaponry and armour. A knight from the 16th century was practically impenetrable even the joints were covered by folding plates. And a yari was still inferior to a halberd and other pole-arms as the penetrative power and cutting power was less than European polearms. In short Japanese armies had a number advantage with fanatical soldiers, but Europeans had better equipment which made it far easier to survive a battle. Hell the Japanese even copied breastplate designs to be able to tank a shot from a musket. But it is difficult to say who would win as fighters varied in skill however if we look at equipment for each time period comparing the two then starting from 1400 the Europeans would win without a doubt.
Well it's also funny cause if you read what the other people are saying clearly they know nothing about either group lmao and just looked up the samurai's greatest failures before commenting and nothing else😂
This debate would be accurate if it was for honor knight vs for honor samurai, however in real life no samurai would use a katana against the knights, alot of people think that katanas was the main weapon of the samurai, and thats wrong. They either used spears (like nobushi does in for honor) or their cannon gun.
@@CharLie_69 False. While they were a little more effective against armor, you'd have to strike the same spot several times to get any decent effect. There's an idea that maces and hammers were the end to plate armor but in reality it still took a lot of effort to dent or damage it.
Everyone talking about the difference of swords when swords were hardly used by the samurai themselves in battle because they were primarily horse mounted archers.
Never liked this comparison. katanas had shorter range, were heavier, and were made with lower quality steel, not to mention European armor was literally impenetrable to swords (not an exaggeration). Real samurai were cavalry units, they weren't meant to brawl with European knights hahah
@@OfTheOldArtsWell they were horseback archers in the earlier period, as the later periods came around, they became very versatile. Many were simply heavy infantry or ground based skirmishers with bows and then later guns, and some were also shock cavalry that relied more on charging in with spears then riding around with a bow.
no es que la Katana sea más pesada o más corta que la típica espada Larga, ambas miden y pesan aproximadamente lo mismo: más de un metro de largo y entre 1-2 kilos de pesó, lo de que la Katana es más pesada es por que su pesó está dirigido a la hoja (cómo un Bracamarte o un Machete), mientras que la espada larga tenía su pesó distribuido entre la hoja y el pomo, por esto es que la Katana se siente más “Pesada” cuando se usa, apesar de que pesa lo mismo que una Espada larga XD.
I mean the longsword was more maneuverable and had more utility's. It also had better overall offense due to its great poking ability along with good cutting. A katana just has good cutting which is great against leather but aginst a plate knight? No. Also how is one smarter than the other lol.
Either would be more maneuverable,katana also was use for thrusting and was good at it, samurai never leather and also use plate the key to fighting in plate is to attack the weak points that goes for both.
@@eagle162 this is un true. While the katana can still peirce and stab it is less effective due to its less desirability shaped point. It is also not double edged like a longsword making it inable to back swing. The long sword is overall faster because it can swing one way then come back the other way just as deadly where the katana requires you to turn the blade around or reset to a different striking position. The long sword is worse at cutting but is faster. The katana is worse at poking but has great balance and edge alignment properties. However a slash from both is deadly on skin and leather but infective on armor. Where a maneuverable pierce is more effective which the longsword is more for. This is an unfair comparison though as the katana was more of a ceremonial weapon or a trophy than a side arm like the short/long sword. A better comparison would be the cross naginata to the halbird/spear as they were primary weapons. The cross naginata had good defensive properties with its cross working as a guard similar to the longsword and it had devastating cuts with its weight and thick katana like blade and it's weight also made those cuts hurt as if a Slightly less effective hammer on armour. Axe halbirds are less defensive with no cross guard but have great poking with there point extending past the axe section and the axe but could dish out massive damage however it had no curve and easy edge alignment. These weapons are imo on par with each other. The pole hammer is in its own area as it's to strong to compare to anything. It was effective against everything and was only missing a cross guard. Easy solution to that is just out reach the openent with the long ass spike.
@@disparu6007 no it was not less effect you want me to show you videos of katana thrusting I can,Whether a sword is single-edged or double-edged has very little to do with how well it can be used for a thrust. The bigger considerations are the shape of the tip and the alignment between the tip and the handle. The back of the blade can be use as a blunt weapon and turning around is pretty easy, again it was used against armor pretty much the same way as a longsword. No it was not a ceremonial weapon, countries across Asia even adopted Japanese swords for combat use. Japan have more pole weapons than that including pole-Hammer like ones
@@eagle162 when did I say the katana can't thrust? I just said it's worse at it due to its strange curve and point location. The longsword was worse at cutting . The longsword however was also faster due to its ability to back swing. Meaning it doest have to turn around to swing back effectively. Also the back of a katana was a terrible blunt weapon, it's to thin with little weight for impact. It's pummel would be more effective for a hammer hit. However the longsword does a better job being a hammer using its pummel as it's has more weight shifted down there and commonly had a round ball attached to the bottom of the guard.
@@disparu6007 II didn't say you said that,I said it was wasn't less effective which it wasn't. LongSword is not faster. No it was not terrible at all it had weird and did not have all the same kind of thickness same story with longsword. Blunt weapons don't even need to be super heavy to deal damage. Different pommels existed, same story with longswords, in fact they were smaller then earlier one-handed sword's pommels and the longer the blade the smaller was the pommel.
Though, a knight was absolutely not undisciplined - they were very well-trained and tough to take on, since their training started during their childhood and they were knighted around ten years later, typically about age 20 - 22 if I remember correctly.
That's actually untrue, they were about equally disciplined, and samurai had more equipment, my problem with this argument is all of the variables that have to be addressed to have a fair fight, like location and equipment.
My friend and I got into an argument about a knight vs a samurai. He argued that a katana is so sharp and would cut through plate armor. Which is ridiculous, and everyone else sided with him.
What would the difference between IQ and Battle IQ even be in this context? No one is wondering whether or not the samurai are good at math or something. Battle IQ is the only thing that matters here.
Fr. This comparison doesn’t make any sense. Let’s make it right here. Durability: knight - steel armors Speed: samurai - less armor weight and the weapon is less heavier Strenght: none - strenght is something that depends on the person Skill: samurai - a samurai is literally born to be a warrior like an spartan, they’re trained to be the perfect warriors since they’re babies Iq: none - depends on the person Battle iq: knight - samurai followed a code of honor which always logically nerfed them, and knight can do anything to win the fight Weapon: samurai - the katana is the most iconic sword of all time for a reason … Ar the end of the day they honestly wouldn’t fight at all since both sides are quite similar: higher ranked men that sworn to protect their people
Speed: a knight's armor was pretty light only 35-55 pounds and that was equal around the whole body Skill: have you ever read a medivial sword manual? Those things are fucking insane "I fiercely kick you in the balls" Fiore Dei Liberi (look at me being a nerd!) Iq/battle iq: this can't be measured so fuck this category Weapon: yeah its iconic due to anime can I ask you a question? How come I have only ever seen katana's (historically) being used in Japan? I assure you it's not because Japan was good at keeping secrets its because a longsword could do the same thing, was a lot cheaper AND could do more stuff (due to 2 sided blade) and due to the fact that the longsword exists and being better due to EVERYONE having it (meaning everyone was testing things it could and couldn't do) the longsword logically is a better weapon Also with the "iconic" argument Ceasar was one of the most iconic commanders ever Last I checked he was assassinated by his friends
@Ace-br8kd let me correct you as a historian you are horrifically wrong. 1. Durability does go to knights but rarely did they have steel armor. Steel would not be heavily used by Europeans (minus Vikings) late Industrial Era due to we figured out how to make it then. Vikings only made it by traditional and accident. 2. Speed goes to knights I have had the privilege of wearing both armors and Knights is by far faster and lighter. European plate armor for knights weighed 40 pounds. Most Samurai armor weighs 60-80 pounds. And while the Plate Armored Knights the weight is evenly dispersed along the body which makes it feel lighter and helps speed and ahility. The Samurai had most of the weight on back and shoulders making it feel heavier than it was and making them much slower. 3. The Average European had more strength than the Average Japanese citizen due to the better diets, sizes, and overall healthiness. 4. You say Samurai are like Spartans and trained to always be warriors but this is wrong. Samurai were like knights mainly trained for war but also taught how to run their lands since both were warriors that were Nobels. During times of peace they would manage their lands as Lords. Mind you thought Europeans were taught more skills and had more advanced ways and technology that helped branch their skills. Also comparing Samurai to Spartans is an insult to Spartans as Samurai faced some of the softest training when compared to Spartans. 5. IQ goes to knights but that is most cause Europe was much more advanced than Japan and had more opportunities to learn and expand. And diet too can help IQ but matters little here. 6. Battle IQ does not matter due to a code. And buddy Knights has a code too 😂. I am starting to think you don't know history. But Knights had more Battle IQ due to more types of enemies they fight, how more advanced and dangerous the technology was and overall just how much more warfare they had. 7. Weapons easily go to the knight and its not close. Let's compare the Katana to the Longsword shall we? The Katana is slower and weaker because the Katana is only a slicing weapon, hardly piercing. This leaves it to slice while the Longsword can slash, pieces and bludgeon. The Katana was heavier and slower due to how it was constructed most of the weight on the Katana is in the blade meaning when you swing it is harder to stop and control it while most of the weight on the Longsword is in the hilt where your hands are making it faster. The Longsword is a whole 10 pounds lighter too. I have used both and can say the Longsword is better along with most European knights weapons while Samuria kinda lack in that since they didn't need to innovate on that too much or have many other weapons. Also the Katana is far from the most iconic since google searches show that in every year since 2010 the Long sword gets more searches, more references and is used a lot more than the katana. At the end of the day the Knight is just superior and that is due to one simple fact. War. Europeans had alot more enemies, did not isolate themselves and fought a range of new enemies that caused them to constantly evolve in war. Japan for most of its history has been isolated and only fighting each other. They don't have a good track record fighting other countries especially in the age of samurai. You failed history or just spun a narrative.
@@anamarveloyeah their guns were outdated to the ones in Europe at the time. Since they were a closed minded nation that didn’t want anything to do with the outside
Knights werent stupid and slow, nor were they not the best with offence, they were highly trained, heavily equipped, fast and deadly. A katana wouldnt penetrate their armor, making the samari close to useless
both the knight and samurai rode horses into battle, i think the knight would win because combining thr weight of a fully plated horse, a fully plated person , a lance and a sword would destroy the samurai
@@powerbox5451 I agree but gengis khan showed how effective hit and run is so in 1v1 I on horse I think samuri might win in any other situation however yeah knight
@@powerbox5451 also I just remeberd knights went extinct before guns samurai use guns because they were in effect during the age of gunpowder so I don't think this is fair
Not like this you can’t, knights and samurai went through many changes throughout the centuries. You have to be specific, is this a knight from the 11th century or the 15th? There’s a lot of difference between those two. Is this a samurai from the Jedai from earlier ? It’s like just going british redcoat 1700-1891 or french Soldier 1700-1900 Like no you’ve got to specify which perticular year or period or war if we’re going by that metric, the nepoleonic wars or the Spanish succession? It doesn’t make sense
Here are some common myths about samurai, debunked: 1. Samurai always used katanas: While the katana is the most famous symbol of the samurai, it wasn’t always their main weapon. Before the katana became popular, samurai frequently used bows and arrows (yumi) and spears (yari). The katana only became more common during times of peace. 2. All samurai followed bushido: Bushido, or the "way of the warrior," is a concept that was idealized later. Many samurai didn’t follow these principles as a unified moral code. In reality, their actions were more dependent on circumstances and loyalty at the time. 3. Samurai were always noble and honorable: Not all samurai lived according to a noble ideal. Some were mercenaries, selling their services to the highest bidder, or engaged in looting and crime, especially during chaotic periods in Japan, like the Civil Wars (Sengoku Jidai). 4. Committing seppuku was a common practice: Ritual suicide, or seppuku, is often associated with samurai, but it wasn’t a daily or regular occurrence. Although it was a way to preserve honor in extreme situations, most samurai didn’t commit seppuku frequently, as this would end their lineage and influence. 5. Samurai didn’t wear armor: Samurai are often portrayed without armor, but in fact, they wore elaborate armor made from iron and leather, designed to be lightweight and flexible in battle. These myths arose from romanticized and exaggerated interpretations of the past, especially through the influence of movies and literature.
