@@calvinwijaya699 Oh yes the Samurai was also feared by the peasants. A Samurai had the right to kill a peasant if the peasant didn't pay the taxes or insulted the Samurai.
im just triggered on the fact that everyone seem to not acknowledge that a samurai is a versatile unit that can also use guns. a knight however... gunners are a separate military role. and the aristocrats are resistant on using guns
Fun fact about knight armour:Most movies show them as being heavy and making people slow when in reality they usually weighed 45lbs when worn and mostly the only concern about the armour was the heat
@@chrisbellville6957 current US Army soldiers carry a minimum of 45 lbs of gear in their packs. Many soldiers push about 90 lbs in their packs. This was even the butt of the Iraqis who referred to US troops as "donkeys" because they carried so much gear with them. And that's not adding in the weight of the armor they also have to wear. Note I said minimum. 45lbs spread out across your entire body doesn't seem too bad by comparison.
Knights and samurai didn't always act like Vikings but whatever I'm sure they all killed innocents and untrained enemy combatants. I mean it's not like knights or samurai exclusively went around killing common folk that just seems pointless. What do they gain from it? I'd have to guess your political bias makes you view them as armed oppressors
These would also help them as well: Mobility in Medieval Plate Armor/ Armour : ruclips.net/video/qzTwBQniLSc/видео.html Can You Move in Armour? : ruclips.net/video/q-bnM5SuQkI/видео.html Le combat en armure au XVe siècle (Fighting in armor in the 15th century) by Google Translate: ruclips.net/video/5hlIUrd7d1Q/видео.html
@@RedTitan01 A weaboo or weeb does not mean a person in Japan. On the contrary, it is a term for a person foreign to Japan (mainly westerners) who develops an extreme obsession to "Japan", believing it to be identical to its anime depiction. While weeaboos claim to love and support Japanese culture, counter intuitively, they tend to stereotype Japanese culture by how it appears in their favorite anime, which can be safely assumed to be offensive to the Japanese.
Nah mate, Spartans have the Sparta kick, it breaks through armour and sends the enemy flying off cliff sides. If there is no Cliff Side, one is created. Trust me, I'm Greek, I know, totally take my word for it and don't do any research. Also, its in Assassins Creed, now they definitely know what they are on about! xD
A point to consider when discussing the advantages of horses: The japanese breeds that would have been avaiable to samurais were rather stocky ponies. The Kiso-Horse considered to be the samurai horse had a shoulder height about 130 cm, while the highest quality horse avaiable to a knight a destrier (a comparable modern day horse would be the friesian) was high-legged and not stocky and had a shoulder height about 160 cm, which made it faster and gave a height advantage.
Few things to be said: Medieval period is a huge period in Europe, and horses used by the Normans were way shorter than 16 hands, we are probably talking about 13-14 hands of height at the shoulders. Only later in the 15th and 16th century such breeds reached 16 hands of height, but the average was still lower at around 14-15 hands. Modern Kiso horses shouldn't be compared to their medieval counterparts; many native Japanese breeds went extinct and nowadays Kiso horses are protected species as they went almost extinct as well. Records of famous horses in Japan put them at 16 hands as well, and we have findings of Japanese horses as tall as 14 hands although only from the Kamakura period. Moreover, all the scrolls depict medium size horses, not short ones. They were very similar to the horses used by the Mongols and the Chinese. Those were war horses breeded and trained for war, and I don't see why you should not consider them when you do a comparison with the upper end of destrier size. So if anything the differences would have been marginal, like 10- 12cm or so. Shorter horses however have their advantages: they are less of a target, can move faster and more agile if obstacles are present and do not require much food as well.
When you talk about horse size but not about the way more important topic of how tall they were on average. If there is a size difference betweem central europeans and japanese now there might have been one back then, which is much more important than the horses....
@@xkkhaled247 horse killers are not new, at that though, I don't think I've often seen armored horses for Samurai. The Europeans, and even Romans, were very well known for having juggernaut level armored horses.
Very hard to aim that well with an earlier cannon... I am not sure it would be a very good defense against a group of knights charging at you. You maybe get one shot at a rapidly moving target, would propably miss and then you are dead.
Wouldn't European knights also have a significant reach advantage? The average Samurai was 5 foot 5 inches tall. While that was only a little shorter than the average European man, knights were from wealthy families (who had better nutrition), and so were taller than average. They had longer swords, being wielded by longer arms.
samurais were also nobility, and for reach that depends because the main weapon for samurai was technically the Yumi(long bow) with swords for close combat and finishing off but in certain periods the Yaris was very popular and was used with Yumi and swords as last resort or for fighting indoors or on boats. with that said knights did have much further developed armour and there weapons and fighting style were better at countering armour
for those arguing about a katana vs a knight armor, a blade wont simply cut the armor sure it can leave a dent when you hit hard enough or you can try to go for a stab by using the sharp tip of a blade, but with plated armor warfare, isnt that why maces, pikes and warhammers were invented? i heard and read knights would grab their swords by the blade and use the pummel or handle to bash each other
@@danielnunez7424 na what he's describing "grab their swords by the blade and use the pummel or handle to bash each other" is mordhau/murder strike, using the sword like a hammer. But yes half swording, to be more precise, is a valid skill to get into gaps.
How cute, even in 1940 a MkIV PKW was toast without infantry support, even today infantry against unsupported armor in close terrain for a MOUT environment is something the armored forces really want to avoid.
Artillery is heavily dependent on terrain. Japanese terrain is rough and mountainous so you cannot bring many cannons with you, because it will be a nightmare. That's why you do not see many 大砲 in sengoku period field battles, but a lot of heavy caliber muskets. Still, at Osaka Tokugawa had around 100 cannons, so they used them for sieges and when needed
Doubt. by 1600 the Japanese had Tannegashima matchlocks and cannons given by the portuguese. Not to mention the Japanese invented kneel-fire with firearms.
@@username-yc3bd Yes, but the kneel fire technique was made in Japan, as well as many other types of matchlocks like the ozutsu, literally a handheld cannon.
Samurais are awesome, but there seems to be a cult following around that that isn't reality based. The same with ninja, the katana, and Japanese martial history in general.
They were real. They were spies and assassins. "Ninjutsu" was not real. It is an artifact cultural mythology. You could still be correct if that's what you mean.
hi! real japanes person here! "legendary" tamahagane was super low grade steel! i cant stress how crappy steel was back then! japan was an isolated island with very limited resources. for the most part, tamahagane was made from gathering iron sand in the rivers. in fact, katanas were known for snapping all the time! the parts that were truly important were the handle and the guard because they usual bore a family crest, blades were replaced and often sold by broke ronin to make ends meet.... now that being said, the japanese 金棒 or warclub was specifially designed for use against armored opponents and there were several schools of "armored" (mostly chainmail, but usually covering most of the body) fighting styles in japanese history. which leads me to my question, how about a video on japanes anti-armor weapons vs european armor and vice versa? i bet the euro stuff would dominate honestly, but you might be pleasantly surprised by some of the more obscure weapons in our history (aka the ones that havent been ruined by pop culture lol)
Oh boy. Where to begin? I'm not sure I've ever seen a comments section as much of a hive of scum and ignorant villainy as this one! The amount of unbelievably unedcuated people is depressing as someone who knows what they are talking about when it comes to history and medieval+ combat, weapons, armour etc. Where to begin? 1. People saying that knights used halberds. No...just no. Halberds are the weapons of footsoldiers, mixed into a formation of pikemen, ranged troops and a few troops with long swords, swords and buckler etc. I'm guessing people mistake pollaxes for halberds and yes, knights did use pollaxes as they were effective at penetrating armour and fighting someone wearing a full set of plates. That's why pollaxe combat was the sport of nobility (knights etc.) and not the common soldier until later on. It's astounding how many people think knights are just common, rank-and-file soldiers or knight = man in suit of armour. It's bullshit. A knight is a noble class like a baron, duke or earl. Not a man wearing armour. Knights just happened to wear full suits of plate armour often because they were rich nobles who could afford good weapons and protection when they were called up to serve their leige. It's why knights had to provide their OWN men to the king etc. since they had their own land and people who worked under them as serfs etc. 2. Knights are dirty. What the fuck are you talking about? Knights were human beings and therefore they cleaned themselves. If a dog can lick its own backside to clean itself then I'm sure a sentient being can manage to get a bath. This is a common misconception of the medieval and further back periods. Just because hygeine was poor i.e. not knowing about bacteria and disease doesn't mean that people never got washed. I mean for goodness sake use your common sense! The romans were bathing, rubbing themselves with oils as were the egyptians and this was LITERALLY THOUSANDS of years before the "medieval knight" came along. 3. Katanas are magical and swords can cut through plate armour. Oh jesus, this is a painful one. This is by far the most unbelievably ignorant and stupid comment I've ever seen. Swords CANNOT POSSIBLY EVER cut through STEEL PLATE. WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK SOLDIERS, KNIGHTS ETC. WORE PLATE ARMOUR AND MAIL?! It is 100% to STOP swords and blades cutting them. A sword versus a man in full plate armour is fucking useless unless you try to to mordhau or "murder strike" by holding your swords blade and hitting them with the guard - basically using your sword as a hammer to attempt to penetrate armour. This is the reason there are countless pollaxes, axes, maces, hammers, warhammers, halbers, glaives, clubs etc. in the medieval europe and middle east. BECAUSE armour became so prevalent that they needed reliable weapons to penetrate the armour of and kill armoured opponents. Again this is common sense, you don't need to be an expert to realise that "sword - cant cut through reinforced steel sheets but point hammer - can penetrate metal sheets". Katanas are also not magical. They are made of poor quality metal that is all the blacksmiths in Japan had at the time. The reason they folded the blade so much isn't to add "super ninjustsu omgerdu supah powaaah ninjasamuariiiiuuuuuuh powarz" to the sword. It's to remove the impurities since their iron was so terrible. Also the swords had hardened edges and the rest was softer so if you hit something hard with a katana, wakizashi etc. its likely you will bend, chip or snap your glorious crappy katana in two. A katana striking a plate armoured western soldier would break and literally do nothing to the guy inside lol. If you don't believe me get a thick piece of steel and try to cut it with a really sharp knife. It will not do anything to the steel other than maybe lightly scratch it. 4. Samurai only used Katanas. Bullshit. They used bows, yari spears and naginata way more in battle. The katana is their SIDEARM. What are you going to use first in battle? Your assault rifle or your combat knife? The katana was a badge of rank for the samurai in their culture as they were the only ones permitted to wear them in everyday life etc. 5. Knights vs samruai vs vikings. Another puerile point. The best and most rich "Vikings" had swords, axes, spears, bows, round shields, chainmail armour, padded gambesons and spangenhelms as well as other helmet types etc. If anything the BEST equipped viking is only comparable to a mid-level medieval soldier in equipment and is missing a lot of more modern weapons such as the mace, halberd etc. So it is safe to say a knight in full renaissance plate armour with a longsword, pollaxe or mace would more than likely DESTROY a viking chief as if the viking only had a sword he could do basically nothing to the armoured man because they wouldn't have ever encountered plate armour of this type because it simply did not exist at the time. A viking might fare a bit better against a samurai but the samurai had cavarly and ashigaru etc. and their fighting styles would be insanely outlandish to a viking that would normally fight in a shield wall type battle. 6.Samurai and anti-armour weapons. They didn't have dedicated anti armour weapons. Simple. There were some wooden clubs and such but they were most certainly NOT the weapons of the average samurai. More likely monks or other people. 7.Samurai and the japanese had better equipment than western medieval period armies. This must be a joke? They had equipment suitable for fighting other japanese or asian regions with similar equipment. But compared to 15th century european plate their armour might as well be wooden sticks tied together. Samurai armour often weighed a huge amount more than european armour and wasn't as good generally as it was made from poor metal. Also their weapons are the same. Rennaissance european armies could also field firearms and cannons and if they were fighting the japanese before they got their firearm technology then they would be at an advantage there also. Tactics. The japanese would simply not have any sure fire and effective way to counter western military tactics at first. They would be out ranged with bows, crossbows and guns. Out ranged with long pikes, halbers and the like. And unable to do damage to knights wearing plate and the infantry that also had some plate armour pieces. 8. Armour was insanely heavy so knights were slow and clumsy and somehow samurai were super agile. This is one of the more irritating misconceptions. A full set of plate armour was around 27kg. That's not that much AND it is spread around your ENTIRE body. Armoured men were pretty agile, fairly flexible and mobile which is another common sense thing as they had to fight other people using fairly complex techniques with a variety of weapons. If they were so slow the opposing army would just send a guy with a halberd and normal clotheing and he could kill an entire army of knights since they would be lumbering around in your dream world fantasy version of reality and running circles around them which CLEARLY is bullshit. :) Remember I said earlier about their armour? Depending on the period it could be comparable in weight OR when firearms were introduced in the 1500-1600s their armour could be stupidly heavy and by that time european armies had moved on from full plate harnesses etc. 9. Plate armoured men at arms or knights would roast in Japans climate. This is just astoundingly idiotic. JAPANESE SAMURAI WORE BIG THICK SUITS OF ARMOUR. Did they roast alive? No. So it's safe to say neither would a European knight. Not to mention wearing armour is pretty bloody hot anyway, no matter where you are. Also this is simply illogical as EGYPTIAN, TURKISH AND AFRICAN soldiers wore HEAD TO TOE chainmail over silk padded armour and they didn't melt away to nothing and this was in FUCKING DESERTS AND HOT MIDDLE EASTERN CLIMATES LOL. Also the Japanese climate isn't insanely hot, some parts are pretty cold. 10. Knights had shields always. This has /some/ slight truth. In the 11th and onwards centuries Norman etc knights DID have shields as they were mounted cavalry wearing full chain mail and a spangenhelm alongside a sword and lance. From the 1400s onwards there simply was no reason for a knight or man in full plate to have a shield as the armour WAS the shield. It was so effective they did not need to use a shield anymore. Common soldiers might have done but even then it was quite rare as battles often ended up being ranged units, pole arm users and cavalry. 11. Knights used "broadswords". Medieval knights never touched a broadsword, they didn't exist then. They only really came into existance at the start of the 1600s. Think of a basket hilted scottish broadsword or a subtype such as a mortuary sword and then you know what a REAL broadsword is. Medievals knights didn't use them. Plain and simple. Maybe you're thinking of a falchion? Broadsword is such a shitty term to, many people don't accept its use other than for the "basket hilted broadsword" type of sword. 12. Conclusion. Simply put, a rennaissance europe period peasant halberdier with a cuirass and helmet could probably destroy the most well equipped samurai if he was just using his katana. A full plate wearing knight could walk along laughing as a samurai tried to cut through his armour, broke their sword and then got their kabuto caved in with hammer or mace. Please try to learn about real history and weapons etc. instead of listening to bullshit japanese anime weeb otaku myths or illogical nonsense about dirty lumbering european knights using 1700s "broadswords" (top kek) and "shields" against magical katanas that can cut through tanks, buildings, the earth etc. As a SJW retard once said to me - "EDUCATE YOURSELVES SHITLORDS!!!" Thank you for your time. - Ravo "the gard" Dragovar.
Also as an addendum - 13. European longswords were blunt and used to club people to death and break bones. This is FUCKING INSANE. BULLSHIT. MADNESS. IT IS A SWORD IT IS USED FOR CUTTING, THRUSTING ETC. AND THEREFORE IS SHARP ENOUGH TO CUT YOU INTO PIECES. IF YOU THINK A LONG SWORD IS A BLUNT CLUB KINDLY PICK ONE UP AND LEARN THE HARD WAY.
i was about to make this same comment and i also like anime but i know katanas are weak when compared to a knight armor. also walking and laughing, playing cards banging a hot lady is what the knight would be doing while the samari tried to cut him and breaking his sword into little sword pieces. also im a fan of the haliber as its my fav medevil weapon but some knights did use the weapon atleast foot knights did.
that knights were dirty is not such a crazy assertion, there was a superstition against washing in those times. its why they wore so many oils and powders to hide the smell. not saying they were caked in mud, but the japanese were absolutely much better about hygiene in that time period. there were many traditions of rome that were lost after the fall, if you are so well versed in history you should know this.
Na but the knight could probably just grab it and take it away ( if done right ) Or and this is something nobody ever consideres. The knight knows fully well he is not vincible against the Katana , meaning he could just walk / run up and punch the Samurai to death
The samurai would break the knights armor and sword if the katana has Unbreaking III,Mending,Sharpness V and fire aspect II Or if the samurai uses Shikai or Bankai then the knight is totally dead
@@primedecanus8788 "Their armor was light but strong" So was European full plate which covered more areas mind you. The only thing full plate did was make the wearer tire quicker but I can say with confidence that a samurai's Tousei Gusoku (Japanese equivalent to full plate) also made a samurai tire quicker.
well...considering the japanese literally looked at the europeans and made armor similar to them during the late warring states period...it seems knights had the better technology
yeah, japanese technology was definitely behind the full plate armour of the knights, but i reckon samurai were more skilled in duelling and swordsmanship.
@@雷-t3j Shad just says the exact opposite x) Europeans weren't a bunch of savages who just stroke randomly. Sword fighting was a martial art just like bushido or whatever. I'd say the reason of this misunderstanding is a lack of proper representation of it in movies or series, while on the other side, mangas and animes and even movies claiming Samurais were awesome fighters are legion. That aaaand maybe the Renaissance and a bunch of philosophers who tried to have Middle Age pass for a thousand years of terror and religious obscurantism, completely looking down on everything people achieved in that time. But yeah, thinking only Japan and China had martial arts is a huge misconception. Escrime is an awesome swordfighting marital art, and just how knights fought was also one ( don't know if there's a real name). Also it shows in the video but he doesn't say it, but one good technique to fight a heavily armored opponent was to grab your sword by the blade and strike with the guard, using it like a hammer.... Good luck doing that with a katana.