Samurai used clubs like the Kanaba and the hammer called the Otsuchi. When it comes to swordplay, the knight wins, spears are debatable, and so are blunt or bludgeoning weapons.
Historically accurate, it wouldnt matter who wins, because both have great gear, skills, experience against other enemies and so on. No matter who wins, both will never recover from such battle, and no one will gain anything from it
your logic is flawed both are armored here and armored duels were something that ended quickly with a few critical hits such as jamming a blade into a gap in the armor was really the only effective way to kill an armored opponent for both what would happen is that the knight would see big gaps in the samurais armor since their armor had more and bigger weakspots the knights armor had much less in terms of gaps and the samurai wouldn't be able to quickly find them and so their weapons would clash a few times and the samurai would get whacked in the face or stabbed in his armpit and if they were using polearms then i can safely say a knightly pollaxe is much greater for armored fighting, it's optimized to disorient with big hits and to hook your enemy at the edge of a steel plate of the armor or jam into chainmail and throw them on the ground the knight then has a dagger designed for poking gaps weakspots and chainmail the knight wins 9/10 times and no he will not get injured and disabled or some bullshit it will be a duel like any other except that one of them is much more well equipped and hopelessly outmatches the samurai in technology
An armored duel wasn't something that neither of them could recover from. Plenty of armored duels were fought with both parties surviving and recovering. Yes, some were outright death battles, but some were just a fight to see who falls over first.
no the samuri would not win number one people are overlooking the fact that knights were around 6 feet tall on average giving them a larger wing span and better reach had better weapons better martial arts and better training and the knights armour was not that heavy has almost no gaps and is extreamly menuverable to the point that it just feels like a second skin and the samuri armour was pretty much for decoration the weight was undistrabuted making it feel sluggishly heavy and making thewm much slower than knights and the average samuris hight varied from the average of 5 foot 3 to the highest of 5 foot 6 people have to remember that people in asia are much smaller even to this day (btw thew reason plate armour was in plates was to equally distribute weight and make it menuverable
@@Arkon-sf3hp Europeans were WHAT? Brother, I dont think that ANY of my or any fellow european's average amcestor was any bigger than 5'8 (depending on where you are from Germans for example tend to be taller than french, brits and spaniards were about the same in size ect). Better weapons depends on how/what you intend to use it for. I can think of situations were a longsword would be good for, and situations where as I'd prefer to have a katana. Martial arts were not "better" or "worse". They were, like weapons, situational. Samurai armor was not decoration. Not in the Sengoku era atleast. The periods before the Edo period had armors for warfare, but eventually turned into a sign of wealth, as the Edo period was simply peaceful. Both Samurai and Knight armors were purely for defense. Also, many european armors, such as gothic plate mails, have alot of decoration. Us europeans damn well know that fashion on the battlefield is important. As you might know, many asets, such as wide hips and high heels, are feminine in modern age. In the middle ages, many europeans had quite the femboy-ish attires. Italian men loved ballet, French nobles wore pink, british kings wore long hair, mostly braids, germans loved chest-revealing tops ect ect. Everyone knows- if you dont have the drip, you are a boring noble, and nobody respects a leader who cannot dress like a civilized man. Last part about why armors were designed like that is right.
I've seen videos where modern teachers of the katana have picked up European arming swords and long swords and been wowed by the versatility afforded by them. The reality is that while samurai were incredible warriors and their weapons were incredible too, they were designed for dealing with other samurai and peasants. Take a samurai and a knight with similar experience and put them against one another and most likely the knight will come out on top simply for the fact of armor and weapon difference. Most knightly weapons were meant for getting around armor comparable to theirs and while samurai armor was brilliantly designed considering what Japan had available for the time, it isn't designed to withstand armor piercing crossbow bolts, halberds, war hammers, maces, and so on. Plus knights were well acquainted with brutal hand to hand as many fights between two full plate knights devolved into beating the crap out of each other and attempting to get a dagger in through chicks in armor and spots where there wasn't much coverage. Factor in size and strength difference and it becomes even harder for a samurai to win against a knight. The types of wars and battles the two cultures fought are just too vastly different, knights fought everything from others just like them, to soldiers and warriors of multiple different countries, and every type of weapons you could imagine in between. Lastly brutality, samurai were highly cultured and adhered to strict lifestyle and combat doctrines, knights had chivalric code but other than that were quite simply brutal adaptive fighters who would disregard most rules in a fight to the death of it meant living by the end. 😅 Not to mention shields? Samurai would get really frustrated and disgusted at having to deal with a sword and board 😅
A early period knight can maybe loose aginst a samurai but high,late medieval and early modern era knights would win against a samurai in their era[if that makes sense]
Crazy how people believe now that knights were slow when actually they were extremely fast and guess what the average weight of a great sword was about 5-10 pounds very nimble and maneuverable unlike what modern day shows and games would tell you
The hell is everyone talking like idiots ? Samurais dont use katanas much offten and when they do it is for self defense same goes for the knight (they use maces in most cases) Knights were a elite cavalry unit While the Samurai were a elite cavalry arecher unit so i do belive the Samurai would win not because they are more skilled but because catching a man riding on a horse shooting you with arrows is hard expecially if you are using a dame lance
@@buggytheclown4946 Yeah even the English longbow(With the armour piercing arrows)and crossbows struggled against European plate hell even early guns could only make a dent in the armour and this guy forgot that European knights have fough the mongols and elite units like the mamluks and have won overall the knight wins every fight and if you bring guns into the equations like many samurai weebs do knights used guns before they even reached Japan and had armour that could survive one or two shots before being pierced
@@countertaskit's just a pop-culture thing. think Vikings with horn helmets and really just an American one, Japanese media doesn't depict samurai with wood armor.
They exaggerated too much for the samurai to gain some points. The truth is that they weren't that agile, they were smaller and their armor was a little heavier as it wasn't made of metal. Also saying that they have more IQ and sword skills is a fallacy invented by otakus who only watch anime
@@Catlover18-l3fit depends on who the knight AND who the samurai is, so if the knight was superior in experience and skill, and the samurai was a normal elite soldier, than the knight would with. If it was vice versa, the samurai would win.
I've said it before I'll say it again. Katanas aren't a magic weapon that'll save you in any fight. It's better to have a sword at all than nothing, but katanas were suited for entirely different battle than plate armour knights, and the knights sword is heavier, pointier, and has a double edged blade. Both train from like age 8 to be a fighter, so skill wise they're the same, and it'd all come down to PERSONAL abilities and skills
I think the samurai may have better mobility, as their armor wasn't quite as heavy. However, a knight was like a tank and extremely deadly, so the samurai would seal his fate if he tried going in too aggressively. If he would win in a 1 vs 1 fight, he'd have to keep on the defensive to try getting the knight exhausted - and remain unharmed enough to finish it at that moment. Unlikely scenario but I think it'd be the samurai's best bet. More likely than not, the knight would obliterate the samurai in a 1 vs 1. Don't get me wrong: both were very skilled and capable fighters but the knight was built differently and equipped way differently to face armored enemies. The samurai lacked similar equipment to do the same.
If were being HISTORICALLT accurate, imma give it to the Samurai. First off, they wouldn’t be using a long sword or Katana, rather a halberd or great hammer for the knight, and a Yari or Bow for the samurai. I’m giving it to the Samurai STRICTLY for range advantage. If it was a a 5v5 instead of a 1v1, the knights win.
@diomedes7971on top of that knights were basically rich noblemen that had to be as smart as they were strong, if they couldn’t command the serfs on their land they’d have an insanely hard time doing their job as a knight (protect the land that their lord has given to them and follow the their lord into battle when need be)
No. That ain't true Japanese mercenaries were even hired by Europeans and SE Asia kingdoms , as bodyguards or soldiers receiving high praise from them as warriors. For an example.
This is all correct, if people get mad at this video they’re just dumb. A knight would destroy a samurai. Both are incredibly skilled with their weapon and knights weren’t even that slow, they were decently fast. A knight would win, but not without difficulties
Lol, based. Tbf that isn't necessarily why, but it is true. Knights were just better equipped to handle Samurai even if the best against the best were generally as experienced as one another.
@@yoelchristian6332 nah they had Tanegashima Arquebuses, which weren't really accurate and they only got them around 1543, when europe already moved on from the medieval knight warfare.
@@based-roman But still can shoot so i guess That's an advantage. Also, as i remember, we talk about Knight at their best time (the medieval one and Samurai at their best time).
@@yoelchristian6332 I'd say english longbowmen and a cavalry squadron of knights could easily rout a slow reloading samurai arquebus force. So no not really an advantage. Guns were only adopted because the soldiers could be significantly more easily trained and replaced, but lacked real competition to bows in their early stages.
@@Dominated001poleaxes and pikes were only really used in the early modern period dude 🤦♂️ by that time they already mixed them with guns like the samurai and toned down their armour
@@thebigflop3118 dont remember ANY of us setting a period of time, if i said something about polearms, then MAYBE i was referring to the period of time they were used you know?
If ranged weapons are introduced, samurai have gun. So that’s a pretty strong advantage. Yes, Europe had guns but they were regulated to other class of troops compared to Knights who predominantly by then were just heavy cavalry, and so had no use for guns.
@@CountryPainterBR Not Knights though. Knights in that time in Europe almost never used matchlocks as their role wasn’t compatible with them. Gun usage in Europe was lent out to lesser lightly armored footmen for the most part.
@@pickle3606 No it wasn’t, a matchlock was not practical. Even the Winged Hussars of the later periods when Knights vanished only used gunpowder pistols as their role of heavy cavalry was better with lances and blades. Sidearm guns were the only guns mounted soldiers used for the longest time for the most part until the invention of lighter rifles and carbines meant to be used on horseback.
@Country Painter BR The mongols gave the samurai weaponry of gunpowder, like handcanons and grenades in 1200s, later the Chinese games them early guns and then the portugese gave them more modern ones.
i'd say if a 13 century knight fought the samurai, the samurai would win because chainmail was weaker than samurai armor, but if the knight is fully plated- he would win
@@dovakinusss knights wore gambesons or other quilted padding under the chainmail which werr extremaly good at protecting you from slashes and arrows, there is no point of history when samurai had better equipment than europeans
@@antoinegezodtrue but samurai did get better equipment than knights. As even though europe had better guns knights were no longer a part of european wars
Well european knights wore slightly heavier armour but was way better than the samurais armour and knights were nobles of europe and had on average better education than a samurai if that helps
This makes no sense, if we’re taking longsword against katana and classic samurai armor vs full plate equal skill(because there was a full range of skills for both) then Knight sweeps easy but how are you gonna assume the knight is less experienced and dumber
My bias wants to say Samurai would win all day, mainly because they ised guns... But realistically, there's no way to tell. We can all comment and disagree with each other all day but the 2 types of warriors never faced each other in real life, they were separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of years in thier respective primes.
@TheOnlyN1K knights also mai ly used guns for siege warfare and cavalry fighting. The Japanese used guns on a much larger scale and adopted rank fire line tactics. 1 group of peasant footsoldiers(Ashigaru) equipped with guns could decimate an entire army. A prime example of this would be the battle of Nagashino in 1575.
Knights used guns too. The First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy is a knight, so technically knights have aircraft carriers, which I suspect would beat a matchlock
@Rozma9skill varied in both knights and samurai but the most akilled and experienced knight would probably beat the most skilled and experienced samurai
@Rozma9 maybe in hand to hand combat no weapons or armor but that isn't going to happen on a battlefeild or in a duel so there isn't really a point in comparing it. Even without armorin a duel the knight has a significant advantage if they still have weapons.
@Rozma9 thats something that happened maybe once or twice and stuff like that happened a lot throughout history. and why do you think that knights dont use ploearms aswell. knights use polearms and more advanced polearms than samurai would ever have had access to. and samurai and knight training was fairly similar.
The funny thing about a full plate armor is that it was so fucking good at protecting people that they basically stopped using shields. People in full plate often didn't die when defeated in combat they often times had broken bones or things like that but didn't have open cuts and they would just be left in the ground to internally bleed out or succumb to their wounds, Because of this all knights carried a very thin knife with them so that when their opponent is defeated like that thats small knife can go between the plates and finishe off their opponent. Basically a mercy kill
The guy who made the video should be ashamed of his utter ignorance of history, and so should most of these top ranked comments. The samurai could indeed win against a knight; the samurai were well known for their feats of strenght to the point some of them would use "odachi" swords, large and extremely heavy katanas that were meant to cut down the opponent not only with the strenght of its wielder but by the massive weight of the sword itself. These could even be heavier than the average two-handed swords in Europe and other parts of Asia. It has also persisted as a common myth amongst armchair historians that that the katana had poor durability due to the low quality of the japanese steel. While in some cases it is true, as in some regions of japan the quality of the steel is subpar, this didn't apply to all katana nor to every weaponsmith that crafted them. As such, some techniques were able to efficiently strip the steel of its impurities and these katanas became quite durable and efficient in the many battles they would see before needing replacement, just as other swords. The katana and other japanese weapons of the same type are on par with western medieval weaponry thanks to what they learnt from the Mongol Invasions. As a sidenote, the samurai did use katanas extensively and not just as a sidearm, samurai forces would use them while other forces used yari spears, naginata polearms, yumi bows and so on. All of this depending on their roles in the army and what they were intended to do during certain battles or campaigns, despite this, the katana remained prominent and every army had them and used them. A samurai needed to be proficient with every kind of weapon, but this was blown out of proportion to mean "every kind of weapon except their katana". "IQ" and "Battle IQ" makes no sense but as far as the samurai are concerned, the most important battles that involved them during the Sengoku Jidai were won or lost thanks to the extensive use of unconventional military strategies, tactics and tricks, like in the Battle of Okehazama, the Battles of Kawanakajima, or the Battle of Tedorigawa. It is hard to see such strategies employed in the west, altho there are some good examples. For endurance the answer is simple, it depends, so I would guess they were equal even tho some samurai preferred to use lighter armor that would have improved their stamina and speed at the cost of poor protection, which also applied to some knights. This is also something a warrior had to improve over time to beat others who were in less shape. Skill and experience is something the samurai warrior exceeded at specially during times of war, as heavy armor was also used at some points a samurai needed to be able to hit the weak points of the enemy when his sword wouldn't be able to cut thru with ease, this meaning not only sensing the weakness of their stance/posture or using terrain advantages, but sometimes also to prioritize cutting their joints to get an advantage, this was easy thanks to the nature of the katana, fast and as maneuverable as western sword or more in some cases. Some people also like to forget that the samurai also fought off the Mongol Empire with all its might on two occasions, that actually influenced the samurai to the point that it inspired them to refine their swords until they created what we know today as the katana, and even had them learning about gunpowder. For last, it is also true that the only engagements between europeans and japanese warriors ended in an european win. This was in the Philippines and the skirmishes faced Spanish soldiers and some tercios against a large force of Wakou pirates. Spain took an easy win and the pirates gave up on the Philippines. Needless to say that the soldiers and tercios of the Spanish Empire were the very best european warriors, meanwhile the Wakou pirates were a mix of lowlife criminals from China, Korea and Japan with disgraced ronin turned to banditry. Actually having these facts in mind and leaving behind the myths of yt armchair historians, the fight becomes alot more close and both of them could win. In this case its my opinion that a samurai would take the w most of the time just because of their sword techniques and the flexibility of their stances alone.
Knights take practically everything they have better weapons and are actually fast too, not to mention katana were hardly used by samurais there are also some Europeans swords that were actually fast and agile too a katana wouldn’t penetrate a knights armor so it will probably make them defenceless.
Updated version: ruclips.net/user/shortsbawmnV8DV2E?si=Tw62lhnLPgKeFtJg
Song?
@@ki.r.byschannel3341after dark x perfect girl x sweater weather
I just heard the music and i already know it
Game name?
Game name??
i hate how people think that knights were slow and unskilled
Imagine fighting all kinds of enemies and having a century old warrior tradition, just for a weeb to over hype who only did half as you
Because people seem to get there history education from Hollywood and cartoons now aways
@@thechatman4126I agree this is some bullshit expecially when you rember that Samurais don't even use katansa much often
@@teyenzazindorji2684 Kinda true, but they used tachi instead which isn't a whole lot different, and you could say that it was actually polearms that were their main weapon but this goes for all warriors, once you're in a duel and not a formation, you're gonna want your sword because polearms aren't as useful as you'd think in a 1v1, and this is where longsword vs tachi comes in.
The main issue alot of people dont understand is thay samurai Is quite a broad term and to my knowledge applied to basically most feudal Japanese warriors, where as knights were at the very very top of the chain, you hear knight and you think of full steel armour but in truth many warriors had full steel, such as man-at-arms, knights just had the best of the best.
People gotta realise that in battle, the enemy would for the most part actually avoid killing knights because of how extremely hard to kill they are and also because you can capture them instead, which means you can ransom them back for big money which is obviously alot better than killing them, this speaks to their value, as a Knight you had very little concern of being killed, because you'd essentially be a juggernaut who can run.
Same
The European swords were scarily maneuverable alot more then a katana
Yeah also katana’s weren’t even really made for combat they were more so a vanity item. Spears and other long ranged melee weapons were much more commonly used for combat since they are superior to swords like katanas and medieval European swords in most ways.
@@sharkmansman2085 katanas were more fashion the function they're still weapons tho
Katana cut much more better than a knight sword, but katana have curves while swords not, swords required brute force to be able to cut an armor, but katana was specialized to cut flesh smoothly
@@felidaeviv4680 yea easier to cut peasants, but for armored enemy’s either give em a concussion with the hilt or skewer through a gap in the armour.
@@TheSpeedyLoonyCanoli that's why I say katana isn't the perfect one for mauling enemy armour's, but for hitting open/soft spots, while Europe sword will cut through armor if you put brutes force on the swing/stab
Each person has a different IQ, being a knight or samurai does not make you have more or less
Samurai are Asians,so they got high IQ
@@polmm7915
😂
Nice joke
Wow that actually is a great philosophy
@@polmm7915they don't want to disappointed the great shogun
For A is average
And B is failure
Im sure whatever the case,both those two warriors had higher IQ than the entire household of this youtuber combined.
The real answer: it depends heavily on which specific knight and samurai you’re talking about.
Most Samurais use light, weaker armor for more maneuverability, when the Europeans attempted to trade with them, they didn't really care for their armor but rather the fashion of their helmets. Of course later on, they used heavier armor but it was no where near matching the defense and strong weaponry of the knights
@@BeardsandBeeractually you got a tad wrong. Samurai armor is almost always heavier than Medieval Armor. Mind you the Average Metal Plate Knight Armor weighed 40 pounds and was fairly dispersed amongst the body so it feels even lighter and easier. It also didn't really prevent a lot of maneuverability or agility.
Samurai armor for most of the time was extremely heavy only the first generation of Samurai had very light armor that made agility very essential. But the armor was not all that good. Most Samurai armors can weigh 60-80 pounds and most of the weight on shoulders and backs which will cause it to feel even heavier than it is and limits your speed and agility.
Knights seem in most time periods superior to Samurai due to technology, training, and equipment just being better.
@@fistfightersclubdidn’t they use compressed paper for their armor for a time?
First generation the Samurai did use paper for padding which did help with some blunt weapons like clubs.
Definitive versions that represent each of them
The experience goes to the knight, because in Europe they had enemies not only in Europe, but also in the Middle East and Asia, while the samurai only fought against the Japanese since the country was closed to the rest of the world.
Knights mostly fought knights,Japan also fought against other people Europeans even hired Japanese mercenaries as bodyguard our soldiers have been quite the reputation.
@@eagle162 knights fought Saracens, Moors, Vikings, Magyars, Landsknecht mercenaries, pesants, Nomadic invaders, Baltic pirates, Baltic Tribes, Slavic tribes, Gaelic tribes, actually a lot of different peoples. And Japanese hired European mercenaries because we were good at making stuff go boom boom. Plus, Europe was in a perpetual arms race on a continental scale so our way of war was always rapidly advancing rather than stagnating like in the rest of the world.
@@thicclegendfeep4050 you serious,you really just put peasant on the list, Vikings and knights no, actually it's more like Vikings evolve into knights, Viking era ended because of the spread of Christianity and more defined kingdoms,nomads Invaders those basically were knights or early proto knights,landsknecht mercenaries came around by the time Knights were starting to die out and basically was one the reasons for that,saracens I know you're talkin about the crusades only two of those can be considered to accomplish something even in at the end it was a failure and most foreign wars in failure,moors okay now this is a complex topic (I'll share a video later) but basically Christian and Muslim Kingdom fought side-by-side each other against other Christian and Muslim different from the common image people think.
Samurai also fought different people.
There are no examples of European mercenaries in Japan and actually firearms showed up earlier in Japan before contact with the west that story with the Portuguese is a myth. You really got to brush up on world history then.
Here's the video.
ruclips.net/video/ijvkJDLhYZs/видео.html
@@eagle162 ok viking era ended when knights started?
@@eagle162you are right in many things, but most of the time Japanese fought Japanese. There were exceptions but most of the times when japanese in times of samurais fought with foreign countries or empires they didn't do very well.
I just love armchair historians arguing who's better in the worst way possible.
But the title says it's historically accurate
@@justwait9822it must be true then
Fucking "Hax" as a ranking
This shit is so painful to watch
@@linkfromzelda1002to be fair they did use their swords in certain ways that could be considered hax
Samurai armor is a lot heavier than people think and knight armor was a lot more lighter and maneuverable than people think
But it varies between the type of samurai and knight armor (thanks to Michaelbrooks3220 for the armor types take)
Depends...