Knights are boring with heavy armour just too slow to fight a samurai Samurai's are cool and brave they are not afraid to die they have speed and their katana is razor sharp to cut humans into half it even penetrates armour too
Actually when Samurai were wearing their "best armor" during the Sengoku Jidai period, many soldiers carried matchlock muskets. European armies still relied on plate armor and muskets were still very cumbersome at the time but the Japanese were very enthusiastic. Daimyos such as Nobunaga Oda used it to deadly effect. Moreover, in the late 1500 Japan became so enthusiastic about the new weapons that it possibly overtook every European country in absolute numbers produced. The samurai invasion of Korea saw 160,000 japanese gunners. (Which was about a quarter of its invasion force).
Japanese soldiers also had access to gunpowder at relativley the same time as europeans (seeing as it came from China, most likely before them). Samurai in particular chose not to use firearms, so its not due to lesser technological advancement but a cultural reason...
Knight. obviously. Shield. Full plate armor. A weapon designed for stabbing. samurai. no shield. weapon designed for cutting(good luck). Shitty armor that is easily pierced its like the knight was literally designed to counter the samurai.
By the way... I would take a saber (technically a katana is a saber) into a duel over an arming sword any day of the week... I would prefer it to be an 18th or 19th saber, but still.
+WarGaming yes it is. its meant to protect against slashing. and heavily segmented and lapped with many many gaps. its great for slashes. but a narrow straightsword can slip between them easily, and since they dont often wear mail, theres no resistance.
+nightsied That's the running gag. "Batman with prep" winning random things he has no business being involved in is kinda a meme. But yes, he is always prepared. Like a little boy scout of justice.
Spartan. Here we see almost a similar conversation as with Knight vs. Samurai debate, with both types of warrior carrying similar weaponry and technology. That being said, the Spartan discipline is such that they hold death before dishonor. We've heard of what 300 Spartans can do... Now what about 1500?
Also those 300(ish) did make an amazing stand that can kind of blow the mind to think of, but ultimately the Spartans could not conquer Greece at any point. They were not invincible. If the Spartan phalanx could be broken, they would have suffered badly.
Lol yes they were, I think Sparta's greatest time was something like Vth century BEFORE JC, hence why they would be completely overpowered just technologically.
@@shroudthewolf1105 It's not like they were the only people in history to have discipline and training, that's more or less the basis of any pro army. Countries that worked on call, and just asked people to take arms might have been different, but take any modern country or any actual army in the past and they had the same kind of discipline and were equally competent.
the knight sword gives more options; two cutting edges, half-swording compatible, murderstrokes, and pommel throws. In the words of Solid Snake, it's CQC compatible.
Lecherous Lizard Are you trying to say that the pommel couldnt be used for melee? Remember what happened at hiroshima and nagasaki? Yep, Melee pommels are that real.
The Europeans still had access to better weapon technology. Their longbows had a much larger draw weight than the Japanese bows. The Japanese also didn't have access to weapons that could beat plate armor, like maces and warhammers. This is due to the small amount of iron the Japanese had available. They designed their weapons to cut flesh, not beat armor. That's why a weapon like the katana is ment to cut, not thrust.
@@tincanmaniac1931 impractical for mass use as it took years of training to use one properly and a bow was considered a peasants weapon. a war hammer is wasteful, maces are just cudgels with metal bits on the end as a force multiplier you could tie a rock to a stick and get the same effect. the Japanese focused on more precise weapons like spears and weapons that you had to aim at vital areas.
Some Guy Named Steve “The Japanese didn’t have weapons that could beat plate armor.” What are kanabo then? Not counting firearms, yes the Japanese had fewer dedicated anti-armor weapons, but they very much existed, and were used to good effect in battle
Sod that, get the Challenger 2. Some High Explosives from the 120mm will surely take the Samurai down a notch. Though the returning fire from the Type 10 could affect the Chally.
They _did_ use horses and they _did_ transport them on ships; they just didn't use shock cavalry as extensively, because they didn't have any stirrups and the horses were not yet bred to be as large, but most importantly, there was no feudal system that required noblemen to fight for their king on horseback. Once these things were in place, the _descendants_ of vikings pretty much invented shock cavalry as a battle tactic.
I like your analysis. I would also mention that I think training style carries a lot of importance as well. In the stress of battle, people will almost always revert to their training. This is why, in the military and as a contractor, we train basic movements endlessly, so that in the heat of the moment the body just reacts. Japanese swordfighting was a beautiful art, but it had one glaring weakness, especially against high quality European plate armor. The emphasis in Japanese swordfighting, as evidenced by the writings detailing the time of Musashi (spelling?), was on all-out offense with strikes directed primarily against the head and shoulders (ie, trying to cut into the body with the super sharp blade of a katana). Most high quality European plate helmets anticipated just this sort of attack with heavy reinforcement on the crest and front of the helmet. This allowed the helmet to withstand significant blows to the head (studies I have seen show it was generally capable of stopping anything but a direct hit with a heavy bladed weapon (perhaps a halberd or pole-axe). Simply put, it is pretty doubtful that a katana had the force/cutting power to disable a knight. With the focus on all out attack, this would also leave the samurai open to the counter-attack/opening attack of his adversary. Knights often trained to place trust in their heavy armor. Assuming training being equal, the knight would likely duck his head to take the brunt of his opponent's opening attack on the reinforced crest of the helmet, while attacking back. A samurai's armor allowed more movement, but was singularly inadequate to defend against a heavy bladed weapon such as a pole-axe and most late period knights carried weapons such as these since they were well-designed to counter well-armored enemies. I love the samurai and their culture and history, but in terms of technology and training, they just don't seem to be equal to a knight in one on one combat, primarily because the knight's armor is a hard counter to their preferred weapon and fighting style. Strategically, on the battlefield, things may be different given the versatility of samurai (many training with bows as well as melee weapons), but my impression was that this video focuses on single combat, where I feel the knight has a decisive advantage in equipment, to the point that it might allow a less skilled knight to defeat a more skilled samurai.
Plate armor is also very resistant to slashing weapons. The Samurai's weapons are mostly for slashing, hence the curvature of the blades. Straight swords are much better against armor as they could be used to stab.
Good points. To take down a knight in combat what we usually see is the knight unhorsed or thrown to the ground (wrestled) normally by multiple opponents and then dispatched with a 'bollock' knife through the eyeslit, armpit or groin (one of the reasons for the name). From the records we see that this was also how a knight trained. They were aware of their limitations and trained, as we do, to try and negate it.
I think the baseline is that one style isn't really 'better' than another, but rather that both were simply developed to combat the enemies that they faced. That is why it is very difficult to compare fighting styles/warriors from completely different worlds (despite period similarities, these might as well be different worlds). For example, the Japanese were able to defeat the Mongols (with the help of a few tsunamis). This was something that the European powers singularly failed to do with their major encounters turning into resounding defeats. Sometimes it's a rock-paper-scissors game.
I love how your analysis recognizes that knights usually used pole arms in battle rather than swords, but assumes Samurai mainly used katana (hint: nope). Also, Musashi was a duelist so I don't think his opponents were wearing armour. Notice how fencing manuals from Europe are also hard countered by armour. Duels are pretty different from a battle
Nice video. I hate that some people think: 1. Samurais fought with Katanas as their primary. It's their sidearm. Their main weapon was either Spear(Yari) or Bow (Yumi) 2. Samurai didn't use anti-armor weapons. There's the Tetsubo and Konsaibo. Basically big metal or hardwood studded bats. 3. Samurai didn't use guns. They utilized a lot of matchlocks during the sengoku period courtesy of the Otomo clan and the Oda clan utilizing them effectively. 4. Samurai armor is made of wood. Their armor is also lined with metal. It's a huge disadvantage that they have weaker metal but you're comparing an island to an entire continent
Yeah you right youmu. Also most people seem to not realize that knight vs samurai debate can be pretty vague and absurd, for example you could have absurd crap like sir Isaac Newton vs miyamoto Musashi and of course *it definitely a fair fight*
I never said any points that correlates to them being better than Knights. I've listed points about how people have way too much misinformation on the Samurai and these are examples.
Beni well, with pole arms and impact weapons they could for example. But if the knight picks similar European weapons the armour of the knight would be still better with lesser weak points than the armour of the samurai I think.
Not every Knight use fullbody Protection. As I know only few did this in the end of they era. So, the Knight would have many unprotected Points. I whisht he would describe the weight of both Armors.
well, I dont know enough to judge the percentage of knights who were wearing fullbody protection and who didnt. So I wont answer to this point. But I tried once to get some information about the weight of both armors. Of course its varying, but surprisingly the numbers I found were quite similar. So even with greater protection a full body armour isnt automatically heavier.
I think its kinda obvious the Western Europe winning Japan, simply: Most of the time Japaneses as at war against other Japaneses, before WW2 i think Japan sufered only 4 forced invasion attemps in 3000 years. While at that time Europe goes from: Rome, High MIddle Age, Arabian Invasions, Silk Road, Crusades, Mongols, Turks, Arabian Retaken, Low Middle Age AND Europeans fighting each other.... The amount of culture and technologies trades that Europe had in comparission with Japan is massive.
@@shotto_z4790 you do realize it was only due to SHEER luck and possible Chinese sabotage that Japan survived the mongols right? Had the mongol forces made it to Japan successfully they would have destroyed the samurai without much problem.
What we shouldnt forget, is that the warrior "knight" was an amalgam of many cultures technologies and war experiences. Steel production, shock cavalry, different types of armour, weapons, tactics were all developed because europe, the mediterranean sea, and the middle east (even india) were a melting pot of these warsignificant factors, due to being constantly at war, having massive migration of populus and a vast trade systems early as the bronze period with the mycene, babylonian and egyptian empires. Japan may have had the warring states period, but even with the mongol invasion or the expansion to korea, we dont see something comparable in exchange of war technology to europe. P.S.: Also do not forget the ressources. Japan has only limited natural metal sources and in medieval times they had to import large quantities from korea and china. When you see the impressive japanese woodworking technique that functions without metal, it is influenced by the lack of it. So the japanese having a lesser developed metalurgy is pretty understandable.
All that stuff happened in Japan as well different tactics, armors, weapons etc. Japan did not have a lacking in materials at this time and did not import large quantities during medieval times from China or Korea. This is part 1 of a multiple series of articles on Japanese metallurgy, recommend checking out butter articles on is blog as well. gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1
Japan, on the same timeline produced more guns than the totality of europe. Europeans are just slower to adapt into firearms. Which they eventually did at a later time
funny how some people use anime shows as a reference to how a katana cuts, like it's a friggin light saber or something. you can't hack through hardened plate + chain + gamb. Knight would teabag a samurai on the daily.
The thing about Japanese equipment is that it was built for a different environment and purposes. Japanese armor was shaped in a way to redirect blows that might come from slashing weapons (which also made them weaker against blunt or piercing weapons like the tetsubo mogwai provided). The katana was more of a peasant killer than a weapon for fighting other samurai and that's an important distinction to make. While I am of the opinion that in most cases a samurai would lose, it's easy to see why when you consider the background and purpose of the samurai in its natural role. Europe just happened to produce a much more versatile set of equipment while Japan produced equipment that was often much more specialized or (like with katanas) a product of limited resources. If you're going to continue the debate, consider weapons that samurai used against each other and their methods of warfare and it'll clear up why these differences came about. Oh and a fun fact is that samurai didn't rely on shields because many of their battles were ritualized duels and volley fire from arrows weren't commonly faced in Japanese feudal warfare.
You're acting as if the Japanese were living in a time bubble where nothing changed. They actually developed their weapons and methods of warfare almost as much as the Europeans over the centuries. They got rid of the ritualised combat after the Mongolian attacks and made bows the staple of their armies. Then, when the European merchants came during the Jidai Geki period, the Japanese happily bought all the weapon technology they had to sell and quickly began to manufacturing those new-fangled firearms and steel breastplates for themselves. The idea that the samurai were reliant on their katanas is a myth based on the later Edo period, when the Shogunate kept all the more advanced weaponry under lock and key to prevent further uprisings.
"Jidai Geki period" do you mean Edo period? jidaigeki is a genre of TV show in Japan... it literally means time period era. Not trying to offend, but it certainly lowers your credibility.
What I mean is the Warring States-period -- which should be apparent enough from the context -- which I've always been heard referred to as the Jidai Geki. If terminologies have been crossed at some point, I apologise.
Fuck no. There might be some trolls but there are massive amounta of people commenting on here who have no idea of what they are talking about and sucking the Samurai's dick.
I am completely certain that In a one v one situation, with equally skilled opponents, with the best armor and arms available, the Knight would win. Their technology was just more advanced. I am also certain however, that in a situation of warring nations, after encountering the superior technology of the knights in battle a few times, the natural arms race of war would take place, bringing the samurai to develop basically the same technology the knights had and level the playing field. The only important, and deciding question there is how long the samurai would take to develop and manufacture the new technology in sufficient numbers .
The so called technology egde many people assign to knights and medieval europe in general derived by a very shallow and narrow knowledge of Japanese technological level of the period. First of all, what century? Second, the most notable technology Europe had over Japan didn't start to appear before the mid 16th century, namely ship building and firearm technology, and at least within gunpowder weapons Japan was quite fast yo catch up in the 16th century. Armor level of protection and mobility were rather comparable, given the context in which both bushi and knights developed. The same goes for weapons - but it would be stupid to compare them without thinking about the context in which they fought. To put it simply, many things that the knights were specialized with would simply not work in Japan.
@@清正中村 bruh, Katanas weren’t even strong enough for Mongol armor. The only thing that saved Japan from that invasion was storms that wrecked their fleet and drowned a ton of their army, twice. And Knight armor was more advanced than that, which sorry, appeared long before the 16th century.
@@hakon_brennus_wolff106 Why do I have to read this in 2021... the claim of Japanese swords struggling against mongol armor is sourceless and fake. It is quoted so many times but there are no historical sources, neither Yuan or Japanese, to support such claim. It is also used to justify the figure of Masamune, which is a legendary smith, but if swords changed in the 14th century was because of the Nanbokucho period wars which lasted more than 50 years, not because of two skirmishes that happened in Kyushu and lasted less than few months combined. You should read the 蒙古襲来絵詞 at least to have an idea on what happened. Moreover, Japanese swords were imported into China both before and after the Yuan - there is even a Chinese poem praising the quality of Japanese swords of the 11th century. It is called 日本刀歌 and was made by 欧阳修. The swords were also imported into Ming China and adopted into Chinese military by Qi Jiguang and they are praised in 紀效新書, they were also imported into Vietnam and Korea. I can give you several examples on how well praised Japanese swords were at the time in Asia. And no, the Mongol fleet was utterly destroyed by Japanese forces twice - not by the storm. The fact that you cannot read Japanese is not a justification to spread myths on Japanese and Asian history. There are no mention of the storm in 1274 in Japanese sources, and the Yuan Shi mentions it after the Yuan army retreated, to make up an excuse for the disproportionate casualties they have suffered. In the second invasion in 1281 they stayed months at sea before the storm came. The fact that the fleet was annihilated by the storm is not really a big deal, because they were not supposed to be at sea in the first place - again, several academic work available in Asia and even in the west to disprove the idea that Japan was saved by the typhoons. If they had the advantage, why did they retreated in 1274 and why couldn't land in 1281? It's hilarious that we still hear such things when it's just pure logic that an army of unwilling Koreans and Chinese, with comunication issues given the Mongolian leadership, was at severe disadvantage against the Japanese of Kyushu. Plate armor didn't appear before the very late 14th century, it is very much comparable in terms of defense to later period Japanese armor (当世具足), and why should the Samurai use a katana against armor when there are more efficient weapons to do so. I can tell that people in the west know very little of Japanese history, culture and tradition since what you will consider a "Samurai" (the term historically make little sense but whatever) for most of its history wouldn't even use a katana in the first place.
@@清正中村 Lol, struck a nerve i see. I’m sure Katanas were praised throughout Asia. They were probably the best swords in the region at the time, although that still isn’t exactly the stamp of superiority. China and Korea have never been known for making fantastic weapons. If they had the chance to fully equip with European arms, they would have jumped at the chance. I’m not saying Katanas were trash, of course not. Just that that they hadn’t developed as advanced metal working techniques in Asia, as Europe had by this time. This isn’t even disputed by anyone outside of Japan besides some anime Addicts that don’t know what they’re talking about. Actual historians everywhere else are in agreement. I’m not sure why you are getting so offended by this, it has no reflection on Japanese people. Technology advances just work that way. Sometimes one region springs far ahead of others, but the next big leap happens in a totally different region. It’s not a big deal. This is why historians don’t fully rely on only biased sources, they have to piece together the truth from every available source, not just their favorites lol.
@@hakon_brennus_wolff106 I didn't meant to be rude or mean, but I want to clarify few things. China was way ahead in terms of metallurgy compared to the West prior to the industrial revolution. Spring tempered longsword and blast furnaces were a thing already by the Han Dynasty. Look at the size of Han longsword, they are way longer to what the West had back then, as they could not produce them yet. You can easily check this information without reading through classical chinese. Also, have you seen any metallurgical paper dealing with Japanese swords? Plenty of documents to highligh the high quality of the artificats including works of A. Williams, A. Fedrigo, F. Grazzi. And do you know that the techniques used to make European swords were pretty much the same (folding and forge welding multiple layers of steel) to the ones used in China and Japan? Look at De L'arte Fabrile, an Italian document of the 17th century dealing with European sword making. Many similarities with traditional Japanese swordmaking, well beyond the medieval period. Have you seen Jizai Okimono made in the 17th century by Japanese armor makers - that speaks a lot on the refinment of Japanese metalworking. And the Chinese did encounter European swords, but they were neither adopted nor copied. In fact, quoting from Yo Dayou (俞大猷) : "these people's only weapon is a soft sword, their naval (melee) combat ability is inferior to our soldiers, and on the ground, long spears would have subdued them" So clearly European swords didn't made such an impression. In fact the Ming had some skirmishes with the Portuguese in the early 16th century and won the engagements. Note, no one would argue that the West was able to develop a technological edge with the industrial revolution, but that didn't exist until the 19th century. I get annoyed a lot because no one in Japan talks shit about European history or tradition, while it seems quite common among western "you tuber historians". I do own Japanese and English books of European arms and armor, while this guy is entitled to talk shit about it without even getting closer to a book of Japanese arms and armor. That's what annoys me. Immagine a Japanese you tuber going around claiming that European swords were 40 pounds and that knights couldn't move - same level of triggering, if you will.