@@marzeilliyaaj8816
I have seen a dude in 2000€ armour dance and run at full speed.
Also seen them fight in tournaments.
@@THE_NEW_CRUSADER Knight equipment was actualy much lighter than the package of the average soldier today(around 30 kilos for an average french soldier, versus 21 kilos for an armor and 25 max if you include the sword).
@@marzeilliyaaj8816 Knight armor where actualy pretty light, only 21 kilos maximum, in comparison, the average frenche soldier's stuff is around 29/30 kilos.
@@marzeilliyaaj8816Since when was running while being slightly heavier a “skill”?
Sometimes, I keep forgetting just how skilled medieval knights are
The only ever example of a european swordsman fighting a japanese Samurai resulted in the European winning.
No. Know what you're talkin about that's unlikely to have ever happened, also Japanese mercenaries were hired by Europeans and SE ancient kingdoms as body guards or soldiers having quite the reputation.
@@eagle162 Aleksandr Lekšo Saičić Successfully defeated a Japanese Imperial officer in a duel during the Russo-Japanese war. Only one Japanese “Samurai” ever fought in a “European” war, and that was during the Russo-Turkish war.
I know exactly what Im talking about and I can provide sources. Take your weeaboo lies elsewhere.
@@eagle162 no as escuchado la historia del “Samurai Europeo”?
@@eagle162 knights being hired about bodyguards: ?
@@eagle162knights never fought samurais, but europeans sailors yes, and even in duels europeans earned a good reputation in Japan, mostly in harbors like Nagasaki.
Knights were made for war quite literally trained their whole lives being devoted to it
Samurai were too.
Samurai warriors fought as teenagers. Yoshihiro Shimazu is old yet he still fought the Ming army with only a portion of an army. These dudes live and die in the battlefield like the Knights.
Samurai is literally japanese's Knights counterpart,neither are just some foot soldier,both honed their skill entire life,and it's common sense
Neither were flat out fighters....they both are nobles who were "expected " to fight well in war and if you read book you will learn that the comman man with a long stick was able to kill both these elite warriors pretty easily
@teyenzazindorji2684 If knights and samurai were so easy to kill they wouldn't have formed the core of their respective culture's militaries for the better part of a millennium.
Katana were meant to give cuts so enemy will bleed out
Where as western swords were literally there to cut down limbs
Both swords were made to do either of those things.
@@eagle162 samurai swords though were more brittle due to the technique used to make them which made it have impurities and be brittle
@@crusaderanimations no it wasn't that is complete myth, if you me to get some sources let me know.
@@eagle162 ruclips.net/user/shortshVPoLyLgLq8
@@eagle162 also ruclips.net/video/wTWhLGFvjTg/видео.html
I love how people say “knight” and ignore how weapons and armors evolved in hundreds of years “knights” were a thing
But yeah, Knights win, their whole kit was designed to fight other people in armor and being as flexible as it could be to fight armored enemies of many different cultures unlike Samurais who were only taught how to fight other samurais and would be out of their element
@@Hk-ox4bb Yeah a knight in any era would destroy a samurai just because they fought different types of cultures and a longsword is way better against armour than a katana because it could be turned into a makeshift warhammer whilst both these weapons were actually rare to see in a battlefield even the simple lance would destroy the samurai on the charge and european armour and the shields would make the bow and arrow useless
When sre these kid's gonna realise that katana was samurais third weapon to use if bow and spear could not be used
4th, in order it went bow, gun, spear, than if they’re desperate sword.
This is a Knight's post, we'll never win the argument unfortunately
@@aeoncalcos7830 Actually I know nothing abaut knight's.
But I know a lot off Vikings and Samurai's and of their weapons.
@@aeoncalcos7830Hi, I study both feudal Japan pre Edo period and Europe's medieval period since I was in highschool. I'm here to personally tell you that a knight would flat out win, because in short knights had way more resources to use than the samurai. Something people forget to factor is the Samurai did with what little they had, since they couldn't trade with anyone. This means a lot of their gear was lower quality than what the average knight had.
Sorry but I study samurai and knights night and day and realize that samurai will win think about oda and shingen a really skilled samurai vs a really skilled knight a samurai could out minover the knight and probably break through his armor due to it being flat remember. skilled samurai have been trained by a master rank at the age five until they are grown and there armor is lighter so they are faster and there armor is very strong
I love how there are so many debates here, and all samurai sided debates usually revolve around 3 things.
1: Guns. Guns back then were powerful to be sure, but they also are a single shot cannon. Yes, they are still dangerous, but good luck hitting a knight who is moving, with one shot, with a gun that isn't very accurate, in a place that is fatal. Not saying they weren't effective, and they were incredibly deadly, but they aren't as big of a game changer that samurai enthusiasts think they are.
2: Samurai are faster than knights. Jack squat they are. Medieval armor and samurai battle armor weigh roughly the same (There is medieval jousting armor that is thicker and heavier, but that's for ceremonial jousting, not battles.) and if they do weigh the same, knights win in both speed and defense. Europeans made armor for joints that follow the body's natural bend, allowing for armor that protects the joints, and allows almost free movement. Samurai gear usually left joints free from armor for movement, lowering defense, or they made armor that made it uncomfortable to move in, covering joints, but losing agility. If I were to compare the armor, I would say that medieval armor is basically an exoskeleton following the human anatomy's movement, protecting and allowing movement in all parts of the armor, while the samurai armor is more like multiple shields strapped to parts of the body that don't need to hinge or move. (I know these are slight exaggerations, but you get the point.) All in all, Either knights and samurai tie in speed and knights win in defense, if the samurai expose joints. Or, if samurai wear their more protective gear, knights still win in defense, but not as strongly, and knights win in speed and agility. Medieval armor is not the tin bucket most people think they are.
3: Vision. People say you can't see squat when you wear a medieval armet, barbute, sallet etc etc. This is true for helmets like the frog mouth, that is designed to basically be bolted to the chest piece. The eye vision is low, because the eye slit is small and angled upward. The frog mouth specifically is designed to do these things purposefully, as it is not a battle helmet. It is a helmet that you wear during a jousting match, where you only need to see where the enemy jouster is, and aim your lance at their shield. You don't need to move your head, because the enemy is always in front of you. If you could move your neck, and if you fall of your horse, you could snap your neck at worst, and at best, get bad whiplash. Breathability is also so terrible in the frog mouth that you can only wear it for a few minutes because the only breathing hole is the visor. This helmet isn't meant for battle. The helmets I mentioned, armet, barbute, sallet, are meant for battle. You are protected at the neck by chain and with small steel plates that allow you to turn your head freely while still protecting, no matter where you are looking. That is the maneuverable part of your vision, but what about actual sight? You can barely see out of that tiny eye slit, right? Wrong. I wear homemade helmets all the time, and, admitted, sometimes I trip over a box because I cannot see my feet. However, vision is a lot higher than you think. Some people think that when you wear a sallet, which is the helmet used in this video, you could only see roughly 1/3 to a half of the samurai fighting right in front of you. This is a myth. Don't believe me? Put your hands in front of your face sideways, palms away from your face, with your middle fingers touching. Now bend your middle fingers. you will get a hole between your pointer and ring finger that is probably 16-20 mms wide(According to google). touch your nose with your pointer fingers, so that your fingers are a little bit away from your face. You've just made yourself your own makeshift visor. If that is how much you can see from your helmet, you do lose some vision down and up, but not a lot. You could probably see the samurai's entire body if you were standing two swords length from each other.
I am a big history nerd, and love both the knights and the samurai(Albeit I do like the knights better). For some reason people think that medieval armor is supposed to be tanky, slow, impossible to maneuver, but defensive. In reality, medieval armor was nothing short of artistry with how intricately it was made.
I'm so tired of "bUt SaMurAi WerE FaSTeR AnD hAd SwOrdS ThaT CaN CUt THroUgH STeEl WiTh EaSe"
Earlier knights typically had pretty basic armor compared to the fully blinged out late medieval ones. That being said, the same also goes for samurai. Either way knights tended to have better coverage and more steel as a part of their armor (almost like europe was rich in iron!) so generally I think they win throughout most of history
@@jooot_6850 that’s my thought process as well. They both grew stronger and richer throughout history, but it seemed that Europeans were farther forwards armor technology wise because of them being rich in iron, and also there was steep competition in Europe as all nations were basically surrounded by other enemy nations. This meant that they had to improve their armor and weaponry very quickly.
About guns: knights also had guns...
@@realdragonno they didn’t gun powder came from China and it was the samurai that used it first read a book
Knights actually had a lot more education than the average Samurai, especially the later years of knights.
So IQ would probably go to the knight
How can you be sure or even know this?
@@eagle162as European knights were noblemen coming from the best education
@@Zachdeadpoolso were samurai and education was not straightforward like that.
@@eagle162Europe had much better education then Japan due to its greeco roman roots. The communication with the middle east helped significantly as well
@@rayzas4885that kind of culture does not even start to show up again in medieval Europe until the Renaissance with the fall of the Byzantine empire.
What little was there before was about learning Latin not that useful outside of areas that also learn it, even byzantines weren't big on Latin.
Europeans themselves had a high opinion of Japanese society, people and culture.
Katana's weren't even used as a sword, they were used as a last stand weapon. Samurai's were cavalry based. Meaning that they used Guns, Spears, and Bows.
Knight's are more useful in h2h combat, they had longswords, flails, maces, and shields to protect them, knight armor isn't really that heavy. It just looks like it is
A knight would destroy a samurai
Yes thats true
In melee yes
In range no
@@crusaderanimations You said it
A samurai was a mounted archer. If they can get close enough then sure, but if they can't then they're fucked.
No he wouldn't because samurai used guns lmao their katanas were last resort weapons they specialized in long range combat
When did medieval warriors ever have “hax and abilities”?
Like there strength ablility lmao and
Hax and slash
Medieval warriors were high skilled in combat, generally even more skilled than their contemporaries in Japan.
They have, but much people don't know about
flip the European sword over to serve as a hammer to deal more damage to armored enemies
It's unbelievable how little people know about both Samurai and Knight.
Seriously? IQ goes to Samurai, and Battle IQ goes to Knights? Speed on the Samurai and Durability on the Knight?
How do you even measure the IQ of past warriors anyway?
Everything here goes to the knight with some exception on the individual. Samurai were cool, but isolated.
@comradekarlvonschnitzelste8218 isolated how? 16th century, you find the Samurai all across East Asia. As pirates against the Ming, or as Mercenaries in SEA, or even launching an invasion in Korea. This isolation myth has been debunked many times by looking into outside sources.
@@eagle162that what I was wondering 🤔
@@eagle162they look at what they needed to do
For example: knights had to be as strategy savvy as they were strong, because not only did they have to protect their lords land, but command their own smaller armies as well. And they were basically just rich noblemen in armor with access with the best education europe had to offer
However samurai’s were more prone to more creative warefare (I’m sure there’s a bunch of other reasons as to why their smart but I’m not as knowledgeable of samurai as I am knights)
Average medieval knight would dog a samurai. A samurai would have to land a well place hit between the knights armour to kill let alone injure him whereas samurais armour wouldn't be able to tank many hits from a longsword. Equivalent of a us soldier with a bazooka 1v1ing a tiger tank
Honestly the thing that I’m focusing on is the fact that they’re both using swords, as if they were the main weapon.
the last samurai, where carying colt navy revolers during the last war they fought in.