I totally agree with Shadiversity, the question Samurai vs Knight is just a fun question. I don't think this topic should be taken too seriously. I love listening to insightful explaining of the two totally different warriors.
Not only that *not all knight are warrior* for example you could get an absurd crap like sir Isaac Newton vs miyamoto Musashi *and of course it definitely a fair fight!!!!!*
Japanese fighting style was called “一騎討ち” which is just like one on one. That explains why they wear heavy armor more than light wear to protect themselves from close combat.
@@wendygoerl9162 yeah with extra large handles ;) or did the europeans figure that Out too because a German Kriegsmesser hasnt a pommel either. and Google: "end him rightly" If you wanna know the truth about pommels ;)
@@Banzaiiii2223456 actually, much less. A 16th century Spanish Arquebuseer was expected to make three shots per minute (20 seconds), and a musketeer would take just some seconds more, taking into account they were much heavier weapons.
A European knight or man-at-arms protected in Late Medieval/Renaissance Era plate armor would have been all but invulnerable to most of the weapons of Medieval Japan. Despite appearances, late era European plate was quite easy to wear and didn't overly burden the wearer. You could be quite agile in it and the strength and hardness was far beyond anything the Japanese could make. Especially the later Italian and German armor.European swords would have been the least of a samurais worries. In the later periods, where the quality of European plate armor reached its zenith, the most favored weapons of armored knights were flanged maces, two handed spiked war hammers, and spiked pole axes. Samurai armor would have be been useless against these kinds of weapons.
but what about crusaders chainmail knights vs samurai. i mean at that point we are talking of two different tech eras. so giving a litle lea way because originaly samurai did not have the famous blade until the 14 century how about.14 century samurai vs 13 century knight
From what I know about Katanas they can't cut through chainmail, and so a knight in full chain armor is still almost as well armored as one in full plate armor vs a samurai. The only difference would be the samurai would have more openings to get a lethal cut in, and the force behind a stroke could break bones more easily.
Mounted Archers? Battle of Lechfeld says hi... hungarian cavalry (including a big amount of archers) VS german heavy cav and infantry... germans won... the hungarian archers not being capable to inflict enough damage
Luca Nic in the 1st and 2nd crusades small numbers of European mounted knights achieved stunning successes against against larger numbers. Richard on a couple of occasions with just his personal retinue put hundreds of Arabs to flight.
Samurai armor, while providing good protection for the conflicts it was involved in, is still not as protective as full place. While some of it was made from metal plates (especially in later periods), far more common were plates made of lacquered wood and leather. While this made the armor a lot lighter and thus easier to move in, it provided less protection. And even if the plates were made from metal, it was rare that it was held together by rivets. Rather the plates were held together using silk cord or leather strips. Again, this made the armor easier to move in, but made it prone to damage in combat. In later periods you started to see more solid plates being used in it's construction, but these were usually only used to protect the chest and head, while the rest of the armor was still protected by smaller plates. And that's before taking into account that the steel used was often much lower quality steel than what could be produced in Europe at the time. While the quality of steel used in a weapon might not have much affect on a fight, the quality of steel in the armor does. Lesser quality steel needs to be thicker to offer protection, and thus heavier and more tiring to wear. It's also more prone to failing from damage, possibly leaving the wearer unprotected in areas.
@@TheDeinonychus Thanks, dino! But although I'm not a smith, I would think that lesser steel in a weapon would be too brittle to withstand the stress. What do you think?
@@nicholauscrawford7903 You are correct that a brittle steel weapon would be prone to failure, though brittleness is most often the result from overhardening the metal. More often than not, poor quality steel was (especially in Japan) the result of uneven distribution of carbon in the metal. This was because, unlike European methods, the bloomeries the Japanese used couldn't make the iron completely molten. This also meant there were often impurities left in the steel as well. They got around this in their sword making by crushing the resulting mass of partially molten steel (which looked a lot like a giant metal sponge), and separating out parts with the right carbon content based on how it looked. They also further compensated by using sword forging methods to try and get the best qualities out of what materials they had, such as only partially hardening the blade, or adding a spine of much softer iron for flexibility. Usually, if you have poor quality steel in a sword blade, the issue isn't that it will be brittle (unless you end up adding far too much carbon, which will basically turn the steel into cast iron), but rather it will bend and hold that bend rather than flexing back into shape. You will see this with a lot of decorative swords. If you bend them, even a little, they will stay bowed, rather than returning to true like a spring would. This doesn't sound like it would be as big of a problem for armor, but remember that a lot of the protection armor offers comes from it's shape as well as the material it's made from. Once metal armor is dented and bent to a point, it's no longer as effective at absorbing impact, and in the case of samurai armor, plates that are bent badly will no longer redistribute force to surrounding plates. Not to mention they're far more likely to get caught when the wearer tries to move.
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine. The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations. In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor. It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon) knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
If you're talking about bolt-action, semi-auto and full-auto, then it's pretty big difference. But if you'd take flint-lock muskets, it could even be fair fight.
Frank Teryngel so you are talking about technology difference there. Technology provides such an edge that training becomes irrelevant when the is a huge technological difference. Training becomes only relevant when both sides employ roughly equivalent technology
Benny Biggums the accounts we have of encounters between samurai and Portuguese soldiers showed that samurai were always defeated. With passing of time and the disappearing the use of the sword we saw samurai defeat their opponents. in fact after the 16th following fights between Portuguese and samurai the European were forbidden to take rapiers off their ships, in 19th century we have accounts of other fights with Europeans being defeated. By the 19th century no European was carrying a rapier and most European would have had no training in fencing as a sport, never mind military fencing. www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/07/european-vs-japanese-swordsmen-historical-encounters-in-the-16th-19th-centuries/
Not all technology gaps make that much of a difference. Of course, there are many historical accounts where newer technology were the reason an army won a war. Yet there also are accounts of wars (or at least battles) won by the side with the lesser advanced technology. Romans weren't able to conquer Germania, the Phillipines held out quite well against the Samurai despite not even having metal weapons, Germany lost WWII despite having superior aircraft and tanks... It really depends on the type of technology gap and how much of an edge it really gives. In these above examples, Roman warfare tactics were unsuited for forested combat. A war of attrition with guerilla attacks proved enough to devastate the armies of the infamous general Varus despite their size and technology advantage. The Phillipines used wooden weapons which obviously were quite faster than armed and armoured warriors. Long story short, they were able to outmaneuver them and kill them with their own weapons because obviously wood doesn't slice through armour. Germany... well, bad decisionmaking led to the loss of airforce and an abundance of enemies as well as a shortable of able allies. But even when you look at the Russian front alone, the Russians still had a chance of either taking down a German tank from behind (Russian tanks indeed were that fast... it was just the question whether they would be unnoticed or just lucky to not get hit) or below. Here's also how much a difference skill makes. The best German sniper on the Russian front had about 100 confirmed kills... before being taken out by the best Russian sniper of that time. Who had lesser advanced weaponry and still more confirmed kills. Most technology gaps that MADE the difference were wars with comparable warfare tactics. Such as the invention of the Prussian backloader which vastly improved firing speed or the invention of tanks in WWI which opposed all values of Trench Warfare. The same applies to technology gaps in older times. Warfare tactics had MUCH more of an impact overall. Of course, new technology brought about new tactics, but not immediately.
I'm glad he pointed out the cavalry thing. If Europe, and particularly England, had developed anything like the heavy cavalry of later years before the first Viking raids; history would have been very different. For instance I don't think you get any of the Viking kingdoms that spread across England; let alone the Danelaw. I think that, sure when the Vikings first land, they take a village or two but as soon as the local lord spread the word and the cavalry very literally came down they would have run the Vikings under with very little trouble. There's not a Viking shield wall that could have withstood even one charge from the English heavy cavalry of later years.
Heavy cavalery is gard to maintain and Vikings set food in england first by raiding with ships that made them more mobile then cavalery. Cavalery would have slowed the progress down but a Land which gets raided over and over again couldnt provide for a heavy cavalery, which on the other hand could have been picken up by the vikings, damn does pessents would be pissed.
The easiest way to answer this is what would you rather have? Weapons incapable of penetrating your opponents armor, or causing any real damage the man inside the armor, while your own armor is fallible to pretty much every weapon the knight has to a lesser or greater extent. You have all the skill in the world, if your opponent has eve a modicum of skill he's going to win with that much of an advantage. This is such a huge chasm in difference of offense and defense, skill really won't factor in to this that much. Saying "oh a skilled fighter could still win", yeah well a really skilled fighter could still win with a rock and the other guy has an AR, provided he gets lucky enough or his opponent is inept enough, otherwise you know who is going to win. In 1v1 The knight. In 100 vs 100, again the knights- but there's going to be at least some casualties on the knight's side I'm sure.
@@peasantofpersia bows don't pentrate plate Armour, it's been tested and it just slightly damaged it. The reports from agincourt were likely written by the English to overemphasize the effectiveness of their longbows
@@peasantofpersia as far as spears goes, I wouldn't really know. but I doubt that anyone could put enough force into throwing the spear to actually penetrate plate armor AND chain mail, and then still have enough power to kill the man wearing the armor
Why does everyone assume the samurai just ran around with a katana, a samurai combat progression would start with a bow on horseback, or a gun in later periods, after this in closer combat they would turn to a yari (spear) and if, and only if this broke or was unusable, they would turn to their katana. So the question of whether the katana can pierce armour is a little redundant if you consider all the other avenues which would be taken before a katana is even brought into the equation.
Agreed. and the fact that people in the comments section also assume that knights only have a longsword give me a stroke LOL. What about poleaxe,Warhammer or shortened lance/spear or Wheelock pistol in later period?.
The biggest difference is the use of shields for me. I could be wrong, but my understanding it's that samurai used shields primarily from horseback, and not on foot. I would exclude firearms just because they'll kill either regardless of who is holding the gun.
Because guns were introduced by the portuguese in 1543. So when japanese were holding the gun fist time we didn't had a feudal system anymore but already colonialized half the planet...... And if you want to talk armour 1543 vs samurai armour its even more advantage to the european since japanese iron and steel lacked everything the europeans had.
The Samurai fans should really ask themselves some questions and the answer to these questions will tell them who would would be in favor in a fight. Why didn't the knights use similar armor than the Samurai? Because steel plate armor is far superior to anything else in that time. Why didnt the Samurai use full plate? Because they didnt have the smelting technology to produce hardened spring steel. Differential hardened steel would not work in plate armor. Why didnt the european swordmakers use differentially hardened folded steel? Because it is extremely expensive to make and will at best give you similar quality weapons. Why did the knights give up on shields? Because their late medieval armor was so effective that you did not need a shield anymore. The late full plate armor was pretty much immune to every weapon exept maces and helbards and the like. Even the feared warbows and crossbows were mostly ineffective. Why is it fair to believe that knights could fight on a similar skill level compared to samurai? Because you can bet that every person and culture that is heavily influenced by fighting will try to have the best training and techniques possible.
Luca Nic Thank you, that was very helpful. I may have been a bit unclear earlier, I had meant that I thought melee combat to be somewhat of a rarity. Specifically combat between heavily armored fighters. I wasn't aware the term Samurai was so widely applicable, or that metal armor was so widely used. I actually don't see a reply from you to another of my comments, maybe it's just google being weird.
Heck, a lot of early guns couldn't hurt properly-made steel plate. ...which is wishy-washy of course. There was no real standard size for the handgonnes and arquebuses of early days and this statement's validity could change from individual example to individual example. But even so.
@@jerichamesclammay3107 Seppuku less honorable? Samurai did it of their own will to preserve their honor ... in this mass slaughter of knights it was not even possible to escape because you immediately got a shield or another stone in your head ...
@@hidarii2684 so killing yourself is preserving your honour? also: knights had shields as a means of protection. Especially since Western warfare back then was much more advanced than Eastern warfare. Also: stone? helmets are made of steel
Same, I like Samurai, their code of honor, armor, and weapons. However I can accept if they would most likely lose in a 1v1, theoretically for debate sake of course. And I'm saying this after watching the video.
@@chayudyodchit2872 sounds reasonable. However Sir Isaac Newton though knighted, was a mathematician and exactly your go-to warrior when shit hits the fan. I don't know everything about Isaac Newton, I'm just assuming this was the case, based on my general knowledge of him.
@@colealexander7690yeah, most people seem to not aware that *a knights is not always a warrior, people who do good to state and country can also be granted a honorary title or rank by being knighted* for example, knights hospitaller when not in war or battlefield were known as a medic and knights Templar were known as a monk(or warrior monk when at war) and sir John Smythe is known as a English politician.
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine. The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations. In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor. It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon) knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
@@peiranzhang4283 you are literally wrong, there were, however some ninjas who were also samurai, but it was far, far from most. the bushido code was a thing that all samurai lived their lives by and literally goes against everything that a ninja does I. Rectitude or Justice. II. Courage. III. Benevolence or Mercy. V. Honesty and Sincerity. VI. Honor. VII. Loyalty. VIII. Character and Self-Control. ninjas were literally assassins, spies, and are defined as "warriors without honour" as a side note, most ninjas are actually farmers, the poor, and people of low social status, whereas samurai are generally extremely high class, very commonly being lords of chunks of land or regions.
@@rileyteramura7552 Sure, but most samurai didn't kill themselves. Have you heard of the Ronin? Or the Woku pirates? The Ronin are basically masterless samurai, often because their masters killed themselves after defeat, and many were employed by the Woku pirates as mercanerys
It's a wonder to me that, after thousands upon thousands of comments stating the same arguments to exhaustion, some people haven't quite picked up the basics of this scenario. Both knights and samurai were human. Knights were not tanks and samurai were not magical anime warriors. Knights were not immobile chunks of steel and samurai were not ultra-flexible soldiers dancing around the battlefield. They were both clad in similarly heavy armor so neither would show up with just their sword of choice. If either of them were hit over the head with either a poleaxe or a kanabo, they would be out for the count. And neither of those soldiers is just standing around waiting to be struck, so even scoring a hit is a rarity. I do give the knights the advantage, but to say that a knight is just gonna be prancing around while killing samurai left and right is naive and misinformed. At best I'd say knights would win ~65/100 battles. For the record: adoring and romanticizing knights is just as obnoxious as adoring and romanticizing samurai.
Its very unhelpful for you to restate the point of skill already addressed in the video Also if you don't want a discussion on the comparison I don't suggest looking in the comment section of a comparison video Also its been shown kanabo isn't great against full armour it definetly won't put you out for the count the only way for the samurai to win is the simply out skill and fully control the fight Anyone who had to fight and they had the option of either set of the equipment would pick knight armament
You say that it's unhelpful, and yet, if you look at many of the newer comments, you will still see lots of people saying that the samurai spent their every breathing moment preparing for battle while the knights just fucked around on the battlefield, despite the video, myself and many others saying otherwise. More than unhelpful, I'd say it is in vain to continue to argue for the equivalence of their training if people are just not going to listen. I'm not protesting the existence or the continuation of the argument, I'm saying that it's pointless to keep arguing parting from the false premise that either warrior was some sort of mythical creature while the other was a hopeless loser. There are good arguments to be made on the topic but they must be made on solid foundation or their validity is compromised. As for the equipment part, the scenario I proposed was a person taking a direct hit over the head with either a kanabo or a polearm. The kanabo may not damage the helmet in any significant way, but no human neck will take such an impact well, and even just getting stunned by the blow can prove fatal if the knight can't defend himself from the follow-up.
Derp Wayne The weight difference between a full plate armor of a knight to a full typical samurai armor is quite large and will definitely affect fatigue in different manners. Also the samurai armor is much more mobile because it has no solid steel parts that hinder movement which would allow for better manoeuvres on offense and defence. I personally agree with the video maker that it mostly would comes down to individual skill. Adaptation is also veth important. If the samurai fights very offensive and similar to the knight, the knight would have the advantage because of his stronger armor. But if the samurai fights defensively and wears the knight out, to a point that the knights reflexes are slowed down enough, the samurai has the advantage because of his faster movement and lower fatigue.
before i even start this video i need to state the obvious.....as much as i love the katana, and the samurai, and japanese culture and history...ive not known for the samurai to carry weapons that could effectively pierce a knight's armor, and ive seen broadswords straight up break a katana..this really comes down to the equipment or (weapon technology) that would truly be the deciding factor in this.
There are multiple weapons used in Japan that can be used to defeat plate armor, as Japanese armor itself was no joke to bypass especially during the Sengoku Period when Tosei Gusoku armor was developed, since most of the body was covered by rigid plates as well. In fact axes, maces, warpicks and other weapons were used as well as finely tapered daggers, spears with hooks and projections used to hook and subdue the enemy and not to mention gunpowder weapons. Just today I was browsering old manuals through the 近世期絵入百科事典データベース（試作版）and I've found this: kutsukake.nichibun.ac.jp/EHJ/img/2569346/6-3.jpg That's a weapon that could be very effective against armor to be fair. I don't understand why everyone focus on the Katana, as it was never specialized into being an anti armor weapon. Moreover, there is no way that a properly historically made sword could cut through another properly made one in real battlefield conditions, especially if it is a Katana since they are quite thick blade. You might be talking about that German Tv shows: well that's not really a scientific nor intellectually honest test.
BS. If you forge a lava katana with +3 fire effect beforehand, the knight would get too hot during battle to even fight. And that's on top of the lava katana having the power to not only cut the knight in half, but the fabric of space and time.
Europeans were all about exploration and conquering, so of course they were gonna focus greater on weaponry and technology, whereas the Japanese were more focused on honourable battles and keeping order
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine. The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations. In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor. It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon) knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
"Either side could win depending on the skill of the warrior." That right there is pretty much all the answer we need. Unfortunately people always want to be able to quantify things and be able to find a definitive answer to questions like "Katana vs. straightsword, Which is better?" or "Samurai vs. Knight, Which is better?" A katana might be MARGINALLY better at cutting and a straightsword might be MARGINALLY better at stabbing, but ultimately every variable is trumped by the individual warrior's ability to fight. The difference between a samurai and a knight lies in the equipment that they used. An amateur with full plate armor will almost assuredly lose to an expert wearing no armor at all. Point is, having better equipment is always a bonus, but it's not the determining factor to the question of which warrior is more likely to survive. Secondly, are we talking about a 1-on-1 duel or a full warfare scenario? Either scenario only adds a million more variables into the mix, which would be possible to adequately quantify. I agree this it's a fun question to consider, but it's a question that will never receive any definitive answer that extends much further beyond the realm of mere personal preference, and the "Knight vs. Samurai" debate is precisely that. A battle of personal preference.
If you put a sword master and a normal soldier in full plate armor and with a sword if the sword master is without armor the guy with the armor has the most chances to win
good luck using your "skill" in fight vs opponent in plate Armour, using thin cutting sword and no shield. Theres literally no way you can hurt him you cant stab with katana in the gaps, just not gonna happen. You're not going to cut his amour, obviously.
+DaSpooge you are right and i would even argue that other factors like luck or whether one combatant had a good night's sleep or didn't might affect the outcome. but i think shad does a good job of re-framing the question as "who had better military technology: 16th century europe or 16th century japan?" this is a question that can be evaluated by some objective metrics.
It’s curious because knights fight for their concepts of “Honour and Justice” and sometimes dress with symbols of Christianity; and samurai’s fight for their “master’s Honour”, and dress with masks of demons (At least according to the stereotypes)
old japanese afterlife is very different. it is often a negative perception of how dirty you are when you are alive and how hard hell has to clean your soul before it circulates to the world of the living once again. there is a heaven though but it's mostly for the gods.
Well.... Europes does have a few demonic and monstrous looking helmet, I don't think they would give a crap much (unless pope declare crusade on Japanese or they wanted to conquer them)
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine. The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations. In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor. It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon) knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
Dude the Japanese really weren't that great of a fighting force you make them out to be, you give European civilizations way too little credit putting them against an island
@Alfred Humn that's an incredibly broad statement to make. European armies have been attacking and conquering each other for most of history. I wouldn't say any one of them were particularly focused on defence. Either way Samurai and knights were a very late age aristocracy class much more than they were fighters. I would just personally wager on a European army at any stage of history as they were generally the most advanced because of the constant warring.
@@solaire7046 im just talking about the equipment. Eastern asia: mongols bow and horse, china halberds/spears/lances , japan katana and kanabo , korea foot gakkung bow , vietnam rattan archer. vikings, romans, greeks, knights : shield, shield, shield, shield
The game Sekiro actually made a clever and probably factual point about this where you come across a western knight type enemy and you literally cannot hurt him with your katana. The only way to beat him is to push him over the edge of the bridge you are fighting on. Really cool
Jan Sitkowski not true, portugese tried to sell european swords to japanese but they did not like it due to poor quality. Samurai sword is the best sword according to archeologiests including westerners. None of the european swords had 2 different metal for the cutting edge and for the mid layer like katana and using different clay for having cutting edge hard and upper part of the sword soft for absorbing tensions. Japanese had different sword technique based on minimum effort and maximum injuries and precision strikes to week spots. They did not have such a fenci g for minutes one on one. Anyway it would be interesting so see a samuri master against a knight sword master.
@@hakapeszimaki8369 Incorrect. You cannot judge Japanese or European sword quality based on Portugal trying to sell cheap mass produced swords to Japan. Archeologists are not experts on metallurgy or weapon technology so using them as a source is like quoting a biology professor on chemistry, not the right expert. Blacksmiths and weapon experts will point to many European and Persian swords that are better than the katana. In addition to that, some katanas are better than others just like any other sword. As this video pointed out, metallurgy was better in Europe.
@@brianjordan2192 Archeologist are using modern technique to check the metals in archeological swords and other metal artefacts. It is not my opinion only what I wrote above. The European swords are having own history. I agree with you that you can find great swords and really bad ones in Europe and in Japan as well. A good refernce can be Fior di Battaglia regarding fighting technique and swords were used in that period in Europe.
@@shamerzaihan8638 you do understand they attacked the Eastern Europe with too many losses and got pushed back after 4 years .... And still Mongols didn't wear Japanese armour .... Mongols got many losses from Japan too but mostly cause of the Tornado while they were sailing and got weakened by it
I really love samurai and I think they're epic, so I don't like to say this, but technologically the knights far outshined the samurai. But what I think is important to say here is also that Japan only fought against themselves and select eastern Asian countries for most of their history; whereas in Europe, there was constant fighting with countless technology levels and cultures, so the Europeans adapted faster. This is a question of innovation. The Japanese had no need to improve because their enemy wasn't.
Good video on a highly emotional topic for some people. I'm glad you bring up the "luck" factor and how anyone else can get lucky and beat the best trained guy. What it comes down to is we're still created equal under the armor. I been trying to say this/explain this to my family and friends about when I was in combat in Ramadi in 06 as a US Marine. Before getting into country, I was extremely arrogant/cocky/confident because we're going against untrained civilians or "peasants" if you like, and I am part of one of the world's most elite fighting forces, I'm an "expert" with my rifle, I have the best gear, highly trained, and much more disciplined. My very first day I get to the main base in Ramadi (Junction City/Camp Ramadi) I go to the chow hall and not even 5 minutes into my first meal there, the chow hall takes a direct hit from a volley of old soviet mortars. Next thing I know they are running around asking for B+ blood. Now, those guys that sent those mortars, were barely trained, most likely illiterate, peasants. Nobody in the entire chow hall ever even seen the enemy that got very lucky getting the angles perfectly, even though they never had formal training with it. Everyone in that chow hall trained like hell and spent hundreds if not thousands of hours getting our bodies and minds trained for war. Those dudes picked up some artillery, and sent rounds down range, and in that moment got lucky and "beat" someone much better than them. Really changed my whole idea about war was right then and there.
@@wa-bu3ke bruh i dont wanna be the guy but i think europe was for a long time far ahead in tech compared to japan, and by the time japan adopted guns europe used them since like 200years and well even tho most knights didnt like guns, nobody could tell em to not use em, knights made their own loaouts so they could use whatever tf they want.
Different* It is clear to me that any Knight would shove his blade up any samurais *ss before he can even find a spot to tickle the knight but the Katana was meant to be something entirely different than the Broadsword (or whatever one you mean)
AFAIK European warriors were used to fight many different kind of foes while samurai were more specialized due to lack of variety of adversaries being on their islands, which would give the martial upper hand to the knight.
Not really, mistakes are made here Samurai armor was more protective than what's is given credit here and had a lot of variety gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/tosei-gusoku-body-coverage-explained.html?m=1 The part about Japanese swords(and the truth about about Katana series) contain many flaws as well gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1 gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1 gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2019/01/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1 I'll leave it at that and just to make clear I'm not trying to bash him lots of his videos are quite entertaining but I feel his contact concerning samurai stuff is lacking.
@@eagle162 He didn't said that it wasn't. But comparing most advanced versions of both, Plate has advantage. Like he said, both are equally flexible but plate cover more.
@@TheRezro both are plate armor, he said Samurai armor covered less which is not the case and plate does not automatically mean more coverage, also depending on the type Samurai armor can be more protective than Knight's armor or some other warrior armor.
"Plate armor" which time period? 14th century? 15th century? 16th century 17th century?. Also samurai can just use a kanabo and tetsubo and also a warpick against a knight. And btw in 17th century.... Knight mostly wear breastplate(with few exceptions of someone's wanted to be very protective like sir Arthur haselrig) which mean that all samurai have to do is just stab his face and cut his arm and leg bruh......
@@chayudyodchit2872 To be fair there are virtually no accounts of armored duels in Japan, aside from _maybe_ having (chain)mail sown into a kimono. Given that Japanese mail was less resilient than its European counterpart on average, in a duel the knight would still be better protected even if only wearing a breastplate.
@@chayudyodchit2872 Who are we talking about in terms of commonality? In Europe it's true it's wouldn't have been common, but in Japan it's debatable. There are many patterns/weaves (not sure which is necessarily the correct term here but both actually fit) that, to my knowledge, don't appear in Japan until the Edo period. That strangely suggests that some of them may be decorative in nature (I say strangely because with mail you couldn't tell unless you were literally inches from it, begging the question of "Why?"). However it also suggests that the Japanese continued using and exploring the protective qualities of mail armors, and therefore that it was more commonly used/worn than otherwise believed. After all, if you're going to sow the mail inside of a kimono why bother doing so with an intricate pattern/weave that no one would ever see? And yes visuals were important for the Japanese, it's why most katana today are actually "left-handed" (a trend that started in the Edo period and even many "high end" katana are guilty of having). The menuki (ornaments) are supposed to fit in the palm, but they aren't as easy to display that way on a right-handed swords worn on a right-handed person. So they flipped them around to make them easier to display, even though this meant the menuki were on the finger tips and not in the palm as they should be (which provides better orientation as well as superior comfort when wielding the sword).
Regardless of their armor, weapons, training, codes of honor, etc; both of them were equally effective at killing peasants.
@@calvinwijaya699 Oh yes the Samurai was also feared by the peasants. A Samurai had the right to kill a peasant if the peasant didn't pay the taxes or insulted the Samurai.
@@calvinwijaya699 Stereotypical bullshit.
ho lee fuk they really weren’t what most people think they were
@@calvinwijaya699 yeah you couldn't be more wrong.
@@calvinwijaya699 LMAO there's a reason why peasant Ninjas started fighting the Samurai.
Dude when he pointed out the inferior quality of Japanese swords I could feel the weebs getting triggered.
im just triggered on the fact that everyone seem to not acknowledge that a samurai is a versatile unit that can also use guns. a knight however... gunners are a separate military role. and the aristocrats are resistant on using guns
Ad minorem Katana broadsword.
@Pandas Panda Pan Das you mean the gurkhas? what about them?
@Pandas Panda Pan Das i dont see any problem with that. i'm not quite sure if you are addressing the correct comment. or am i missing something?
@Pandas Panda Pan Das oh that's alright 'w'y
An angry peasant with a pitchfork who’s turnips are ruined is going to shred anything that stands in his way
clearly no..... a merchant whose cabbages are obliterated however..
@@rbd6502 MY CABBAGES!
clearly you guys haven't heard of the rage against the radish king.
Pff, the real winner would be a russian who had his vodka stolen. I like samurai the most, but the reality is slavic
You wouldn't want to piss off a Chinese out of Rice...
Fun fact about knight armour:Most movies show them as being heavy and making people slow when in reality they usually weighed 45lbs when worn and mostly the only concern about the armour was the heat
ruclips.net/video/qzTwBQniLSc/видео.html
I mean a campaign March 45 lbs is kinda heavy
@@chrisbellville6957 current US Army soldiers carry a minimum of 45 lbs of gear in their packs. Many soldiers push about 90 lbs in their packs. This was even the butt of the Iraqis who referred to US troops as "donkeys" because they carried so much gear with them. And that's not adding in the weight of the armor they also have to wear. Note I said minimum.
45lbs spread out across your entire body doesn't seem too bad by comparison.
Heat wasn’t even really a problem tbh.
@@chrisbellville6957 Not when it's evenly distributed across your entire body.
In real life both Knights and Samurai were too busy chopping through common folk to actually fight their equals.
You sir wins
The Best comment, so underrated.
yeah, you are ... cough .but knight have where more modern. cough ... completely correct ...cough . DEUS VULT . cough...
Why fight against someone who can fight back? Peasants are easy xp for leveling up!
Knights and samurai didn't always act like Vikings but whatever I'm sure they all killed innocents and untrained enemy combatants. I mean it's not like knights or samurai exclusively went around killing common folk that just seems pointless. What do they gain from it? I'd have to guess your political bias makes you view them as armed oppressors
The stick always wins, you break a stick it becomes two sticks
And if you burn the stick?
You make coal then... and throw it at your enemies face to blind him
Well, when you have 52 half inch nubbs, I'm not sure if that would be exactly detrimental to the opponent lol.
Cat with a knife then you have a flaming stick. Instant triple threat.
Marsupilami yeah and if the coal is gone, you shit in your hand and throw the poop at your enemy
"Vikings had no cavalry.."
No, but they had dragons
They had cavalry
The samurai had dragons too, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_dragon
"Odin is with us!!!"
Dovahkiin, Dovahkiin
naal ok zin los vahriin
What about the Berserkers ? Did samurai or Knights make use of drugs as well ?
To those of you who say that knights are slow brutes that only swing their sword around, you really need a new batch of working braincells.
These would also help them as well:
Mobility in Medieval Plate Armor/ Armour
:
ruclips.net/video/qzTwBQniLSc/видео.html
Can You Move in Armour?
:
ruclips.net/video/q-bnM5SuQkI/видео.html
Le combat en armure au XVe siècle
(Fighting in armor in the 15th century) by Google Translate:
ruclips.net/video/5hlIUrd7d1Q/видео.html
No, they're just not very familiar with the topic
@op Sadly those same people now have even fewer braincells.
@@spikey288 And that is the problem. These people with their limited knowledge about the topic will say these kind of opinions like it's a fact.
@@brant6951 they're just making assumptions based off stereotypes that we learn at a young age. Not everyone will be well informed on every topic.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of weaboos suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced
@@RedTitan01 A weaboo or weeb does not mean a person in Japan. On the contrary, it is a term for a person foreign to Japan (mainly westerners) who develops an extreme obsession to "Japan", believing it to be identical to its anime depiction.
While weeaboos claim to love and support Japanese culture, counter intuitively, they tend to stereotype Japanese culture by how it appears in their favorite anime, which can be safely assumed to be offensive to the Japanese.
@@RedTitan01 I really don't think he was saying all the japanese were weebs
@@RedTitan01 but nobody say everyone in japan are weeb
@@RedTitan01 Don't comment on stuff you know nothing about.
@@RedTitan01 did you even read the reply?
What’s the point of a knight or samurai when you can have a hundred peasants with long daggers
🇪🇦⚔🇮🇷☪️⚔✝️🇮🇶⚔🇨🇵✝️⚔☪️🇹🇷⚔🇪🇦✝️⚔☪️🇪🇬⚔🇨🇵✝️⚔☪️🇸🇦⚔🇻🇦✝️🇵🇹⚔🇲🇳
@@ГрустныйДобряк what
@@theentirestateofalaska.4983 he's looking to start world war knife fights
@@mk3ferret ok
Or a Crusader with the power of god and a long sword.
Nah mate, Spartans have the Sparta kick, it breaks through armour and sends the enemy flying off cliff sides. If there is no Cliff Side, one is created.
Trust me, I'm Greek, I know, totally take my word for it and don't do any research. Also, its in Assassins Creed, now they definitely know what they are on about! xD
I believe you
@@thenoob3aerfos850 έτσι...
Its how we kept our own at Thermopylae, one kick would send 10 Persians flying, hahaha
Malaka
Thank you for enlightening us on this crucial detail that was somehow overlooked in the video.
Knights would beat a Spartan 1 on 1 and 300 vs 300
I like to think that this was Shad talking to his baby and just recorded by it accident.
LMAO
I can't unthink this, thank you
Varg talking to their children about shields, swords and medieva stuff
Knowing Shad, that's entirely possible.
knights have the holy hand grenade
HaAaaaaaaallejuah!!!!!!
BOOOOOM
Haaaalelujaaah!
After the pin is pulled, what do you have to count to, again?
Bob Dole
Five count wasn’t it? In some games you could edit the fuse also.
@@jammin1881 Oh wow, a Worms reference. I totally forgot about that. I was thinking Monty Python 🤣.
The knights also had the advantage of being over 5'3" tall.
Bwahahahaha
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Loul
When you carry the high ground with you.
Werner Horn dude... what’s wrong with you?
4:54 If you listen carefully, you can hear a weeaboo whining in the background.
Marcin Różycki I was looking for this comment
I lol'd for real
This wins the internet.
fucing hate weeaboo anime cunts
@@nevereatencake wow -_-
A point to consider when discussing the advantages of horses: The japanese breeds that would have been avaiable to samurais were rather stocky ponies. The Kiso-Horse considered to be the samurai horse had a shoulder height about 130 cm, while the highest quality horse avaiable to a knight a destrier (a comparable modern day horse would be the friesian) was high-legged and not stocky and had a shoulder height about 160 cm, which made it faster and gave a height advantage.
Few things to be said:
Medieval period is a huge period in Europe, and horses used by the Normans were way shorter than 16 hands, we are probably talking about 13-14 hands of height at the shoulders.
Only later in the 15th and 16th century such breeds reached 16 hands of height, but the average was still lower at around 14-15 hands.
Modern Kiso horses shouldn't be compared to their medieval counterparts; many native Japanese breeds went extinct and nowadays Kiso horses are protected species as they went almost extinct as well.
Records of famous horses in Japan put them at 16 hands as well, and we have findings of Japanese horses as tall as 14 hands although only from the Kamakura period.
Moreover, all the scrolls depict medium size horses, not short ones.
They were very similar to the horses used by the Mongols and the Chinese. Those were war horses breeded and trained for war, and I don't see why you should not consider them when you do a comparison with the upper end of destrier size.
So if anything the differences would have been marginal, like 10- 12cm or so.
Shorter horses however have their advantages: they are less of a target, can move faster and more agile if obstacles are present and do not require much food as well.
This deserves its own video
When you talk about horse size but not about the way more important topic of how tall they were on average. If there is a size difference betweem central europeans and japanese now there might have been one back then, which is much more important than the horses....