Because it's a video game
@@anamarvelosame with some knights, esrly guns were starting to evolve in europe
@@anamarveloFor most of medieval history fighting by both of them was done with lances and bows. Samurai preferred to use bows but they did usually have some form of spear or polearm for charges. Knights rarely used bows and instead picked up a lance alongside multiple other melee weapons. Since both were usually on horseback, said melee weapons could strike with the full force of a moving horse, especially with couched lances that transferred a ton of energy
@@jooot_6850 They did use lances though typically only when on horse back. Otherwise they would use things such as maces to bash armor to pierce it and crumple it
Except for the part about being historically accurate lol
experience? that's personal bro 💀💀
Europe is known to have the most battle in world history, you see the data for yourself that many wars happened in Europe
It may seem like a good argument, but knights would easily win against a samurai for the simple reason that long swords were made to pierce armor, while katanas (Japanese swords) were made for cutting, and therefore, incapable of piercing plate armor.
Both equal to intelligence battle IQ and combat
Not only that but knights had more experience. Japan was an isolated nation while Kights came from all of Europe and conflict was far more numerous.
@@Aaronreacher Oh I guess you're right.
@@Aaronreacheryeah, europe was at war all the time
The knights were mostly noble man with the best education in almost all scientific subjects at the time. People underate that. The samurai's were well educated as well even though not as well as the knights , but used pretty smart tactics against there opponents.
@@alexyordanov6250 well yeah that's true.
Everyone trying to compare when the video does not show what century XD
A smart person finally
Well I mean if we use the ones in the video then the Knight whos in acutal armour and has a helmet is obviously going to win against a samurai in his undergarments and a single crudely crafter shoulder pad.
any century the knight would win it just comes down to better training and better equipment and just being more physically robust and more menuverable than the samurai due to equally distributed weight and throughout histoey the average samuri was 5 foot 3 with a smaller wing span but just as easy to hit because of their crappy hevier than knight armour and with undistrebuted weight that made it hevier and feel worse to wear and made their movments slow samurai were some of the worst warriors in history ancient bronze age fighter could probably have a better chance of winning than the samurai they are just romanticized because of animae now
Nah knight wins flatout. Better technology, better weapons, better armor, better training, plus the samurai wouldnt be able to even penetrate the knights armor. The knight prob would be able to penetrate the samurais armor but even if they couldnt the knights practiced against other heavily armored opponents cause they occasionally fought other knights.
> better technology
Lol nope. The Samurai existed as soldiers and as a class long enough to use gatling guns and rifles.
> better armor
Ehh, barely
> better training
No
> better weapons
No, because both fought usually different kinds of warfare and therefore had different needs.
@@randomelite45621-los caballeros ya usaban armas de Fuego antes de la primera Invasión mongala (que fué atraves de los Mongoles que los Nippones obtuvieron las armas de fuego), siendo que estás ya eran más avanzadas, de mejor calidad y mayor calibre que las Japóneses, éso sin contar que los Caballeros siguieron existiendo cómo Casta de Combate asta bien entrado la Era Renacentista.
2-las Armaduras Europeas fueron de las más avanzadas y de mejor calidad de la historia, mientras que las armaduras Nopponas, aún que buenas y avanzadas para las necesidades de un país insular, con pocos recursos naturales y cerrado a todo como Japón, quedaban bastante cortas y primitivas acomparación de las europeas: sólo tienes que hacer una comparativa entre las Armaduras de Placas Õ-yoroi (que eran de las mejores armaduras de Placas Japonesa en cuanto a protección se refería) y la Armadura de Placas de Acero o Armadura Blanca Europea :v.
3-si, la gran mayoría de Caballeros pertenecía a una Casta o Orden: siendo entrenados desde niños en murtiples regímenes de entrenamiento y estrategia tanto propias de los europeos, cómo provenientes de Oriente Medio y Asia, aún que el entrenamiento de los Samuráis no es broma.
4-tienes un punto hay, es verdad que dependiendo de la circunstancia y necesidades, los Caballeros y Samuráis usarían diferentes Armas, aún que también es verdad que los Caballeros estaban más avanzados en cuanto a armas Pesadas y de distancia se refiere;
Martillo de Guerra.
Lucero del Alba.
Mengual.
Mayal.
Arco Largo.
Ballesta.
murtiples armas de fuego cómo Pistolas, Arcabuzes, Cañones de mano Etc.
@@randomelite4562 samurai used leather in the armor with metal but knights had pure steel also poleaxe just sitting there also the armor deflected musket shots and the knights are trained since childhood as squires
@@crusaderanimations > Armor deflected shots
Only late Renaissance/Early modern plate armor did that, and only the expensively made ones. The Samurai made bullet-resistant/proofed armor as well, based on European designs.
Samurai armor was mostly steel as well, with extra materials being used to actually form it together.
@@crusaderanimationsThey were actually trained since the age of 7 as a page not a squire
A knight would floor a samurai almost every time. Besides the fact their weapons and armour were of much higher quality, knights trained almost their entire lives for the role and were far more agile than people give them credit for. The only advantage a samurai really has is range
I do agree with you. But i also wanna mention, Samurai were trained from childhood because Samurai were a warrior class. Being the most capable warrior was a big thing for them.
Knights in the other hand. Kinda depends on the family. Many knights were lower nobility, and usually they are taught more important things first. Especially if the young noble is the firstborn son.
Lots of weebs crying😢 European steel ⬆️⬆️
The katana would literally break apart just by hitting the Knight's armor 💀
@@notthedeadweightnow thats just not true
@@notthedeadweightnot true but in a few hits it would actually break
As someone who studies the samurai a lot, and dislikes anime a lot. This fight would actually be extremely difficult to figure out. Because sure while a knight from the 11th century might beat a Warrior Monk. An 11th century knight wouldn’t beat a 12th century samurai because they utilized the long bow, which would likely pierce the metal the knight used because of how strong the bows blow was. You must also realize that Legendary Samurai Unifier/Leader Oda Nobunaga armed his men with matchlock muskets in the 16th century. The samurai then continued to use Tanegashima (musket) for over 200 years. Also, we must realize that Knights were already high in rank and had already received high amounts of training, because one couldn’t be a knight till they surpassed page and squire. Samurai however were more of a military than an official rank. Let’s put this fight more into detail. If an Ashigaru fought a knight, then they would lose as they’re the lowest trained and ranked samurai, as it consisted of mostly peasants, it’d be the equivalent to a footman. However, if a Knight Fought a Hatamoto Samurai, then it would be a very close battle, as Hatamoto Samurai were considered high in ranking, loyalty, and were very experienced individuals, they were literally willing to kill themselves rather than have their lord (lord as in Daimyo , not lord as in God) die. If a knight fought a Daimyo, then the Daimyo would likely win, as they’re some of the highest respected, trained, and experienced people in Japan who had regional influence. If a knight fought a shogun, then they would’ve surely been destroyed, as a shogun earned their rank from the emperor for winning major battles, so they had complete control over the Samurai and practically the entire island of Japan.
@@SOJTSTthe tanegashima is literally a European musket, so you could argue at the time of oda nobunaga the Europeans were more advanced and had better weaponry and armour. A knight from the 16th century was practically impenetrable even the joints were covered by folding plates. And a yari was still inferior to a halberd and other pole-arms as the penetrative power and cutting power was less than European polearms. In short Japanese armies had a number advantage with fanatical soldiers, but Europeans had better equipment which made it far easier to survive a battle. Hell the Japanese even copied breastplate designs to be able to tank a shot from a musket. But it is difficult to say who would win as fighters varied in skill however if we look at equipment for each time period comparing the two then starting from 1400 the Europeans would win without a doubt.
Hax and abilities???? What is bro on
FAX LMAO
Well it's also funny cause if you read what the other people are saying clearly they know nothing about either group lmao and just looked up the samurai's greatest failures before commenting and nothing else😂
lol
Power scalers are children
@@1989FORDescortHBlsxbro don’t tell me you idolize samurai
This debate would be accurate if it was for honor knight vs for honor samurai, however in real life no samurai would use a katana against the knights, alot of people think that katanas was the main weapon of the samurai, and thats wrong. They either used spears (like nobushi does in for honor) or their cannon gun.
Same with knights swords are bad on a battle field so they would probably have a mace or warhammer along with their polearm
And warhammers were built to one shot heavy armours
lok ikr
@@CharLie_69 False. While they were a little more effective against armor, you'd have to strike the same spot several times to get any decent effect. There's an idea that maces and hammers were the end to plate armor but in reality it still took a lot of effort to dent or damage it.
@@darthchili4994To be fair, by the time the armor is dented by the mace/hammer. The victim would proll be in a concussion
For me, this was a existencial doubt. But now i'm graduate in history, i thin that would be 15-2
Knights would clap the shit out of a samurai
@pensil-qs7ffso did knights
@pensil-qs7ffdoesn't count
@pensil-qs7ffwhere do you think knights took them from?
@pensil-qs7ffbad argument. The guns could barely hit anything and took long to reload. A good archer could easily put down one Japanese gunman.
@pensil-qs7ff then why say anything.
Everyone talking about the difference of swords when swords were hardly used by the samurai themselves in battle because they were primarily horse mounted archers.
Weren't they commanders
@@astra8538yeah, pretty much.
From what i know, they are called "daimyo"
I think you dropped this king ✋️ 👑 ✋️
The samurai used a spear when too close to the enemy
Knights were typically mounted aswell, either using polearms on the charge, or in later years gunpowder such as Spanish Conquistadors.
Knights where actually very agile and knights who undergone training are skilled and are equivalent to 6 normal soldiers
Never liked this comparison. katanas had shorter range, were heavier, and were made with lower quality steel, not to mention European armor was literally impenetrable to swords (not an exaggeration). Real samurai were cavalry units, they weren't meant to brawl with European knights hahah
The Samurai were actually archers... as a matter of fact the Katana was only used as an absolute last resort if they lost thier polearms or bow.
Bows then spears then they pulled out da blicky
@@OfTheOldArtsWell they were horseback archers in the earlier period, as the later periods came around, they became very versatile. Many were simply heavy infantry or ground based skirmishers with bows and then later guns, and some were also shock cavalry that relied more on charging in with spears then riding around with a bow.
no es que la Katana sea más pesada o más corta que la típica espada Larga, ambas miden y pesan aproximadamente lo mismo: más de un metro de largo y entre 1-2 kilos de pesó, lo de que la Katana es más pesada es por que su pesó está dirigido a la hoja (cómo un Bracamarte o un Machete), mientras que la espada larga tenía su pesó distribuido entre la hoja y el pomo, por esto es que la Katana se siente más “Pesada” cuando se usa, apesar de que pesa lo mismo que una Espada larga XD.
@@Jhonkotar217machete is a terrible weapon but a good tool
reality:
*samurai hits knight in head with huge hammer*
*knight hits samurai in head with huge hammer*
stalemate
The BONKening.
@pensil-qs7ff misses once and gets shot with an arrow instantly.