Samurais have a long katana that kill horses with one swing and are skilled in the bow so that won’t really help
@@xkkhaled247 horse killers are not new, at that though, I don't think I've often seen armored horses for Samurai. The Europeans, and even Romans, were very well known for having juggernaut level armored horses.
Peasant with pommel firing canons will end them all rightly
That's too much power in the hands of a few...
That's unthinkable, mate! That thought aline could end the world as we speak!!!
xdddd
For Honor reference? I think I'm correct
Very hard to aim that well with an earlier cannon... I am not sure it would be a very good defense against a group of knights charging at you. You maybe get one shot at a rapidly moving target, would propably miss and then you are dead.
Wouldn't European knights also have a significant reach advantage? The average Samurai was 5 foot 5 inches tall. While that was only a little shorter than the average European man, knights were from wealthy families (who had better nutrition), and so were taller than average. They had longer swords, being wielded by longer arms.
damn you tall europeans!!
samurais were also nobility, and for reach that depends because the main weapon for samurai was technically the Yumi(long bow) with swords for close combat and finishing off but in certain periods the Yaris was very popular and was used with Yumi and swords as last resort or for fighting indoors or on boats. with that said knights did have much further developed armour and there weapons and fighting style were better at countering armour
A reach advantage yes, but you could also argue that a samurai of shorter stature can dodge attacks easier and manoeuvre better.
You're racist
people in middle ages were much shorter than now
A samurai would win if they yelled their attacks in Japanese before attacking. Easily.
Here’s a simple way to kill them:kill the samurai before the samurai even completed saying their attacks
Easier way say they are dishonored and they will kill themselves
@@micohazakin8576 you can't interrupt an attack name! everyone knows that!
Gareth Jones it is fair
Shouting out a few words wouldn't help
for those arguing about a katana vs a knight armor, a blade wont simply cut the armor sure it can leave a dent when you hit hard enough or you can try to go for a stab by using the sharp tip of a blade, but with plated armor warfare, isnt that why maces, pikes and warhammers were invented? i heard and read knights would grab their swords by the blade and use the pummel or handle to bash each other
exactly. it's called half swording technique
@@danielnunez7424 na what he's describing "grab their swords by the blade and use the pummel or handle to bash each other" is mordhau/murder strike, using the sword like a hammer.
But yes half swording, to be more precise, is a valid skill to get into gaps.
while you would be operating the technique, someone will stab you through a gap in the armor. being hit by a 10kg sword is not pleasant at all
@@martinTintin476 what kind of sword is 10kg, even greatswords are far from it
@@qgqsrg1 armor have 10kg. not sword. in text
Did you see those warriors from hammerfell they have curved swords!CURVED SWORDS!
hammerfell warrior's vs nords
"I know your kind. Always sneaking around..."
@@malonedeluxe hammerfell wins because they're defeated altmer
Greymane or Battleborn?
@@Adoring-Fan "What?"
Phh You forgot the Christian samurai who have the power of GOD and ANIME on their side!
Are you forgetting my Crusader boys?
@@roiroije243 they don't have enough weeb in them :P
AAAAAAAAHHHHH
He did mention luck frequently, which can be attributed to God.
@@elhiars9185 " WAIT "
-Victim's last words
Peasant with a polearm wins everytime.
A panzer 4 wins every time
But what about dragons?
Actually, a billhook as was a very popular farm implement in England worked a treat on armored horsemen.
How cute, even in 1940 a MkIV PKW was toast without infantry support, even today infantry against unsupported armor in close terrain for a MOUT environment is something the armored forces really want to avoid.
"For honor breach flashbacks"
If you take a 1600s euro army vs 1600 Japanese army, Europe pretty much dominates due to more artillery.
Artillery is heavily dependent on terrain.
Japanese terrain is rough and mountainous so you cannot bring many cannons with you, because it will be a nightmare. That's why you do not see many 大砲 in sengoku period field battles, but a lot of heavy caliber muskets.
Still, at Osaka Tokugawa had around 100 cannons, so they used them for sieges and when needed
Doubt. by 1600 the Japanese had Tannegashima matchlocks and cannons given by the portuguese. Not to mention the Japanese invented kneel-fire with firearms.
ctually untrue. By the late 16th century samurai used guns more often then any where else on earth.
bruh, when the japanese started using guns it was copied off of a european design
@@username-yc3bd Yes, but the kneel fire technique was made in Japan, as well as many other types of matchlocks like the ozutsu, literally a handheld cannon.
Samurais are awesome, but there seems to be a cult following around that that isn't reality based. The same with ninja, the katana, and Japanese martial history in general.
And rightfully so.
fite me Indeed. Sometimes truth is all on one side, and hype on the other.
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeebs
Actually there were no such things as ninjas they were just made up in a story that somehow made people believe they were real
They were real. They were spies and assassins. "Ninjutsu" was not real. It is an artifact cultural mythology. You could still be correct if that's what you mean.
hi! real japanes person here! "legendary" tamahagane was super low grade steel! i cant stress how crappy steel was back then! japan was an isolated island with very limited resources. for the most part, tamahagane was made from gathering iron sand in the rivers. in fact, katanas were known for snapping all the time! the parts that were truly important were the handle and the guard because they usual bore a family crest, blades were replaced and often sold by broke ronin to make ends meet.... now that being said, the japanese 金棒 or warclub was specifially designed for use against armored opponents and there were several schools of "armored" (mostly chainmail, but usually covering most of the body) fighting styles in japanese history. which leads me to my question, how about a video on japanes anti-armor weapons vs european armor and vice versa? i bet the euro stuff would dominate honestly, but you might be pleasantly surprised by some of the more obscure weapons in our history (aka the ones that havent been ruined by pop culture lol)
You aren't really Japanese are you?
@@saxonhaney9209 pretty sure he is
As a country that (was) also used singles edge slightly curved sword. I understand what you mean.
@@saxonhaney9209 🤣😂
That would be interesting. Every culture has learned to appreciate the legendary prowess of blunt force trauma
Oh boy. Where to begin? I'm not sure I've ever seen a comments section
as much of a hive of scum and ignorant villainy as this one! The amount
of unbelievably unedcuated people is depressing as someone who knows
what they are talking about when it comes to history and medieval+
combat, weapons, armour etc. Where to begin?
1. People saying that knights used halberds.
No...just no. Halberds are the weapons of footsoldiers, mixed into a formation of pikemen, ranged troops and a few troops with long swords, swords and buckler etc. I'm guessing people mistake pollaxes for halberds and yes, knights did use pollaxes as they were effective at penetrating armour and fighting someone wearing a full set of plates. That's why pollaxe combat was the sport of nobility (knights etc.) and not the common soldier until later on. It's astounding how many people think knights are just common, rank-and-file soldiers or knight = man in suit of armour. It's bullshit. A knight is a noble class like a baron, duke or earl. Not a man wearing armour. Knights just happened to wear full suits of plate armour often because they were rich nobles who could afford good weapons and protection when they were called up to serve their leige. It's why knights had to provide their OWN men to the king etc. since they had their own land and people who worked under them as serfs etc.
2. Knights are dirty.
What the fuck are you talking about? Knights were human beings and therefore they cleaned themselves. If a dog can lick its own backside to clean itself then I'm sure a sentient being can manage to get a bath. This is a common misconception of the medieval and further back periods. Just because hygeine was poor i.e. not knowing about bacteria and disease doesn't mean that people never got washed. I mean for goodness sake use your common sense! The romans were bathing, rubbing themselves with oils as were the egyptians and this was LITERALLY THOUSANDS of years before the "medieval knight" came along.
3. Katanas are magical and swords can cut through plate armour.
Oh jesus, this is a painful one. This is by far the most unbelievably ignorant and stupid comment I've ever seen. Swords CANNOT POSSIBLY EVER cut through STEEL PLATE. WHY ON EARTH DO YOU THINK SOLDIERS, KNIGHTS ETC. WORE PLATE ARMOUR AND MAIL?! It is 100% to STOP swords and blades cutting them. A sword versus a man in full plate armour is fucking useless unless you try to to mordhau or "murder strike" by holding your swords blade and hitting them with the guard - basically using your sword as a hammer to attempt to penetrate armour. This is the reason there are countless pollaxes, axes, maces, hammers, warhammers, halbers, glaives, clubs etc. in the medieval europe and middle east. BECAUSE armour became so prevalent that they needed reliable weapons to penetrate the armour of and kill armoured opponents. Again this is common sense, you don't need to be an expert to realise that "sword - cant cut through reinforced steel sheets but point hammer - can penetrate metal sheets". Katanas are also not magical. They are made of poor quality metal that is all the blacksmiths in Japan had at the time. The reason they folded the blade so much isn't to add "super ninjustsu omgerdu supah powaaah ninjasamuariiiiuuuuuuh powarz" to the sword. It's to remove the impurities since their iron was so terrible. Also the swords had hardened edges and the rest was softer so if you hit something hard with a katana, wakizashi etc. its likely you will bend, chip or snap your glorious crappy katana in two. A katana striking a plate armoured western soldier would break and literally do nothing to the guy inside lol. If you don't believe me get a thick piece of steel and try to cut it with a really sharp knife. It will not do anything to the steel other than maybe lightly scratch it.
4. Samurai only used Katanas.
Bullshit. They used bows, yari spears and naginata way more in battle. The katana is their SIDEARM. What are you going to use first in battle? Your assault rifle or your combat knife? The katana was a badge of rank for the samurai in their culture as they were the only ones permitted to wear them in everyday life etc.
5. Knights vs samruai vs vikings.
Another puerile point. The best and most rich "Vikings" had swords, axes, spears, bows, round shields, chainmail armour, padded gambesons and spangenhelms as well as other helmet types etc. If anything the BEST equipped viking is only comparable to a mid-level medieval soldier in equipment and is missing a lot of more modern weapons such as the mace, halberd etc. So it is safe to say a knight in full renaissance plate armour with a longsword, pollaxe or mace would more than likely DESTROY a viking chief as if the viking only had a sword he could do basically nothing to the armoured man because they wouldn't have ever encountered plate armour of this type because it simply did not exist at the time. A viking might fare a bit better against a samurai but the samurai had cavarly and ashigaru etc. and their fighting styles would be insanely outlandish to a viking that would normally fight in a shield wall type battle.
6.Samurai and anti-armour weapons.
They didn't have dedicated anti armour weapons. Simple. There were some wooden clubs and such but they were most certainly NOT the weapons of the average samurai. More likely monks or other people.
7.Samurai and the japanese had better equipment than western medieval period armies.
This must be a joke? They had equipment suitable for fighting other japanese or asian regions with similar equipment. But compared to 15th century european plate their armour might as well be wooden sticks tied together. Samurai armour often weighed a huge amount more than european armour and wasn't as good generally as it was made from poor metal. Also their weapons are the same. Rennaissance european armies could also field firearms and cannons and if they were fighting the japanese before they got their firearm technology then they would be at an advantage there also. Tactics. The japanese would simply not have any sure fire and effective way to counter western military tactics at first. They would be out ranged with bows, crossbows and guns. Out ranged with long pikes, halbers and the like. And unable to do damage to knights wearing plate and the infantry that also had some plate armour pieces.
8. Armour was insanely heavy so knights were slow and clumsy and somehow samurai were super agile.
This is one of the more irritating misconceptions. A full set of plate armour was around 27kg. That's not that much AND it is spread around your ENTIRE body. Armoured men were pretty agile, fairly flexible and mobile which is another common sense thing as they had to fight other people using fairly complex techniques with a variety of weapons. If they were so slow the opposing army would just send a guy with a halberd and normal clotheing and he could kill an entire army of knights since they would be lumbering around in your dream world fantasy version of reality and running circles around them which CLEARLY is bullshit. :) Remember I said earlier about their armour? Depending on the period it could be comparable in weight OR when firearms were introduced in the 1500-1600s their armour could be stupidly heavy and by that time european armies had moved on from full plate harnesses etc.
9. Plate armoured men at arms or knights would roast in Japans climate.
This is just astoundingly idiotic. JAPANESE SAMURAI WORE BIG THICK SUITS OF ARMOUR. Did they roast alive? No. So it's safe to say neither would a European knight. Not to mention wearing armour is pretty bloody hot anyway, no matter where you are. Also this is simply illogical as EGYPTIAN, TURKISH AND AFRICAN soldiers wore HEAD TO TOE chainmail over silk padded armour and they didn't melt away to nothing and this was in FUCKING DESERTS AND HOT MIDDLE EASTERN CLIMATES LOL. Also the Japanese climate isn't insanely hot, some parts are pretty cold.
10. Knights had shields always.
This has /some/ slight truth. In the 11th and onwards centuries Norman etc knights DID have shields as they were mounted cavalry wearing full chain mail and a spangenhelm alongside a sword and lance. From the 1400s onwards there simply was no reason for a knight or man in full plate to have a shield as the armour WAS the shield. It was so effective they did not need to use a shield anymore. Common soldiers might have done but even then it was quite rare as battles often ended up being ranged units, pole arm users and cavalry.
11. Knights used "broadswords".
Medieval knights never touched a broadsword, they didn't exist then. They only really came into existance at the start of the 1600s. Think of a basket hilted scottish broadsword or a subtype such as a mortuary sword and then you know what a REAL broadsword is. Medievals knights didn't use them. Plain and simple. Maybe you're thinking of a falchion?
Broadsword is such a shitty term to, many people don't accept its use other than for the "basket hilted broadsword" type of sword.
12. Conclusion.
Simply put, a rennaissance europe period peasant halberdier with a cuirass and helmet could probably destroy the most well equipped samurai if he was just using his katana. A full plate wearing knight could walk along laughing as a samurai tried to cut through his armour, broke their sword and then got their kabuto caved in with hammer or mace.
Please try to learn about real history and weapons etc. instead of listening to bullshit japanese anime weeb otaku myths or illogical nonsense about dirty lumbering european knights using 1700s "broadswords" (top kek) and "shields" against magical katanas that can cut through tanks, buildings, the earth etc. As a SJW retard once said to me - "EDUCATE YOURSELVES SHITLORDS!!!"
Thank you for your time.
- Ravo "the gard" Dragovar.
Also as an addendum -
13. European longswords were blunt and used to club people to death and break bones.
This is FUCKING INSANE. BULLSHIT. MADNESS. IT IS A SWORD IT IS USED FOR CUTTING, THRUSTING ETC. AND THEREFORE IS SHARP ENOUGH TO CUT YOU INTO PIECES. IF YOU THINK A LONG SWORD IS A BLUNT CLUB KINDLY PICK ONE UP AND LEARN THE HARD WAY.
Ravogard Dragovar thanks
thanks to you i dont have to sit here and educate anime shitlords!!!
you deserve way more likes for this comment
i was about to make this same comment and i also like anime but i know katanas are weak when compared to a knight armor.
also walking and laughing, playing cards banging a hot lady is what the knight would be doing while the samari tried to cut him and breaking his sword into little sword pieces.
also im a fan of the haliber as its my fav medevil weapon but some knights did use the weapon atleast foot knights did.
that knights were dirty is not such a crazy assertion, there was a superstition against washing in those times. its why they wore so many oils and powders to hide the smell.
not saying they were caked in mud, but the japanese were absolutely much better about hygiene in that time period.
there were many traditions of rome that were lost after the fall, if you are so well versed in history you should know this.
yes, yes, yes, yes, well said
Lets be honest a Katana would probably snap once it hits off a Knights plate
Na but the knight could probably just grab it and take it away ( if done right )
Or and this is something nobody ever consideres.
The knight knows fully well he is not vincible against the Katana , meaning he could just walk / run up and punch the Samurai to death
@@kn1ght128 Okay, but Japanese samurai are swift, sturdy soldiers. Their armor is light, but strong. I think samurai would win
@@kn1ght128 The knight is gangsta until the Samurai uses Shikai or Bankai and the knight gets one-shotted by either
The samurai would break the knights armor and sword if the katana has Unbreaking III,Mending,Sharpness V and fire aspect II
Or if the samurai uses Shikai or Bankai then the knight is totally dead
@@primedecanus8788
"Their armor was light but strong"
So was European full plate which covered more areas mind you. The only thing full plate did was make the wearer tire quicker but I can say with confidence that a samurai's Tousei Gusoku (Japanese equivalent to full plate) also made a samurai tire quicker.
well...considering the japanese literally looked at the europeans and made armor similar to them during the late warring states period...it seems knights had the better technology
yeah, japanese technology was definitely behind the full plate armour of the knights, but i reckon samurai were more skilled in duelling and swordsmanship.
@@雷-t3j
Shad just says the exact opposite x)
Europeans weren't a bunch of savages who just stroke randomly. Sword fighting was a martial art just like bushido or whatever. I'd say the reason of this misunderstanding is a lack of proper representation of it in movies or series, while on the other side, mangas and animes and even movies claiming Samurais were awesome fighters are legion. That aaaand maybe the Renaissance and a bunch of philosophers who tried to have Middle Age pass for a thousand years of terror and religious obscurantism, completely looking down on everything people achieved in that time.
But yeah, thinking only Japan and China had martial arts is a huge misconception. Escrime is an awesome swordfighting marital art, and just how knights fought was also one ( don't know if there's a real name). Also it shows in the video but he doesn't say it, but one good technique to fight a heavily armored opponent was to grab your sword by the blade and strike with the guard, using it like a hammer.... Good luck doing that with a katana.
Skulduggery Pleasant 6:27
Knights are boring with heavy armour just too slow to fight a samurai
Samurai's are cool and brave they are not afraid to die they have speed and their katana is razor sharp to cut humans into half it even penetrates armour too
@@thomasdelory6968 knights with heavy armours too slow to strike a samurai and samurai katana has great armour piercing power too
When the Samurai were wearing their best armor, the knights were already fighting with muskets.
Actually when Samurai were wearing their "best armor" during the Sengoku Jidai period, many soldiers carried matchlock muskets. European armies still relied on plate armor and muskets were still very cumbersome at the time but the Japanese were very enthusiastic. Daimyos such as Nobunaga Oda used it to deadly effect. Moreover, in the late 1500 Japan became so enthusiastic about the new weapons that it possibly overtook every European country in absolute numbers produced. The samurai invasion of Korea saw 160,000 japanese gunners. (Which was about a quarter of its invasion force).