@pensil-qs7ff knight pulls out a gun
@pensil-qs7ffsamurai pulls out gun, knight orders his entire village of peasants armed with pikes and muskets to shoot in his vague direction
@@jooot_6850oda nobunaga: yari wall formation and abuse gun
I mean the longsword was more maneuverable and had more utility's.
It also had better overall offense due to its great poking ability along with good cutting.
A katana just has good cutting which is great against leather but aginst a plate knight? No.
Also how is one smarter than the other lol.
Either would be more maneuverable,katana also was use for thrusting and was good at it, samurai never leather and also use plate the key to fighting in plate is to attack the weak points that goes for both.
@@eagle162 this is un true. While the katana can still peirce and stab it is less effective due to its less desirability shaped point. It is also not double edged like a longsword making it inable to back swing. The long sword is overall faster because it can swing one way then come back the other way just as deadly where the katana requires you to turn the blade around or reset to a different striking position.
The long sword is worse at cutting but is faster.
The katana is worse at poking but has great balance and edge alignment properties.
However a slash from both is deadly on skin and leather but infective on armor. Where a maneuverable pierce is more effective which the longsword is more for.
This is an unfair comparison though as the katana was more of a ceremonial weapon or a trophy than a side arm like the short/long sword.
A better comparison would be the cross naginata to the halbird/spear as they were primary weapons.
The cross naginata had good defensive properties with its cross working as a guard similar to the longsword and it had devastating cuts with its weight and thick katana like blade and it's weight also made those cuts hurt as if a Slightly less effective hammer on armour. Axe halbirds are less defensive with no cross guard but have great poking with there point extending past the axe section and the axe but could dish out massive damage however it had no curve and easy edge alignment.
These weapons are imo on par with each other.
The pole hammer is in its own area as it's to strong to compare to anything. It was effective against everything and was only missing a cross guard.
Easy solution to that is just out reach the openent with the long ass spike.
@@disparu6007 no it was not less effect you want me to show you videos of katana thrusting I can,Whether a sword is single-edged or double-edged has very little to do with how well it can be used for a thrust. The bigger considerations are the shape of the tip and the alignment between the tip and the handle.
The back of the blade can be use as a blunt weapon and turning around is pretty easy, again it was used against armor pretty much the same way as a longsword.
No it was not a ceremonial weapon, countries across Asia even adopted Japanese swords for combat use.
Japan have more pole weapons than that including pole-Hammer like ones
@@eagle162 when did I say the katana can't thrust?
I just said it's worse at it due to its strange curve and point location.
The longsword was worse at cutting .
The longsword however was also faster due to its ability to back swing. Meaning it doest have to turn around to swing back effectively.
Also the back of a katana was a terrible blunt weapon, it's to thin with little weight for impact. It's pummel would be more effective for a hammer hit. However the longsword does a better job being a hammer using its pummel as it's has more weight shifted down there and commonly had a round ball attached to the bottom of the guard.
@@disparu6007 II didn't say you said that,I said it was wasn't less effective which it wasn't.
LongSword is not faster.
No it was not terrible at all it had weird and did not have all the same kind of thickness same story with longsword. Blunt weapons don't even need to be super heavy to deal damage.
Different pommels existed, same story with longswords, in fact they were smaller then earlier one-handed sword's pommels and the longer the blade the smaller was the pommel.
Bro is comparing stats like “attack potency,” “destructive capacity,” and “hax” like it’s a fuckin anime fight 😂 (like hax, really bro?? Lmao)
Exactly! And he has the audacity to call it "historically accurate"!
Samurais are just much more disciplined, but unfortunately lack the necessary equipment to beat a knight.
Though, a knight was absolutely not undisciplined - they were very well-trained and tough to take on, since their training started during their childhood and they were knighted around ten years later, typically about age 20 - 22 if I remember correctly.
That's actually untrue, they were about equally disciplined, and samurai had more equipment, my problem with this argument is all of the variables that have to be addressed to have a fair fight, like location and equipment.
My friend and I got into an argument about a knight vs a samurai. He argued that a katana is so sharp and would cut through plate armor. Which is ridiculous, and everyone else sided with him.
You need new friends
He's watched too much anime
"Historically accurate" 💀💀💀
What would the difference between IQ and Battle IQ even be in this context? No one is wondering whether or not the samurai are good at math or something. Battle IQ is the only thing that matters here.
History frowns upon your comparison because this is not a combat of equals. It's an execution of a primitive culture.
BASED AS FUCK
The man played some video games at home.
Also him: this is historically accurate 😅
Fr. This comparison doesn’t make any sense. Let’s make it right here.
Durability: knight - steel armors
Speed: samurai - less armor weight and the weapon is less heavier
Strenght: none - strenght is something that depends on the person
Skill: samurai - a samurai is literally born to be a warrior like an spartan, they’re trained to be the perfect warriors since they’re babies
Iq: none - depends on the person
Battle iq: knight - samurai followed a code of honor which always logically nerfed them, and knight can do anything to win the fight
Weapon: samurai - the katana is the most iconic sword of all time for a reason
…
Ar the end of the day they honestly wouldn’t fight at all since both sides are quite similar: higher ranked men that sworn to protect their people
Speed: a knight's armor was pretty light only 35-55 pounds and that was equal around the whole body
Skill: have you ever read a medivial sword manual? Those things are fucking insane "I fiercely kick you in the balls" Fiore Dei Liberi (look at me being a nerd!)
Iq/battle iq: this can't be measured so fuck this category
Weapon: yeah its iconic due to anime can I ask you a question? How come I have only ever seen katana's (historically) being used in Japan? I assure you it's not because Japan was good at keeping secrets its because a longsword could do the same thing, was a lot cheaper AND could do more stuff (due to 2 sided blade) and due to the fact that the longsword exists and being better due to EVERYONE having it (meaning everyone was testing things it could and couldn't do) the longsword logically is a better weapon
Also with the "iconic" argument Ceasar was one of the most iconic commanders ever
Last I checked he was assassinated by his friends
You watched too much anime
@@Ace-br8kdWeapon, samurai? You watch too much Hollywood movies 😂
@Ace-br8kd let me correct you as a historian you are horrifically wrong.
1. Durability does go to knights but rarely did they have steel armor. Steel would not be heavily used by Europeans (minus Vikings) late Industrial Era due to we figured out how to make it then. Vikings only made it by traditional and accident.
2. Speed goes to knights I have had the privilege of wearing both armors and Knights is by far faster and lighter. European plate armor for knights weighed 40 pounds. Most Samurai armor weighs 60-80 pounds. And while the Plate Armored Knights the weight is evenly dispersed along the body which makes it feel lighter and helps speed and ahility. The Samurai had most of the weight on back and shoulders making it feel heavier than it was and making them much slower.
3. The Average European had more strength than the Average Japanese citizen due to the better diets, sizes, and overall healthiness.
4. You say Samurai are like Spartans and trained to always be warriors but this is wrong. Samurai were like knights mainly trained for war but also taught how to run their lands since both were warriors that were Nobels. During times of peace they would manage their lands as Lords. Mind you thought Europeans were taught more skills and had more advanced ways and technology that helped branch their skills. Also comparing Samurai to Spartans is an insult to Spartans as Samurai faced some of the softest training when compared to Spartans.
5. IQ goes to knights but that is most cause Europe was much more advanced than Japan and had more opportunities to learn and expand. And diet too can help IQ but matters little here.
6. Battle IQ does not matter due to a code. And buddy Knights has a code too 😂. I am starting to think you don't know history. But Knights had more Battle IQ due to more types of enemies they fight, how more advanced and dangerous the technology was and overall just how much more warfare they had.
7. Weapons easily go to the knight and its not close. Let's compare the Katana to the Longsword shall we? The Katana is slower and weaker because the Katana is only a slicing weapon, hardly piercing. This leaves it to slice while the Longsword can slash, pieces and bludgeon. The Katana was heavier and slower due to how it was constructed most of the weight on the Katana is in the blade meaning when you swing it is harder to stop and control it while most of the weight on the Longsword is in the hilt where your hands are making it faster. The Longsword is a whole 10 pounds lighter too. I have used both and can say the Longsword is better along with most European knights weapons while Samuria kinda lack in that since they didn't need to innovate on that too much or have many other weapons.
Also the Katana is far from the most iconic since google searches show that in every year since 2010 the Long sword gets more searches, more references and is used a lot more than the katana.
At the end of the day the Knight is just superior and that is due to one simple fact. War. Europeans had alot more enemies, did not isolate themselves and fought a range of new enemies that caused them to constantly evolve in war. Japan for most of its history has been isolated and only fighting each other. They don't have a good track record fighting other countries especially in the age of samurai.
You failed history or just spun a narrative.
Idk how samurai even got one
this dude forgot Samurai litteraly had guns. not like musets, full on breach loaders, and colt revolvers
@@anamarvelo colt revolvers are American
@@anamarveloyeah their guns were outdated to the ones in Europe at the time. Since they were a closed minded nation that didn’t want anything to do with the outside
@@TexanTemplar ya where do you think the samurai bought htem from?
@@isra-el5745 bro, they got forced open in 1855, they where buying US miltary suprlus from teh civil war for hte last 30 years of samura history
Knights werent stupid and slow, nor were they not the best with offence, they were highly trained, heavily equipped, fast and deadly. A katana wouldnt penetrate their armor, making the samari close to useless
both the knight and samurai rode horses into battle, i think the knight would win because combining thr weight of a fully plated horse, a fully plated person , a lance and a sword would destroy the samurai
The Samurai however didn't use lances instead they used bows ever wondered how gengis khan took over all of asia
@@teyenzazindorji2684 if you're arguing for the samurai then im sorry but a single bow man has no hope of killing a knight on a horse while galloping
@@powerbox5451 I agree but gengis khan showed how effective hit and run is so in 1v1 I on horse I think samuri might win in any other situation however yeah knight
@@powerbox5451 also I just remeberd knights went extinct before guns samurai use guns because they were in effect during the age of gunpowder so I don't think this is fair
if a charging knight hits you with a lance its so over ☠️ even if it doesn’t penetrate you bet something’s gonna be broken, bad
For honor trailer going hard
You can’t compare different cultures and expect a winner
You can compare different cultures and say which one would win in relation of their knowledge and arsenal
You can, actually.
Not like this you can’t, knights and samurai went through many changes throughout the centuries.
You have to be specific, is this a knight from the 11th century or the 15th? There’s a lot of difference between those two.
Is this a samurai from the Jedai from earlier ?
It’s like just going british redcoat 1700-1891 or french Soldier 1700-1900
Like no you’ve got to specify which perticular year or period or war if we’re going by that metric, the nepoleonic wars or the Spanish succession? It doesn’t make sense
@@Dominated001you can't compare something without defining Shit knights and samurai existed for centuries which ones do we even pick
@@georgyekimov4577 thats up to the one who makes the comparison, a specific time or just in general, not that hard of a conclusion to come by
Here are some common myths about samurai, debunked:
1. Samurai always used katanas: While the katana is the most famous symbol of the samurai, it wasn’t always their main weapon. Before the katana became popular, samurai frequently used bows and arrows (yumi) and spears (yari). The katana only became more common during times of peace.
2. All samurai followed bushido: Bushido, or the "way of the warrior," is a concept that was idealized later. Many samurai didn’t follow these principles as a unified moral code. In reality, their actions were more dependent on circumstances and loyalty at the time.