@@xylem2202 Most inventions are accidents and not what was originally planned, thats not typically chinese XD
Japanese soldiers also had access to gunpowder at relativley the same time as europeans (seeing as it came from China, most likely before them). Samurai in particular chose not to use firearms, so its not due to lesser technological advancement but a cultural reason...
Solemn High It was used for fireworks.
Well done sir
Knight. obviously. Shield. Full plate armor. A weapon designed for stabbing.
samurai. no shield. weapon designed for cutting(good luck).
Shitty armor that is easily pierced
its like the knight was literally designed to counter the samurai.
Gr8 b8 m8... I r8 8/8.
I agree (I was going to comment the same thing)
By the way... I would take a saber (technically a katana is a saber) into a duel over an arming sword any day of the week... I would prefer it to be an 18th or 19th saber, but still.
i do agree that the knight would win but the samurai armor is not so easy to pierce especially their plate armor
+WarGaming yes it is. its meant to protect against slashing. and heavily segmented and lapped with many many gaps. its great for slashes. but a narrow straightsword can slip between them easily, and since they dont often wear mail, theres no resistance.
You know he's a legend when he uses for honor scenes for a knights vs samurai
No way... Im not the only one from that game? O.O
@@daved7658 that game is dead
@@Determinator21 🥲
@@Determinator21it's still got people playin' it, doesn't it.
I think batman would win
Only with prep.
+nightsied That's the running gag. "Batman with prep" winning random things he has no business being involved in is kinda a meme. But yes, he is always prepared. Like a little boy scout of justice.
Goku would kick his ass lol ;)
*****
Holy crap that is some long arse prep time! :D
why so serious?
Spartan vs Viking, now that would be an interesting fight to discuss.
One on one, or on a battlefield?
Both
Spartan. Here we see almost a similar conversation as with Knight vs. Samurai debate, with both types of warrior carrying similar weaponry and technology. That being said, the Spartan discipline is such that they hold death before dishonor. We've heard of what 300 Spartans can do... Now what about 1500?
On the battlefield (in a head to head clash) the Spartans will have an upper hand due to their phalanx. One on one is a closer match...
Also those 300(ish) did make an amazing stand that can kind of blow the mind to think of, but ultimately the Spartans could not conquer Greece at any point. They were not invincible.
If the Spartan phalanx could be broken, they would have suffered badly.
I think Spartans as we imagine them, with Leonidas, were in a completely different historical period!
Lol yes they were, I think Sparta's greatest time was something like Vth century BEFORE JC, hence why they would be completely overpowered just technologically.
@@thomasdelory6968 But if the dicipline and training of spartans grew with technology they would be a real force to be reckoned with
@@shroudthewolf1105 It's not like they were the only people in history to have discipline and training, that's more or less the basis of any pro army. Countries that worked on call, and just asked people to take arms might have been different, but take any modern country or any actual army in the past and they had the same kind of discipline and were equally competent.
@JM no. I'm from NZ and just no. We were still in the stone age whilst the west were industrial.
He says that.
4:54 what is that faint "aaaa" sound in the background lmaoo
From A Baby I Think 😁😗
Woah,...
Oh thanks for pointing that out. I was looking to see if there was a crazy person in my backyard LOL
the knight sword gives more options; two cutting edges, half-swording compatible, murderstrokes, and pommel throws. In the words of Solid Snake, it's CQC compatible.
>Pommel throw
>CQC compatible
_(X) Doubt_
Lecherous Lizard
Are you trying to say that the pommel couldnt be used for melee?
Remember what happened at hiroshima and nagasaki?
Yep, Melee pommels are that real.
Retard Corpsman what are you?
Katana could just cut knight armour like paper
Who are you who are so great in the ways of dumbasserie
I feel I agree besides one point. Samurai did not just use katana. You considered all the Knight options, but only used katana for samurai.
The Europeans still had access to better weapon technology. Their longbows had a much larger draw weight than the Japanese bows. The Japanese also didn't have access to weapons that could beat plate armor, like maces and warhammers. This is due to the small amount of iron the Japanese had available. They designed their weapons to cut flesh, not beat armor. That's why a weapon like the katana is ment to cut, not thrust.
@@tincanmaniac1931 impractical for mass use as it took years of training to use one properly and a bow was considered a peasants weapon. a war hammer is wasteful, maces are just cudgels with metal bits on the end as a force multiplier you could tie a rock to a stick and get the same effect. the Japanese focused on more precise weapons like spears and weapons that you had to aim at vital areas.
What about the sengoku jidai period where the Japanese where on their prime?
Some Guy Named Steve “The Japanese didn’t have weapons that could beat plate armor.” What are kanabo then? Not counting firearms, yes the Japanese had fewer dedicated anti-armor weapons, but they very much existed, and were used to good effect in battle
@Multiculturalism_Fake Yea! And japanese samurai kicked mongolian ass twice...
Some men are still knighted today. Knight wins with an L85.
Sod that, get the Challenger 2.
Some High Explosives from the 120mm will surely take the Samurai down a notch.
Though the returning fire from the Type 10 could affect the Chally.
@@HaloFTW55 tis but a scratch
@@rayhan_2k841 a scratch? Your entire shoulder's gone
@@thermite1277 well what's that then?
Fck
vikings didnt use cavalry because they are the cavalry
Lol
Good skull Island reference i like it! 👍
@@stephenjohn2131 thanks
giga chads
Who would win:
Expensive, well armed knights of the king Sigismund himself
Or:
Few peasant bois in a cart wall with flails
Žižka ofc :D
Clearly a trick question 😆😆😆
Or literally one peasant blacksmith with his noble fathers sword.
Hussites had knights too
*laughs in both Serbian and Czech*
Knight: maybe you should use horses.
Viking: get at least one horse on that ship and I may consider it.
horse transports were pretty common later on, but on earlier ships they would just shit all over the deck and your entire crew will get sick.
Viking horse called the Icelandic horse.
They _did_ use horses and they _did_ transport them on ships; they just didn't use shock cavalry as extensively, because they didn't have any stirrups and the horses were not yet bred to be as large, but most importantly, there was no feudal system that required noblemen to fight for their king on horseback. Once these things were in place, the _descendants_ of vikings pretty much invented shock cavalry as a battle tactic.
@@andersengman3896 Thank you for pointing that out.
Viking has no match to mongols
I like your analysis.
I would also mention that I think training style carries a lot of importance as well. In the stress of battle, people will almost always revert to their training. This is why, in the military and as a contractor, we train basic movements endlessly, so that in the heat of the moment the body just reacts.
Japanese swordfighting was a beautiful art, but it had one glaring weakness, especially against high quality European plate armor. The emphasis in Japanese swordfighting, as evidenced by the writings detailing the time of Musashi (spelling?), was on all-out offense with strikes directed primarily against the head and shoulders (ie, trying to cut into the body with the super sharp blade of a katana).
Most high quality European plate helmets anticipated just this sort of attack with heavy reinforcement on the crest and front of the helmet. This allowed the helmet to withstand significant blows to the head (studies I have seen show it was generally capable of stopping anything but a direct hit with a heavy bladed weapon (perhaps a halberd or pole-axe). Simply put, it is pretty doubtful that a katana had the force/cutting power to disable a knight. With the focus on all out attack, this would also leave the samurai open to the counter-attack/opening attack of his adversary. Knights often trained to place trust in their heavy armor. Assuming training being equal, the knight would likely duck his head to take the brunt of his opponent's opening attack on the reinforced crest of the helmet, while attacking back. A samurai's armor allowed more movement, but was singularly inadequate to defend against a heavy bladed weapon such as a pole-axe and most late period knights carried weapons such as these since they were well-designed to counter well-armored enemies.
I love the samurai and their culture and history, but in terms of technology and training, they just don't seem to be equal to a knight in one on one combat, primarily because the knight's armor is a hard counter to their preferred weapon and fighting style. Strategically, on the battlefield, things may be different given the versatility of samurai (many training with bows as well as melee weapons), but my impression was that this video focuses on single combat, where I feel the knight has a decisive advantage in equipment, to the point that it might allow a less skilled knight to defeat a more skilled samurai.
Plate armor is also very resistant to slashing weapons. The Samurai's weapons are mostly for slashing, hence the curvature of the blades. Straight swords are much better against armor as they could be used to stab.
Good points. To take down a knight in combat what we usually see is the knight unhorsed or thrown to the ground (wrestled) normally by multiple opponents and then dispatched with a 'bollock' knife through the eyeslit, armpit or groin (one of the reasons for the name). From the records we see that this was also how a knight trained. They were aware of their limitations and trained, as we do, to try and negate it.
I think the baseline is that one style isn't really 'better' than another, but rather that both were simply developed to combat the enemies that they faced. That is why it is very difficult to compare fighting styles/warriors from completely different worlds (despite period similarities, these might as well be different worlds).
For example, the Japanese were able to defeat the Mongols (with the help of a few tsunamis). This was something that the European powers singularly failed to do with their major encounters turning into resounding defeats.
Sometimes it's a rock-paper-scissors game.
I love how your analysis recognizes that knights usually used pole arms in battle rather than swords, but assumes Samurai mainly used katana (hint: nope). Also, Musashi was a duelist so I don't think his opponents were wearing armour. Notice how fencing manuals from Europe are also hard countered by armour. Duels are pretty different from a battle
If you want to talk about weapon of choice, a samurai would just shoot the knight with a matchlock
Nice video. I hate that some people think:
1. Samurais fought with Katanas as their primary. It's their sidearm. Their main weapon was either Spear(Yari) or Bow (Yumi)
2. Samurai didn't use anti-armor weapons. There's the Tetsubo and Konsaibo. Basically big metal or hardwood studded bats.
3. Samurai didn't use guns. They utilized a lot of matchlocks during the sengoku period courtesy of the Otomo clan and the Oda clan utilizing them effectively.
4. Samurai armor is made of wood. Their armor is also lined with metal. It's a huge disadvantage that they have weaker metal but you're comparing an island to an entire continent
Yeah you right youmu. Also most people seem to not realize that knight vs samurai debate can be pretty vague and absurd, for example you could have absurd crap like sir Isaac Newton vs miyamoto Musashi and of course *it definitely a fair fight*
True
A country often have condlicts VS THE WAR
These points do not diminish the fact that knights had simply better armor and also better armor defeating weapons.
I never said any points that correlates to them being better than Knights. I've listed points about how people have way too much misinformation on the Samurai and these are examples.
So basically it's Dante with his Rebellion vs Vergil with his Yamato
Well yes but no
dude! I didn't expect to see this here. Lol
@@LeetWorldChet well what do you expect tho? I'm just make this thing be simple for us DMC player lol
the only difference is that it's the samurai that has guns and swords
knight wins for he has a pommel to end the samurai rightly!
Victory is our sir Derplord!
pommelgun
Zag Zagzag we cannot repel fire of that Magnitude!
Dominus Victoriae Damn straight
Cornered Fox it's a skallgrim meme
To be honest, I like Samurai more but I don't see how they could get through steel plate armor.
Beni well, with pole arms and impact weapons they could for example. But if the knight picks similar European weapons the armour of the knight would be still better with lesser weak points than the armour of the samurai I think.
Not every Knight use fullbody Protection. As I know only few did this in the end of they era.
So, the Knight would have many unprotected Points. I whisht he would describe the weight of both Armors.
well, I dont know enough to judge the percentage of knights who were wearing fullbody protection and who didnt. So I wont answer to this point. But I tried once to get some information about the weight of both armors. Of course its varying, but surprisingly the numbers I found were quite similar. So even with greater protection a full body armour isnt automatically heavier.
Im also no Expert. I just wish he go more over some of this Points.
O
I think its kinda obvious the Western Europe winning Japan, simply:
Most of the time Japaneses as at war against other Japaneses, before WW2 i think Japan sufered only 4 forced invasion attemps in 3000 years.
While at that time Europe goes from: Rome, High MIddle Age, Arabian Invasions, Silk Road, Crusades, Mongols, Turks, Arabian Retaken, Low Middle Age AND Europeans fighting each other....
The amount of culture and technologies trades that Europe had in comparission with Japan is massive.
I was waiting for someone to FINALLY MENTION THIS!
Lol they still had trade. Guess what? While mongols ravaged through parts of Europe they failed to defeat the Japanese twice.
@@shotto_z4790 both defeat comes from natural disasters, not Japanese fighters.
@@shotto_z4790 Mongols only ravaged through weaker parts of Europe
@@shotto_z4790 you do realize it was only due to SHEER luck and possible Chinese sabotage that Japan survived the mongols right? Had the mongol forces made it to Japan successfully they would have destroyed the samurai without much problem.
Next do the old Africans vs Native American tribes.
To be more precise it would be cool to compare with the Zulus because they were very... warlike ? Yeah.
The native tribes / native empires of Mexico and south america would sacrifice and eat both
@@dinguskhan655 zulus vs aztecas
native americans win, i think
@@franciscogarciadamiani979 They do have horses...(if were talking Plains Tribes)
Conclusion: The arms race in Europe was going faster than in Japan obviously 🤔
Oberon Crex proof: Commodore Perry showing up in one ship with cannon
You would be surprised how the japanese made more guns than the totality of europwe in the 1600's
What we shouldnt forget, is that the warrior "knight" was an amalgam of many cultures technologies and war experiences. Steel production, shock cavalry, different types of armour, weapons, tactics were all developed because europe, the mediterranean sea, and the middle east (even india) were a melting pot of these warsignificant factors, due to being constantly at war, having massive migration of populus and a vast trade systems early as the bronze period with the mycene, babylonian and egyptian empires. Japan may have had the warring states period, but even with the mongol invasion or the expansion to korea, we dont see something comparable in exchange of war technology to europe. P.S.: Also do not forget the ressources. Japan has only limited natural metal sources and in medieval times they had to import large quantities from korea and china. When you see the impressive japanese woodworking technique that functions without metal, it is influenced by the lack of it. So the japanese having a lesser developed metalurgy is pretty understandable.
And the winged hussars arrived.....
All that stuff happened in Japan as well different tactics, armors, weapons etc.
Japan did not have a lacking in materials at this time and did not import large quantities during medieval times from China or Korea.
This is part 1 of a multiple series of articles on Japanese metallurgy, recommend checking out butter articles on is blog as well.
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1
Japan, on the same timeline produced more guns than the totality of europe. Europeans are just slower to adapt into firearms. Which they eventually did at a later time
samurai or knight? who would win? random german soldier with an MG42
funny how some people use anime shows as a reference to how a katana cuts, like it's a friggin light saber or something. you can't hack through hardened plate + chain + gamb. Knight would teabag a samurai on the daily.
The thing about Japanese equipment is that it was built for a different environment and purposes. Japanese armor was shaped in a way to redirect blows that might come from slashing weapons (which also made them weaker against blunt or piercing weapons like the tetsubo mogwai provided). The katana was more of a peasant killer than a weapon for fighting other samurai and that's an important distinction to make. While I am of the opinion that in most cases a samurai would lose, it's easy to see why when you consider the background and purpose of the samurai in its natural role. Europe just happened to produce a much more versatile set of equipment while Japan produced equipment that was often much more specialized or (like with katanas) a product of limited resources. If you're going to continue the debate, consider weapons that samurai used against each other and their methods of warfare and it'll clear up why these differences came about.
Oh and a fun fact is that samurai didn't rely on shields because many of their battles were ritualized duels and volley fire from arrows weren't commonly faced in Japanese feudal warfare.
You're acting as if the Japanese were living in a time bubble where nothing changed. They actually developed their weapons and methods of warfare almost as much as the Europeans over the centuries. They got rid of the ritualised combat after the Mongolian attacks and made bows the staple of their armies. Then, when the European merchants came during the Jidai Geki period, the Japanese happily bought all the weapon technology they had to sell and quickly began to manufacturing those new-fangled firearms and steel breastplates for themselves. The idea that the samurai were reliant on their katanas is a myth based on the later Edo period, when the Shogunate kept all the more advanced weaponry under lock and key to prevent further uprisings.
"Jidai Geki period" do you mean Edo period? jidaigeki is a genre of TV show in Japan... it literally means time period era. Not trying to offend, but it certainly lowers your credibility.
What I mean is the Warring States-period -- which should be apparent enough from the context -- which I've always been heard referred to as the Jidai Geki. If terminologies have been crossed at some point, I apologise.
Sonlirain it's a painting so not the most reliable source
the over glorification of Samurai and lack of understanding of their equipment is insulting
Durn Look at the comments here. I'd think there is a an over glorification of knights.
Do you have to bad everyone's comments? Because I don't think he was referring to you.
Fuck no. There might be some trolls but there are massive amounta of people commenting on here who have no idea of what they are talking about and sucking the Samurai's dick.
Joe Smith We don't even need to over-glorify knights to know how glorious knights are.
they're both over glorified in my opinion
I dread looking at this comment section
It's pretty damn bad horrible jokes and triggered people
I suffered from cancer by looking at the comment section
Its cringe
Yes me to and all of us
I am completely certain that In a one v one situation, with equally skilled opponents, with the best armor and arms available, the Knight would win. Their technology was just more advanced.
I am also certain however, that in a situation of warring nations, after encountering the superior technology of the knights in battle a few times, the natural arms race of war would take place, bringing the samurai to develop basically the same technology the knights had and level the playing field. The only important, and deciding question there is how long the samurai would take to develop and manufacture the new technology in sufficient numbers .
The so called technology egde many people assign to knights and medieval europe in general derived by a very shallow and narrow knowledge of Japanese technological level of the period.
First of all, what century? Second, the most notable technology Europe had over Japan didn't start to appear before the mid 16th century, namely ship building and firearm technology, and at least within gunpowder weapons Japan was quite fast yo catch up in the 16th century.
Armor level of protection and mobility were rather comparable, given the context in which both bushi and knights developed.
The same goes for weapons - but it would be stupid to compare them without thinking about the context in which they fought.
To put it simply, many things that the knights were specialized with would simply not work in Japan.
@@清正中村 bruh, Katanas weren’t even strong enough for Mongol armor. The only thing that saved Japan from that invasion was storms that wrecked their fleet and drowned a ton of their army, twice. And Knight armor was more advanced than that, which sorry, appeared long before the 16th century.
@@hakon_brennus_wolff106 Why do I have to read this in 2021... the claim of Japanese swords struggling against mongol armor is sourceless and fake. It is quoted so many times but there are no historical sources, neither Yuan or Japanese, to support such claim.
It is also used to justify the figure of Masamune, which is a legendary smith, but if swords changed in the 14th century was because of the Nanbokucho period wars which lasted more than 50 years, not because of two skirmishes that happened in Kyushu and lasted less than few months combined.
You should read the 蒙古襲来絵詞 at least to have an idea on what happened.
Moreover, Japanese swords were imported into China both before and after the Yuan - there is even a Chinese poem praising the quality of Japanese swords of the 11th century. It is called 日本刀歌 and was made by 欧阳修. The swords were also imported into Ming China and adopted into Chinese military by Qi Jiguang and they are praised in 紀效新書, they were also imported into Vietnam and Korea. I can give you several examples on how well praised Japanese swords were at the time in Asia.
And no, the Mongol fleet was utterly destroyed by Japanese forces twice - not by the storm.
The fact that you cannot read Japanese is not a justification to spread myths on Japanese and Asian history.
There are no mention of the storm in 1274 in Japanese sources, and the Yuan Shi mentions it after the Yuan army retreated, to make up an excuse for the disproportionate casualties they have suffered.
In the second invasion in 1281 they stayed months at sea before the storm came. The fact that the fleet was annihilated by the storm is not really a big deal, because they were not supposed to be at sea in the first place - again, several academic work available in Asia and even in the west to disprove the idea that Japan was saved by the typhoons.
If they had the advantage, why did they retreated in 1274 and why couldn't land in 1281?
It's hilarious that we still hear such things when it's just pure logic that an army of unwilling Koreans and Chinese, with comunication issues given the Mongolian leadership, was at severe disadvantage against the Japanese of Kyushu.
Plate armor didn't appear before the very late 14th century, it is very much comparable in terms of defense to later period Japanese armor (当世具足), and why should the Samurai use a katana against armor when there are more efficient weapons to do so.
I can tell that people in the west know very little of Japanese history, culture and tradition since what you will consider a "Samurai" (the term historically make little sense but whatever) for most of its history wouldn't even use a katana in the first place.
@@清正中村 Lol, struck a nerve i see. I’m sure Katanas were praised throughout Asia. They were probably the best swords in the region at the time, although that still isn’t exactly the stamp of superiority. China and Korea have never been known for making fantastic weapons. If they had the chance to fully equip with European arms, they would have jumped at the chance. I’m not saying Katanas were trash, of course not. Just that that they hadn’t developed as advanced metal working techniques in Asia, as Europe had by this time. This isn’t even disputed by anyone outside of Japan besides some anime Addicts that don’t know what they’re talking about. Actual historians everywhere else are in agreement. I’m not sure why you are getting so offended by this, it has no reflection on Japanese people. Technology advances just work that way. Sometimes one region springs far ahead of others, but the next big leap happens in a totally different region. It’s not a big deal. This is why historians don’t fully rely on only biased sources, they have to piece together the truth from every available source, not just their favorites lol.
@@hakon_brennus_wolff106
I didn't meant to be rude or mean, but I want to clarify few things.
China was way ahead in terms of metallurgy compared to the West prior to the industrial revolution. Spring tempered longsword and blast furnaces were a thing already by the Han Dynasty. Look at the size of Han longsword, they are way longer to what the West had back then, as they could not produce them yet.
You can easily check this information without reading through classical chinese.
Also, have you seen any metallurgical paper dealing with Japanese swords? Plenty of documents to highligh the high quality of the artificats including works of A. Williams, A. Fedrigo, F. Grazzi.
And do you know that the techniques used to make European swords were pretty much the same (folding and forge welding multiple layers of steel) to the ones used in China and Japan? Look at De L'arte Fabrile, an Italian document of the 17th century dealing with European sword making. Many similarities with traditional Japanese swordmaking, well beyond the medieval period.
Have you seen Jizai Okimono made in the 17th century by Japanese armor makers - that speaks a lot on the refinment of Japanese metalworking.
And the Chinese did encounter European swords, but they were neither adopted nor copied. In fact, quoting from Yo Dayou (俞大猷) :
"these people's only weapon is a soft sword, their naval (melee) combat ability is inferior to our soldiers, and on the ground, long spears would have subdued them"
So clearly European swords didn't made such an impression. In fact the Ming had some skirmishes with the Portuguese in the early 16th century and won the engagements.
Note, no one would argue that the West was able to develop a technological edge with the industrial revolution, but that didn't exist until the 19th century. I get annoyed a lot because no one in Japan talks shit about European history or tradition, while it seems quite common among western "you tuber historians". I do own Japanese and English books of European arms and armor, while this guy is entitled to talk shit about it without even getting closer to a book of Japanese arms and armor. That's what annoys me.
Immagine a Japanese you tuber going around claiming that European swords were 40 pounds and that knights couldn't move - same level of triggering, if you will.
Katana Dosent have a pommel, so it is impossible to end him rightly there for even if he kills the Knight he still would not win.
3:48 Legend has it only virgins can see unicorns, so this knight is already throwing shade with his shield design.
I thought it was only maidens could touch them. But I like this lol
apa123APA how did you know it was there?
Bwahahaha!
Yah that's true but samurai where wealthy people
What unicorn?
I totally agree with Shadiversity, the question Samurai vs Knight is just a fun question. I don't think this topic should be taken too seriously. I love listening to insightful explaining of the two totally different warriors.
Not only that *not all knight are warrior* for example you could get an absurd crap like sir Isaac Newton vs miyamoto Musashi *and of course it definitely a fair fight!!!!!*
Well, Newton lived in the 18th century so the medieval times were long gone.
Japanese fighting style was called “一騎討ち” which is just like one on one. That explains why they wear heavy armor more than light wear to protect themselves from close combat.
Vikings didnot have cavarly BUT u forgot that they had beards
Good point they also had fish
oh yeah, they also had HoRneD heLMetS
"Oofbarf the Stronk" is my viking name
sirjon103 they did have cavalry
@@barneybeartilde9601 not comparable to those in western europe.
Also, knights had pommels. That alone wins any argument
The knights NEEDED pommels to counterbalance the weight of the blade. The Japanese figured out how to make a sword balanced without resorting to one.
@@wendygoerl9162 yeah with extra large handles ;) or did the europeans figure that Out too because a German Kriegsmesser hasnt a pommel either. and Google: "end him rightly"
If you wanna know the truth about pommels ;)
Samurai's: hold my Kashira.
but a samurai would use a spear or a naginata not a katana to fight a fully armored samurai or knight
@@そらーいけいけー kashira canon is better idea 😂
The crusade memers will always win against the weeaboos.
DEUS VULT!
DEUS VULT
we have JOJO
@@breastmilkgaming Stardust CRUSADERS. The Crusaders have God *and* good anime on their side!
WE WILL TAKE JERUSALEM!
who whould win?
European Musketeer
Or a matchlock ashigaru
Best comments 🤣
do u know how long it takes to reload a musket?
@@itsmeadam_ about a minute or two for a skilled gunner.
@@Banzaiiii2223456 actually, much less. A 16th century Spanish Arquebuseer was expected to make three shots per minute (20 seconds), and a musketeer would take just some seconds more, taking into account they were much heavier weapons.
A European knight or man-at-arms protected in Late Medieval/Renaissance Era plate armor would have been all but invulnerable to most of the weapons of Medieval Japan. Despite appearances, late era European plate was quite easy to wear and didn't overly burden the wearer. You could be quite agile in it and the strength and hardness was far beyond anything the Japanese could make. Especially the later Italian and German armor.European swords would have been the least of a samurais worries. In the later periods, where the quality of European plate armor reached its zenith, the most favored weapons of armored knights were flanged maces, two handed spiked war hammers, and spiked pole axes. Samurai armor would have be been useless against these kinds of weapons.
but what about crusaders chainmail knights vs samurai. i mean at that point we are talking of two different tech eras. so giving a litle lea way because originaly samurai did not have the famous blade until the 14 century how about.14 century samurai vs 13 century knight
From what I know about Katanas they can't cut through chainmail, and so a knight in full chain armor is still almost as well armored as one in full plate armor vs a samurai. The only difference would be the samurai would have more openings to get a lethal cut in, and the force behind a stroke could break bones more easily.
Mounted Archers? Battle of Lechfeld says hi... hungarian cavalry (including a big amount of archers) VS german heavy cav and infantry... germans won... the hungarian archers not being capable to inflict enough damage
Luca Nic
that was back then heavy cavalry... or are you implying cataphracts were not heavy cavalry?
Luca Nic in the 1st and 2nd crusades small numbers of European mounted knights achieved stunning successes against against larger numbers. Richard on a couple of occasions with just his personal retinue put hundreds of Arabs to flight.
Shad: "There is an obvious difference in armor and weapon technology."
Me, a non-proficient looking at a couple of pictures: "I have no idea."
Samurai armor, while providing good protection for the conflicts it was involved in, is still not as protective as full place. While some of it was made from metal plates (especially in later periods), far more common were plates made of lacquered wood and leather. While this made the armor a lot lighter and thus easier to move in, it provided less protection. And even if the plates were made from metal, it was rare that it was held together by rivets. Rather the plates were held together using silk cord or leather strips. Again, this made the armor easier to move in, but made it prone to damage in combat. In later periods you started to see more solid plates being used in it's construction, but these were usually only used to protect the chest and head, while the rest of the armor was still protected by smaller plates. And that's before taking into account that the steel used was often much lower quality steel than what could be produced in Europe at the time. While the quality of steel used in a weapon might not have much affect on a fight, the quality of steel in the armor does. Lesser quality steel needs to be thicker to offer protection, and thus heavier and more tiring to wear. It's also more prone to failing from damage, possibly leaving the wearer unprotected in areas.
@@TheDeinonychus Thanks, dino! But although I'm not a smith, I would think that lesser steel in a weapon would be too brittle to withstand the stress. What do you think?
@@nicholauscrawford7903 You are correct that a brittle steel weapon would be prone to failure, though brittleness is most often the result from overhardening the metal. More often than not, poor quality steel was (especially in Japan) the result of uneven distribution of carbon in the metal. This was because, unlike European methods, the bloomeries the Japanese used couldn't make the iron completely molten. This also meant there were often impurities left in the steel as well. They got around this in their sword making by crushing the resulting mass of partially molten steel (which looked a lot like a giant metal sponge), and separating out parts with the right carbon content based on how it looked. They also further compensated by using sword forging methods to try and get the best qualities out of what materials they had, such as only partially hardening the blade, or adding a spine of much softer iron for flexibility. Usually, if you have poor quality steel in a sword blade, the issue isn't that it will be brittle (unless you end up adding far too much carbon, which will basically turn the steel into cast iron), but rather it will bend and hold that bend rather than flexing back into shape. You will see this with a lot of decorative swords. If you bend them, even a little, they will stay bowed, rather than returning to true like a spring would. This doesn't sound like it would be as big of a problem for armor, but remember that a lot of the protection armor offers comes from it's shape as well as the material it's made from. Once metal armor is dented and bent to a point, it's no longer as effective at absorbing impact, and in the case of samurai armor, plates that are bent badly will no longer redistribute force to surrounding plates. Not to mention they're far more likely to get caught when the wearer tries to move.
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine.
The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations.
In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor.
It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon)
knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
samurai training for life and still would lose to troops trained for a few months with guns. Technology ALWAYS made the difference!
If you're talking about bolt-action, semi-auto and full-auto, then it's pretty big difference. But if you'd take flint-lock muskets, it could even be fair fight.
Frank Teryngel so you are talking about technology difference there. Technology provides such an edge that training becomes irrelevant when the is a huge technological difference. Training becomes only relevant when both sides employ roughly equivalent technology
Wouldn't that be the same for both sides? Samurai had Muskets by the way.
Benny Biggums the accounts we have of encounters between samurai and Portuguese soldiers showed that samurai were always defeated. With passing of time and the disappearing the use of the sword we saw samurai defeat their opponents. in fact after the 16th following fights between Portuguese and samurai the European were forbidden to take rapiers off their ships, in 19th century we have accounts of other fights with Europeans being defeated. By the 19th century no European was carrying a rapier and most European would have had no training in fencing as a sport, never mind military fencing.
www.tameshigiri.ca/2014/05/07/european-vs-japanese-swordsmen-historical-encounters-in-the-16th-19th-centuries/
Not all technology gaps make that much of a difference.
Of course, there are many historical accounts where newer technology were the reason an army won a war. Yet there also are accounts of wars (or at least battles) won by the side with the lesser advanced technology. Romans weren't able to conquer Germania, the Phillipines held out quite well against the Samurai despite not even having metal weapons, Germany lost WWII despite having superior aircraft and tanks...
It really depends on the type of technology gap and how much of an edge it really gives. In these above examples, Roman warfare tactics were unsuited for forested combat. A war of attrition with guerilla attacks proved enough to devastate the armies of the infamous general Varus despite their size and technology advantage.
The Phillipines used wooden weapons which obviously were quite faster than armed and armoured warriors. Long story short, they were able to outmaneuver them and kill them with their own weapons because obviously wood doesn't slice through armour.
Germany... well, bad decisionmaking led to the loss of airforce and an abundance of enemies as well as a shortable of able allies. But even when you look at the Russian front alone, the Russians still had a chance of either taking down a German tank from behind (Russian tanks indeed were that fast... it was just the question whether they would be unnoticed or just lucky to not get hit) or below.
Here's also how much a difference skill makes. The best German sniper on the Russian front had about 100 confirmed kills... before being taken out by the best Russian sniper of that time. Who had lesser advanced weaponry and still more confirmed kills.
Most technology gaps that MADE the difference were wars with comparable warfare tactics. Such as the invention of the Prussian backloader which vastly improved firing speed or the invention of tanks in WWI which opposed all values of Trench Warfare. The same applies to technology gaps in older times. Warfare tactics had MUCH more of an impact overall. Of course, new technology brought about new tactics, but not immediately.
I'm glad he pointed out the cavalry thing. If Europe, and particularly England, had developed anything like the heavy cavalry of later years before the first Viking raids; history would have been very different. For instance I don't think you get any of the Viking kingdoms that spread across England; let alone the Danelaw. I think that, sure when the Vikings first land, they take a village or two but as soon as the local lord spread the word and the cavalry very literally came down they would have run the Vikings under with very little trouble. There's not a Viking shield wall that could have withstood even one charge from the English heavy cavalry of later years.
Heavy cavalery is gard to maintain and Vikings set food in england first by raiding with ships that made them more mobile then cavalery.
Cavalery would have slowed the progress down but a Land which gets raided over and over again couldnt provide for a heavy cavalery, which on the other hand could have been picken up by the vikings, damn does pessents would be pissed.
Knight would win because he can end him rightly
bobobeebear therentown with his pommel
did you watch the video
also a pommel is a long range weapon so the fight would be over before it even began
A true samurai will never surrender
Bishal Timung weeb
Holion 7296 With hack not, only with stab, it was showed with plate armor. But in full armor, I think not.
The easiest way to answer this is what would you rather have? Weapons incapable of penetrating your opponents armor, or causing any real damage the man inside the armor, while your own armor is fallible to pretty much every weapon the knight has to a lesser or greater extent. You have all the skill in the world, if your opponent has eve a modicum of skill he's going to win with that much of an advantage. This is such a huge chasm in difference of offense and defense, skill really won't factor in to this that much. Saying "oh a skilled fighter could still win", yeah well a really skilled fighter could still win with a rock and the other guy has an AR, provided he gets lucky enough or his opponent is inept enough, otherwise you know who is going to win.
In 1v1 The knight.
In 100 vs 100, again the knights- but there's going to be at least some casualties on the knight's side I'm sure.
That’s true. Katanas aren’t going to do much if not anything against full plate.
peasant of Persia I’m not too sure about bows but definitely spears.
But the katana is a secondary weapon there is also things like the kanabo
@@peasantofpersia bows don't pentrate plate Armour, it's been tested and it just slightly damaged it. The reports from agincourt were likely written by the English to overemphasize the effectiveness of their longbows
@@peasantofpersia as far as spears goes, I wouldn't really know. but I doubt that anyone could put enough force into throwing the spear to actually penetrate plate armor AND chain mail, and then still have enough power to kill the man wearing the armor
A katana couldn't cut through hardened plate armour.
not much can
Colin Thorneycroft true.
well katana will 1 hit
@@saitamayourdaddy7008 LMAO
@@mechachurch4556 LMAO
Why does everyone assume the samurai just ran around with a katana, a samurai combat progression would start with a bow on horseback, or a gun in later periods, after this in closer combat they would turn to a yari (spear) and if, and only if this broke or was unusable, they would turn to their katana. So the question of whether the katana can pierce armour is a little redundant if you consider all the other avenues which would be taken before a katana is even brought into the equation.
Agreed. and the fact that people in the comments section also assume that knights only have a longsword give me a stroke LOL. What about poleaxe,Warhammer or shortened lance/spear or Wheelock pistol in later period?.
Do Japanese horses dodge axe strikes too?
The biggest difference is the use of shields for me. I could be wrong, but my understanding it's that samurai used shields primarily from horseback, and not on foot. I would exclude firearms just because they'll kill either regardless of who is holding the gun.
Seems like people never heard of the naginata
Because guns were introduced by the portuguese in 1543. So when japanese were holding the gun fist time we didn't had a feudal system anymore but already colonialized half the planet...... And if you want to talk armour 1543 vs samurai armour its even more advantage to the european since japanese iron and steel lacked everything the europeans had.