3. Samurai were always noble and honorable: Not all samurai lived according to a noble ideal. Some were mercenaries, selling their services to the highest bidder, or engaged in looting and crime, especially during chaotic periods in Japan, like the Civil Wars (Sengoku Jidai).
4. Committing seppuku was a common practice: Ritual suicide, or seppuku, is often associated with samurai, but it wasn’t a daily or regular occurrence. Although it was a way to preserve honor in extreme situations, most samurai didn’t commit seppuku frequently, as this would end their lineage and influence.
5. Samurai didn’t wear armor: Samurai are often portrayed without armor, but in fact, they wore elaborate armor made from iron and leather, designed to be lightweight and flexible in battle.
These myths arose from romanticized and exaggerated interpretations of the past, especially through the influence of movies and literature.
Bro comparing them from game 💀🙏
pole hammer goes boink on that wooden helmet
You have Similar weapons in Japan and samurai did not use wooden armor.
Samurai used clubs like the Kanaba and the hammer called the Otsuchi. When it comes to swordplay, the knight wins, spears are debatable, and so are blunt or bludgeoning weapons.
Historically accurate, it wouldnt matter who wins, because both have great gear, skills, experience against other enemies and so on. No matter who wins, both will never recover from such battle, and no one will gain anything from it
your logic is flawed both are armored here and armored duels were something that ended quickly with a few critical hits such as jamming a blade into a gap in the armor was really the only effective way to kill an armored opponent for both what would happen is that the knight would see big gaps in the samurais armor since their armor had more and bigger weakspots the knights armor had much less in terms of gaps and the samurai wouldn't be able to quickly find them and so their weapons would clash a few times and the samurai would get whacked in the face or stabbed in his armpit and if they were using polearms then i can safely say a knightly pollaxe is much greater for armored fighting, it's optimized to disorient with big hits and to hook your enemy at the edge of a steel plate of the armor or jam into chainmail and throw them on the ground the knight then has a dagger designed for poking gaps weakspots and chainmail the knight wins 9/10 times and no he will not get injured and disabled or some bullshit it will be a duel like any other except that one of them is much more well equipped and hopelessly outmatches the samurai in technology
An armored duel wasn't something that neither of them could recover from. Plenty of armored duels were fought with both parties surviving and recovering. Yes, some were outright death battles, but some were just a fight to see who falls over first.
no the samuri would not win number one people are overlooking the fact that knights were around 6 feet tall on average giving them a larger wing span and better reach had better weapons better martial arts and better training and the knights armour was not that heavy has almost no gaps and is extreamly menuverable to the point that it just feels like a second skin and the samuri armour was pretty much for decoration the weight was undistrabuted making it feel sluggishly heavy and making thewm much slower than knights and the average samuris hight varied from the average of 5 foot 3 to the highest of 5 foot 6 people have to remember that people in asia are much smaller even to this day (btw thew reason plate armour was in plates was to equally distribute weight and make it menuverable
@@Arkon-sf3hp Europeans were WHAT? Brother, I dont think that ANY of my or any fellow european's average amcestor was any bigger than 5'8 (depending on where you are from Germans for example tend to be taller than french, brits and spaniards were about the same in size ect).
Better weapons depends on how/what you intend to use it for. I can think of situations were a longsword would be good for, and situations where as I'd prefer to have a katana. Martial arts were not "better" or "worse". They were, like weapons, situational.
Samurai armor was not decoration. Not in the Sengoku era atleast. The periods before the Edo period had armors for warfare, but eventually turned into a sign of wealth, as the Edo period was simply peaceful. Both Samurai and Knight armors were purely for defense. Also, many european armors, such as gothic plate mails, have alot of decoration. Us europeans damn well know that fashion on the battlefield is important. As you might know, many asets, such as wide hips and high heels, are feminine in modern age. In the middle ages, many europeans had quite the femboy-ish attires. Italian men loved ballet, French nobles wore pink, british kings wore long hair, mostly braids, germans loved chest-revealing tops ect ect. Everyone knows- if you dont have the drip, you are a boring noble, and nobody respects a leader who cannot dress like a civilized man.
Last part about why armors were designed like that is right.
@@BarsusDraco I’m pretty sure that’s just your genetics
I've seen videos where modern teachers of the katana have picked up European arming swords and long swords and been wowed by the versatility afforded by them. The reality is that while samurai were incredible warriors and their weapons were incredible too, they were designed for dealing with other samurai and peasants. Take a samurai and a knight with similar experience and put them against one another and most likely the knight will come out on top simply for the fact of armor and weapon difference. Most knightly weapons were meant for getting around armor comparable to theirs and while samurai armor was brilliantly designed considering what Japan had available for the time, it isn't designed to withstand armor piercing crossbow bolts, halberds, war hammers, maces, and so on. Plus knights were well acquainted with brutal hand to hand as many fights between two full plate knights devolved into beating the crap out of each other and attempting to get a dagger in through chicks in armor and spots where there wasn't much coverage. Factor in size and strength difference and it becomes even harder for a samurai to win against a knight. The types of wars and battles the two cultures fought are just too vastly different, knights fought everything from others just like them, to soldiers and warriors of multiple different countries, and every type of weapons you could imagine in between. Lastly brutality, samurai were highly cultured and adhered to strict lifestyle and combat doctrines, knights had chivalric code but other than that were quite simply brutal adaptive fighters who would disregard most rules in a fight to the death of it meant living by the end. 😅 Not to mention shields? Samurai would get really frustrated and disgusted at having to deal with a sword and board 😅
Dude had 0 idea about what he was talking abt
Errado
O vídeo até deu uns pontos a mais pro samurai que deveriam ir pra cavaleiro
Historicamente cavaleiros são muito superiores aos samurais
**Vikings left the chat**
(If you know you know)
Only real 1s know
@@blitztagefacts
Wu lin left the chat
The Outlanders left the chat
Some Bohemian peasants in the 1400s
Ah yes the For Honor trailer. When the trailer from 2016 is better than the game in 2023
Hey, at least we finally got this Warden armor set as a HERO SKIN. After 8 years….
Damn.
“Historically accurate” and still falls for the misconceptions about both.
This comparison is useless since we don't know the era weaponary, type of armour, nationality of the knight and so much more
A early period knight can maybe loose aginst a samurai but high,late medieval and early modern era knights would win against a samurai in their era[if that makes sense]
Crazy how people believe now that knights were slow when actually they were extremely fast and guess what the average weight of a great sword was about 5-10 pounds very nimble and maneuverable unlike what modern day shows and games would tell you
The hell is everyone talking like idiots ?
Samurais dont use katanas much offten and when they do it is for self defense same goes for the knight (they use maces in most cases)
Knights were a elite cavalry unit
While the Samurai were a elite cavalry arecher unit so i do belive the Samurai would win not because they are more skilled but because catching a man riding on a horse shooting you with arrows is hard expecially if you are using a dame lance
Most people have not read much of the literature or done any studying. They’re just going off of pop culture.
5 bucks you got that info from matpats game theory on for honor
well the arrow would have to first pierce the armour because plate armour worked really against arrows
@@psychodoxie6987dude ikr, this people acting like arrows are like sniper bullets,they do not pierce armor
@@buggytheclown4946 Yeah even the English longbow(With the armour piercing arrows)and crossbows struggled against European plate hell even early guns could only make a dent in the armour and this guy forgot that European knights have fough the mongols and elite units like the mamluks and have won overall the knight wins every fight and if you bring guns into the equations like many samurai weebs do knights used guns before they even reached Japan and had armour that could survive one or two shots before being pierced
Nah this edit is actually so badass💀
Even as a samurai lover I can agree that the knights would absolutely body the samurai.
You really got to study both samurai and knight better dude.
@@eagle162 metal armor vs wood armor.
@@countertask see what I mean, wood armor was never used by the samurai. That's a basic myth easily debunked.
@@eagle162 wait, samurai used metal armor? Then why are they depicted as wearing wood armor?
@@countertaskit's just a pop-culture thing. think Vikings with horn helmets and really just an American one, Japanese media doesn't depict samurai with wood armor.
They exaggerated too much for the samurai to gain some points. The truth is that they weren't that agile, they were smaller and their armor was a little heavier as it wasn't made of metal. Also saying that they have more IQ and sword skills is a fallacy invented by otakus who only watch anime
Dawg really gave xp to dudes who never fought anyone else besides samurais 💀
Yep they never met the Mongols
@@naajkid9122they practically didnt, the storms did
@@Dominated001 they still fought though
@@naajkid9122And they got demolished.
@naajkid9122 Knights fought Vikings, Muslims, other European warriors etc.
The samurai would quite literally be unable to penetrate a knight’s armour bro tf “more offense” 💀💀💀💀
If the samurai in question was Jin Sakai that knight would be cooked beyond belief
Depends on the Knight
@@MARS-eb8pt nah
@@Catlover18-l3f?
@@Catlover18-l3fit depends on who the knight AND who the samurai is, so if the knight was superior in experience and skill, and the samurai was a normal elite soldier, than the knight would with. If it was vice versa, the samurai would win.
Jin Sakai is also at human level
I've said it before I'll say it again. Katanas aren't a magic weapon that'll save you in any fight. It's better to have a sword at all than nothing, but katanas were suited for entirely different battle than plate armour knights, and the knights sword is heavier, pointier, and has a double edged blade. Both train from like age 8 to be a fighter, so skill wise they're the same, and it'd all come down to PERSONAL abilities and skills
The katana was not the main weapon of the Samurai.
@@randomelite4562knight and samurai more likely to womp each other on the head with some form of big heavy thing if it came down to melee
Katana was the 4th weapon of a Samurai, only used if they were desperate and needed in very close combat and if Spears, bows and guns didnt worm
Work*
Speed and skill goes to european Knight
I think the samurai may have better mobility, as their armor wasn't quite as heavy. However, a knight was like a tank and extremely deadly, so the samurai would seal his fate if he tried going in too aggressively. If he would win in a 1 vs 1 fight, he'd have to keep on the defensive to try getting the knight exhausted - and remain unharmed enough to finish it at that moment. Unlikely scenario but I think it'd be the samurai's best bet.
More likely than not, the knight would obliterate the samurai in a 1 vs 1.
Don't get me wrong: both were very skilled and capable fighters but the knight was built differently and equipped way differently to face armored enemies. The samurai lacked similar equipment to do the same.
If were being HISTORICALLT accurate, imma give it to the Samurai. First off, they wouldn’t be using a long sword or Katana, rather a halberd or great hammer for the knight, and a Yari or Bow for the samurai. I’m giving it to the Samurai STRICTLY for range advantage. If it was a a 5v5 instead of a 1v1, the knights win.
iq and battle iq should be given to both of them becus that just matters on the person
@diomedes7971on top of that knights were basically rich noblemen that had to be as smart as they were strong, if they couldn’t command the serfs on their land they’d have an insanely hard time doing their job as a knight (protect the land that their lord has given to them and follow the their lord into battle when need be)
So when it comes to size ppl will use averages but not when it comes IQ 😂
Experience is for the knight
They fight more tactics than samurais that only fight Japanese tactics
No. That ain't true Japanese mercenaries were even hired by Europeans and SE Asia kingdoms , as bodyguards or soldiers receiving high praise from them as warriors. For an example.
They had to change their fighting style when facing the mongol invasion so they are prepared.
Japanese mercenaries are basically ronin's plus they got demolished by Spaniards @@eagle162
@@eagle162like that one dude who got exiled from japan and learnt to fight with european techniques...
Yeah, Samurai wasn't stronger than a night because thay didnt needed to be
Ah, good old-fashioned rage bait.
This is all correct, if people get mad at this video they’re just dumb. A knight would destroy a samurai. Both are incredibly skilled with their weapon and knights weren’t even that slow, they were decently fast. A knight would win, but not without difficulties
Knight win because European people taller and stronger
Lol, based.
Tbf that isn't necessarily why, but it is true. Knights were just better equipped to handle Samurai even if the best against the best were generally as experienced as one another.
@@comradekarlvonschnitzelste8218 But Samurai have Rifle on their Arsenal as i remember.
@@yoelchristian6332 nah they had Tanegashima Arquebuses, which weren't really accurate and they only got them around 1543, when europe already moved on from the medieval knight warfare.
@@based-roman But still can shoot so i guess That's an advantage. Also, as i remember, we talk about Knight at their best time (the medieval one and Samurai at their best time).
@@yoelchristian6332 I'd say english longbowmen and a cavalry squadron of knights could easily rout a slow reloading samurai arquebus force. So no not really an advantage. Guns were only adopted because the soldiers could be significantly more easily trained and replaced, but lacked real competition to bows in their early stages.
Remember that samurai's rarely use katana . They mainly use gun or naginata(spear) .
А рыцари по твоему не использовали копий или дробящего оружия?)
Идиот, самураи чаще всего использовали копье - Yari, а не нагинату, они ее использовали только в эпохе Гэмпей, но в Сэнгоку - нет.
And so did knights, swords were mostly used as a desperate backup or in duels, in war they used the polethingys
@@Dominated001poleaxes and pikes were only really used in the early modern period dude 🤦♂️ by that time they already mixed them with guns like the samurai and toned down their armour
@@thebigflop3118 dont remember ANY of us setting a period of time, if i said something about polearms, then MAYBE i was referring to the period of time they were used you know?
If ranged weapons are introduced, samurai have gun. So that’s a pretty strong advantage. Yes, Europe had guns but they were regulated to other class of troops compared to Knights who predominantly by then were just heavy cavalry, and so had no use for guns.
@@CountryPainterBR Not Knights though. Knights in that time in Europe almost never used matchlocks as their role wasn’t compatible with them. Gun usage in Europe was lent out to lesser lightly armored footmen for the most part.
Knights in the 16 century around like 1550 started using guns on horseback because it was more practical than using a lance
@@pickle3606 No it wasn’t, a matchlock was not practical. Even the Winged Hussars of the later periods when Knights vanished only used gunpowder pistols as their role of heavy cavalry was better with lances and blades. Sidearm guns were the only guns mounted soldiers used for the longest time for the most part until the invention of lighter rifles and carbines meant to be used on horseback.
@Country Painter BR it wasn't the Portuguese that story was made up 60 years later, earlier records show Japan had firearms much earlier.
@Country Painter BR
The mongols gave the samurai weaponry of gunpowder, like handcanons and grenades in 1200s, later the Chinese games them early guns and then the portugese gave them more modern ones.
Knight literaly undefeated heavy tank in medial ages, he can kills +100 average troops.
It just depends on who hits the shot with their gun
Ok, which type of knight are we putting up against the samurai? Also, BOTH CAN DIE IN BATTLE!
i'd say if a 13 century knight fought the samurai, the samurai would win because chainmail was weaker than samurai armor, but if the knight is fully plated- he would win
full plated medieval knight was basically immortal on the battlefield till he get tired
@@dovakinusss knights wore gambesons or other quilted padding under the chainmail which werr extremaly good at protecting you from slashes and arrows, there is no point of history when samurai had better equipment than europeans
@@antoinegezodtrue but samurai did get better equipment than knights. As even though europe had better guns knights were no longer a part of european wars
@@krellion2669probably because it would be a waste of resources to spend money on expensive armor that can't even block a musket ball at that time
h i s t o r i c a l l y a c c u r a t e.
How exactly do you depict speed and IQ historically?
Well european knights wore slightly heavier armour but was way better than the samurais armour and knights were nobles of europe and had on average better education than a samurai if that helps
A knight with full armor it’s hard to kill even if he’s sitting on the ground doing nothing especially with a sword.
True, you needed at least 5 peasants, another Knight, pike or halberd to take out a Knight easily, even than it was hard
This makes no sense, if we’re taking longsword against katana and classic samurai armor vs full plate equal skill(because there was a full range of skills for both) then Knight sweeps easy but how are you gonna assume the knight is less experienced and dumber
My bias wants to say Samurai would win all day, mainly because they ised guns... But realistically, there's no way to tell.
We can all comment and disagree with each other all day but the 2 types of warriors never faced each other in real life, they were separated by thousands of miles and hundreds of years in thier respective primes.
Knights started using guns in 1450. Samurai started using guns in 1543.
@TheOnlyN1K knights also mai ly used guns for siege warfare and cavalry fighting. The Japanese used guns on a much larger scale and adopted rank fire line tactics. 1 group of peasant footsoldiers(Ashigaru) equipped with guns could decimate an entire army. A prime example of this would be the battle of Nagashino in 1575.
Knights used gun too and used guns first
@Khanh Nguyen see above comment...
@@OfTheOldArts Knights used smaller portable musket before and used it first
Timing left the chat
The true answer to this is "it depends"
The post below this said samurai used spears, bows and GUNS before even considering using their katana. Imo a samurai with a gun wins low dif
Knights used guns too. The First Sea Lord of the Royal Navy is a knight, so technically knights have aircraft carriers, which I suspect would beat a matchlock
@@StonesSticksBones you're right. It would take one aircraft carrier to beat one samurai lol
@@StonesSticksBones you're right. It would take one aircraft carrier to beat one samurai lol
Stamina definitely goes to knight cause bro wearing full armour and is still swinging that sword like nothing
Knight takes offence and skill lol
@Rozma9skill varied in both knights and samurai but the most akilled and experienced knight would probably beat the most skilled and experienced samurai
@Rozma9 it did not require more skill to be a samurai I don't know where you got that from.
@Rozma9 maybe in hand to hand combat no weapons or armor but that isn't going to happen on a battlefeild or in a duel so there isn't really a point in comparing it. Even without armorin a duel the knight has a significant advantage if they still have weapons.
@Rozma9 thats something that happened maybe once or twice and stuff like that happened a lot throughout history. and why do you think that knights dont use ploearms aswell. knights use polearms and more advanced polearms than samurai would ever have had access to. and samurai and knight training was fairly similar.
@Rozma9 no lmao
Knights have been trained since they were young and actually use their swords in combat
Bro they equal
Nah
They're both legendary warriors who deserve a degree of respect instead of being berated in debates
@@polodok9988respect
I agree they deserve respect but the knight is just better
The funny thing about a full plate armor is that it was so fucking good at protecting people that they basically stopped using shields. People in full plate often didn't die when defeated in combat they often times had broken bones or things like that but didn't have open cuts and they would just be left in the ground to internally bleed out or succumb to their wounds,
Because of this all knights carried a very thin knife with them so that when their opponent is defeated like that thats small knife can go between the plates and finishe off their opponent. Basically a mercy kill
The guy who made the video should be ashamed of his utter ignorance of history, and so should most of these top ranked comments. The samurai could indeed win against a knight; the samurai were well known for their feats of strenght to the point some of them would use "odachi" swords, large and extremely heavy katanas that were meant to cut down the opponent not only with the strenght of its wielder but by the massive weight of the sword itself. These could even be heavier than the average two-handed swords in Europe and other parts of Asia.
It has also persisted as a common myth amongst armchair historians that that the katana had poor durability due to the low quality of the japanese steel. While in some cases it is true, as in some regions of japan the quality of the steel is subpar, this didn't apply to all katana nor to every weaponsmith that crafted them. As such, some techniques were able to efficiently strip the steel of its impurities and these katanas became quite durable and efficient in the many battles they would see before needing replacement, just as other swords. The katana and other japanese weapons of the same type are on par with western medieval weaponry thanks to what they learnt from the Mongol Invasions.
As a sidenote, the samurai did use katanas extensively and not just as a sidearm, samurai forces would use them while other forces used yari spears, naginata polearms, yumi bows and so on. All of this depending on their roles in the army and what they were intended to do during certain battles or campaigns, despite this, the katana remained prominent and every army had them and used them. A samurai needed to be proficient with every kind of weapon, but this was blown out of proportion to mean "every kind of weapon except their katana".
"IQ" and "Battle IQ" makes no sense but as far as the samurai are concerned, the most important battles that involved them during the Sengoku Jidai were won or lost thanks to the extensive use of unconventional military strategies, tactics and tricks, like in the Battle of Okehazama, the Battles of Kawanakajima, or the Battle of Tedorigawa. It is hard to see such strategies employed in the west, altho there are some good examples.
For endurance the answer is simple, it depends, so I would guess they were equal even tho some samurai preferred to use lighter armor that would have improved their stamina and speed at the cost of poor protection, which also applied to some knights. This is also something a warrior had to improve over time to beat others who were in less shape.
Skill and experience is something the samurai warrior exceeded at specially during times of war, as heavy armor was also used at some points a samurai needed to be able to hit the weak points of the enemy when his sword wouldn't be able to cut thru with ease, this meaning not only sensing the weakness of their stance/posture or using terrain advantages, but sometimes also to prioritize cutting their joints to get an advantage, this was easy thanks to the nature of the katana, fast and as maneuverable as western sword or more in some cases. Some people also like to forget that the samurai also fought off the Mongol Empire with all its might on two occasions, that actually influenced the samurai to the point that it inspired them to refine their swords until they created what we know today as the katana, and even had them learning about gunpowder.
For last, it is also true that the only engagements between europeans and japanese warriors ended in an european win. This was in the Philippines and the skirmishes faced Spanish soldiers and some tercios against a large force of Wakou pirates. Spain took an easy win and the pirates gave up on the Philippines. Needless to say that the soldiers and tercios of the Spanish Empire were the very best european warriors, meanwhile the Wakou pirates were a mix of lowlife criminals from China, Korea and Japan with disgraced ronin turned to banditry.
Actually having these facts in mind and leaving behind the myths of yt armchair historians, the fight becomes alot more close and both of them could win.
In this case its my opinion that a samurai would take the w most of the time just because of their sword techniques and the flexibility of their stances alone.
🤡🤡🤓🤡🤓🤓👶👶👶👶
Bro is a professional yapper
This is a stupid way of comparing
A knight would obliterate a sumurai and for the best of them even without any weapon.
Knights take practically everything they have better weapons and are actually fast too, not to mention katana were hardly used by samurais there are also some Europeans swords that were actually fast and agile too a katana wouldn’t penetrate a knights armor so it will probably make them defenceless.
Knights had more experience, europe was at war since the roman empire till 1945 🤣
People really underestimate knights and think samurai would win only because it looks cool
The nights smartness is the nights only weakness if you think about it
A historically accurate Samurai using a Katana as a main weapon? A historically accurate Knight using a goofy looking sword as a main weapon? Huh