Knights built castles out of stone. Samurai built castles out of paper. No question who would win!
Rock,paper,scissors
what......?
Yeah you'd really want to build castles out of scissors to beat the Japanese!
Hahaah funny! No
Have you even looked at Japanese castles before?
The Samurai fans should really ask themselves some questions and the answer to these questions will tell them who would would be in favor in a fight.
Why didn't the knights use similar armor than the Samurai?
Because steel plate armor is far superior to anything else in that time.
Why didnt the Samurai use full plate?
Because they didnt have the smelting technology to produce hardened spring steel. Differential hardened steel would not work in plate armor.
Why didnt the european swordmakers use differentially hardened folded steel?
Because it is extremely expensive to make and will at best give you similar quality weapons.
Why did the knights give up on shields?
Because their late medieval armor was so effective that you did not need a shield anymore. The late full plate armor was pretty much immune to every weapon exept maces and helbards and the like. Even the feared warbows and crossbows were mostly ineffective.
Why is it fair to believe that knights could fight on a similar skill level compared to samurai?
Because you can bet that every person and culture that is heavily influenced by fighting will try to have the best training and techniques possible.
Luca Nic What anti armor weapons did samurai actually use? I was under the impression that samurai v samurai combat was rather rare to be honest.
Luca Nic Thank you, that was very helpful.
I may have been a bit unclear earlier, I had meant that I thought melee combat to be somewhat of a rarity. Specifically combat between heavily armored fighters. I wasn't aware the term Samurai was so widely applicable, or that metal armor was so widely used.
I actually don't see a reply from you to another of my comments, maybe it's just google being weird.
Heck, a lot of early guns couldn't hurt properly-made steel plate.
...which is wishy-washy of course. There was no real standard size for the handgonnes and arquebuses of early days and this statement's validity could change from individual example to individual example.
But even so.
Luca Nic Oh, no, I was just talking about this thread in general. That was in response to OP.
1337Jogi damn knight fans. Have you heard of money?
When knight lost
Run
When samurai lost
*suicide*
Better to live to fight another day.
+Wilson no, when the knight loses he fights to the death. Which in my opinion is much more honourable than Seppuku.
@@jerichamesclammay3107 Implying Samurai kill themselves before they can lose a fight to the death? zzz
@@jerichamesclammay3107 Seppuku less honorable?
Samurai did it of their own will to preserve their honor ... in this mass slaughter of knights it was not even possible to escape because you immediately got a shield or another stone in your head ...
@@hidarii2684 so killing yourself is preserving your honour?
also: knights had shields as a means of protection. Especially since Western warfare back then was much more advanced than Eastern warfare. Also: stone? helmets are made of steel
I like samurai but I think that a knight would win ( no I haven’t watched the video yet )
Same, I like Samurai, their code of honor, armor, and weapons. However I can accept if they would most likely lose in a 1v1, theoretically for debate sake of course. And I'm saying this after watching the video.
@@colealexander7690 it actually depends on time period. Knight like sir Isaac Newton would undoubtedly lose to any Duel against Samurais
@@chayudyodchit2872 sounds reasonable. However Sir Isaac Newton though knighted, was a mathematician and exactly your
go-to warrior when shit hits the fan. I don't know everything about Isaac Newton, I'm just assuming this was the case, based on my general knowledge of him.
@@colealexander7690yeah, most people seem to not aware that *a knights is not always a warrior, people who do good to state and country can also be granted a honorary title or rank by being knighted* for example, knights hospitaller when not in war or battlefield were known as a medic and knights Templar were known as a monk(or warrior monk when at war) and sir John Smythe is known as a English politician.
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine.
The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations.
In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor.
It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon)
knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
Back when For Honour was taken seriously
LOL
Was it ever thought?
@@Noname-om3pp well there was a short time where people only thought about for honor but then mordhau came out
Honor*
I'm AWSOME and your not That’s how we spell honour in Britain. Also you used the asterisk wrong. It goes before the word when ‘correcting’.
Ninja Loses: Run.
Samurai Loses: *SUICIDE*
most nijas are samurai
@@peiranzhang4283 you are literally wrong, there were, however some ninjas who were also samurai, but it was far, far from most. the bushido code was a thing that all samurai lived their lives by and literally goes against everything that a ninja does
I. Rectitude or Justice.
II. Courage.
III. Benevolence or Mercy.
V. Honesty and Sincerity.
VI. Honor.
VII. Loyalty.
VIII. Character and Self-Control.
ninjas were literally assassins, spies, and are defined as "warriors without honour"
as a side note, most ninjas are actually farmers, the poor, and people of low social status, whereas samurai are generally extremely high class, very commonly being lords of chunks of land or regions.
@@rileyteramura7552 Sure, but most samurai didn't kill themselves. Have you heard of the Ronin? Or the Woku pirates?
The Ronin are basically masterless samurai, often because their masters killed themselves after defeat, and many were employed by the Woku pirates as mercanerys
@@peiranzhang4283 where did I say that all samurai killed themselves? i believe that that should be toward @corue
@@rileyteramura7552 I thought we were discussing on the comment this man made.
It's a wonder to me that, after thousands upon thousands of comments stating the same arguments to exhaustion, some people haven't quite picked up the basics of this scenario.
Both knights and samurai were human. Knights were not tanks and samurai were not magical anime warriors. Knights were not immobile chunks of steel and samurai were not ultra-flexible soldiers dancing around the battlefield. They were both clad in similarly heavy armor so neither would show up with just their sword of choice. If either of them were hit over the head with either a poleaxe or a kanabo, they would be out for the count. And neither of those soldiers is just standing around waiting to be struck, so even scoring a hit is a rarity.
I do give the knights the advantage, but to say that a knight is just gonna be prancing around while killing samurai left and right is naive and misinformed. At best I'd say knights would win ~65/100 battles.
For the record: adoring and romanticizing knights is just as obnoxious as adoring and romanticizing samurai.
Derp Wayne I'd say more 70/100 but that's just me.
Its very unhelpful for you to restate the point of skill already addressed in the video
Also if you don't want a discussion on the comparison I don't suggest looking in the comment section of a comparison video
Also its been shown kanabo isn't great against full armour it definetly won't put you out for the count the only way for the samurai to win is the simply out skill and fully control the fight
Anyone who had to fight and they had the option of either set of the equipment would pick knight armament
You say that it's unhelpful, and yet, if you look at many of the newer comments, you will still see lots of people saying that the samurai spent their every breathing moment preparing for battle while the knights just fucked around on the battlefield, despite the video, myself and many others saying otherwise. More than unhelpful, I'd say it is in vain to continue to argue for the equivalence of their training if people are just not going to listen.
I'm not protesting the existence or the continuation of the argument, I'm saying that it's pointless to keep arguing parting from the false premise that either warrior was some sort of mythical creature while the other was a hopeless loser. There are good arguments to be made on the topic but they must be made on solid foundation or their validity is compromised.
As for the equipment part, the scenario I proposed was a person taking a direct hit over the head with either a kanabo or a polearm. The kanabo may not damage the helmet in any significant way, but no human neck will take such an impact well, and even just getting stunned by the blow can prove fatal if the knight can't defend himself from the follow-up.
Derp Wayne
The weight difference between a full plate armor of a knight to a full typical samurai armor is quite large and will definitely affect fatigue in different manners.
Also the samurai armor is much more mobile because it has no solid steel parts that hinder movement which would allow for better manoeuvres on offense and defence.
I personally agree with the video maker that it mostly would comes down to individual skill.
Adaptation is also veth important. If the samurai fights very offensive and similar to the knight, the knight would have the advantage because of his stronger armor. But if the samurai fights defensively and wears the knight out, to a point that the knights reflexes are slowed down enough, the samurai has the advantage because of his faster movement and lower fatigue.
Derp Wayne o
before i even start this video i need to state the obvious.....as much as i love the katana, and the samurai, and japanese culture and history...ive not known for the samurai to carry weapons that could effectively pierce a knight's armor, and ive seen broadswords straight up break a katana..this really comes down to the equipment or (weapon technology) that would truly be the deciding factor in this.
There are multiple weapons used in Japan that can be used to defeat plate armor, as Japanese armor itself was no joke to bypass especially during the Sengoku Period when Tosei Gusoku armor was developed, since most of the body was covered by rigid plates as well.
In fact axes, maces, warpicks and other weapons were used as well as finely tapered daggers, spears with hooks and projections used to hook and subdue the enemy and not to mention gunpowder weapons.
Just today I was browsering old manuals through the 近世期絵入百科事典データベース（試作版）and I've found this:
kutsukake.nichibun.ac.jp/EHJ/img/2569346/6-3.jpg
That's a weapon that could be very effective against armor to be fair.
I don't understand why everyone focus on the Katana, as it was never specialized into being an anti armor weapon. Moreover, there is no way that a properly historically made sword could cut through another properly made one in real battlefield conditions, especially if it is a Katana since they are quite thick blade.
You might be talking about that German Tv shows: well that's not really a scientific nor intellectually honest test.
@@清正中村 we are talking 16 century
@@trapmaster84581. Who said that?
2. I'm not sure about the armor, but I know that there were gunpowder weapons the samurai had.
Shad said the best: So, best armor and weapons ever made by either group. So, they could still use the armor, and weapons the guy was talking about.
Smacking him with a kanabo might work.
BS.
If you forge a lava katana with +3 fire effect beforehand, the knight would get too hot during battle to even fight. And that's on top of the lava katana having the power to not only cut the knight in half, but the fabric of space and time.
then it time to give knight the Excalibur a sword so powerful that it can match against laser that can destroy creation itself
Vellichor knight : laughs in fire resistant armor
@@karndisyodjit4090 *cries in AUO*
Some random peasant with a waterbucket comes in.
UUUHuhUH ThEY diDnT Have lAvavvA KaTaNAs diSlIkee
Also the Spartans started using small units of 60 cavalrymen during the Peloponnesian war so technically they did have it.
i'm pretty sure that all the dislikes are pissed off weaboos
Lol. I am not
@@HuyGia-wp5tx
Speech 100
Sneak 100
Illusion 100
im mean i hate anime but i think samurai are bad ass XD
Weaboo? What's that?
@@crimson_scum7129 I love anime and i think samurai are trash lol
Europe really had an arms race on a completely different level to what Japan had.
Europeans were all about exploration and conquering, so of course they were gonna focus greater on weaponry and technology, whereas the Japanese were more focused on honourable battles and keeping order
@@logeyperogi1805 honourable battles like nanking?
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine.
The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations.
In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor.
It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon)
knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
@@perrytheplatypus6353 there were no samurais at that time.
@@perrytheplatypus6353 what he meant by "Honourable battles" is the war between clans in japan for centuries
"Either side could win depending on the skill of the warrior."
That right there is pretty much all the answer we need. Unfortunately people always want to be able to quantify things and be able to find a definitive answer to questions like "Katana vs. straightsword, Which is better?" or "Samurai vs. Knight, Which is better?" A katana might be MARGINALLY better at cutting and a straightsword might be MARGINALLY better at stabbing, but ultimately every variable is trumped by the individual warrior's ability to fight. The difference between a samurai and a knight lies in the equipment that they used. An amateur with full plate armor will almost assuredly lose to an expert wearing no armor at all. Point is, having better equipment is always a bonus, but it's not the determining factor to the question of which warrior is more likely to survive. Secondly, are we talking about a 1-on-1 duel or a full warfare scenario? Either scenario only adds a million more variables into the mix, which would be possible to adequately quantify. I agree this it's a fun question to consider, but it's a question that will never receive any definitive answer that extends much further beyond the realm of mere personal preference, and the "Knight vs. Samurai" debate is precisely that. A battle of personal preference.
If you put a sword master and a normal soldier in full plate armor and with a sword if the sword master is without armor the guy with the armor has the most chances to win
good luck using your "skill" in fight vs opponent in plate Armour, using thin cutting sword and no shield. Theres literally no way you can hurt him you cant stab with katana in the gaps, just not gonna happen. You're not going to cut his amour, obviously.
+DaSpooge you are right and i would even argue that other factors like luck or whether one combatant had a good night's sleep or didn't might affect the outcome. but i think shad does a good job of re-framing the question as "who had better military technology: 16th century europe or 16th century japan?" this is a question that can be evaluated by some objective metrics.
You can't stab through a plate with any sword, that's why maces and poleaxes were invented.
Rented Mule with katana you cant even stab between gaps so its worse
It’s curious because knights fight for their concepts of “Honour and Justice” and sometimes dress with symbols of Christianity; and samurai’s fight for their “master’s Honour”, and dress with masks of demons
(At least according to the stereotypes)
Knight: see samurai demon mask
Knight: deus vult intestifies
@GÖÖSË knight: economic intervent goes deus vultrrr
old japanese afterlife is very different. it is often a negative perception of how dirty you are when you are alive and how hard hell has to clean your soul before it circulates to the world of the living once again. there is a heaven though but it's mostly for the gods.
Dei enim voluntatis est!!
Well.... Europes does have a few demonic and monstrous looking helmet, I don't think they would give a crap much (unless pope declare crusade on Japanese or they wanted to conquer them)
reason why the Samurai didn't use shields because they thought of it as a cowardly thing to use. Sometimes Honor just gets you killed
Just like with seppuku
On the other hand, the reason why knights didn't use shields is because by 15th century the armour was so good that shields weren't needed ;)
MRKapcer13 The shields were then replaced with larger weapons like halberds and claymores.
"Sometimes honour gets you killed" #justnedstarkthings
Except... they did use shields.
I still would feel safer fighting with a knights arsenal.
the armor of knights was incredibly expensive, therefore they were few in quantity, in addition to the fact that their vision was bad due to the very defensive helmet, they were somewhat slow and do not hold stamina in mountains due to the weight, the samurai have the kanabo (a large anti-armor mace that could knock out or break knees) and the tsuruhashi (a mining pike equivalent to the european warhammer capable of piercing helmets), in addition to jujitsu + daggers capable of blinding opponents, ninjas could also sabotage constantly camping at night, anyway, in real life there would be an arms race in which tools capable of countering adversaries are developed, things that I can't even imagine.
The Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, knights were very dependent on groups, especially to form a wall and protect archers, the samurai on the other hand moved more freely and intercepted enemies without restrictions to break formations.
In addition, the yoroi samurai armor has kusari gusoku, a chain mail that protects the neck, thighs, armpits, etc., together with the mempo mask, it does not have much to envy to the european armor.
It should be mentioned that for some reason the samurai discarded the shields (with the exception of the anti-arrow Tate) which focuses them on using 2-handed weapons (more attack and manual control of the weapon)
knights are just tanky, Samurai is the best warrior of ancient world.
Dude the Japanese really weren't that great of a fighting force you make them out to be, you give European civilizations way too little credit putting them against an island
@@solaire7046 europe is focused in deffence, japan in attack (absence of shield) , both valid doctrines, usefull in different situations
@Alfred Humn that's an incredibly broad statement to make. European armies have been attacking and conquering each other for most of history. I wouldn't say any one of them were particularly focused on defence. Either way Samurai and knights were a very late age aristocracy class much more than they were fighters. I would just personally wager on a European army at any stage of history as they were generally the most advanced because of the constant warring.
@@solaire7046 im just talking about the equipment. Eastern asia: mongols bow and horse, china halberds/spears/lances , japan katana and kanabo , korea foot gakkung bow , vietnam rattan archer.
vikings, romans, greeks, knights : shield, shield, shield, shield
The game Sekiro actually made a clever and probably factual point about this where you come across a western knight type enemy and you literally cannot hurt him with your katana. The only way to beat him is to push him over the edge of the bridge you are fighting on. Really cool
Yeah but in the game they showed the knight with the mobility of a turtle with arthritis and thats wrong
@@drrandom2639 Not really, and he had a sword bigger than a man so I would think its that not the armor
@@drrandom2639 well do you see under the armor? How do you know that’s not what they are?
@@teathesilkwing7616
Because who would name the slowest person In history a knight?
@@The_Soviet_Cat_2233 if I had a turtle that could fight I’d make them a knight!
Teutonic Knights win vs Samurai, 1 v 1 in AoE II therefore it's proven that knights beat samurai.
best comment here, thank you for not being a fucking katana sucking weeb
Jan Sitkowski not true, portugese tried to sell european swords to japanese but they did not like it due to poor quality. Samurai sword is the best sword according to archeologiests including westerners. None of the european swords had 2 different metal for the cutting edge and for the mid layer like katana and using different clay for having cutting edge hard and upper part of the sword soft for absorbing tensions. Japanese had different sword technique based on minimum effort and maximum injuries and precision strikes to week spots. They did not have such a fenci g for minutes one on one. Anyway it would be interesting so see a samuri master against a knight sword master.
@@hakapeszimaki8369
Incorrect. You cannot judge Japanese or European sword quality based on Portugal trying to sell cheap mass produced swords to Japan.
Archeologists are not experts on metallurgy or weapon technology so using them as a source is like quoting a biology professor on chemistry, not the right expert.
Blacksmiths and weapon experts will point to many European and Persian swords that are better than the katana.
In addition to that, some katanas are better than others just like any other sword. As this video pointed out, metallurgy was better in Europe.
@@brianjordan2192 Archeologist are using modern technique to check the metals in archeological swords and other metal artefacts. It is not my opinion only what I wrote above. The European swords are having own history. I agree with you that you can find great swords and really bad ones in Europe and in Japan as well. A good refernce can be Fior di Battaglia regarding fighting technique and swords were used in that period in Europe.
@@brianjordan2192 ruclips.net/video/B54w_u8tm9Q/видео.html
Take note that the size and height difference might also play a part.
Imagine a 180cm vs 150cm in a brutal fight and only 1 of them can survive.
Europeans weren't always tall. When knights walked around, today's average height was a giant.
@@Joe11Blue still they were taller sooooo better armour, equal skill but better biological structure
The Noob 3aerfos size doesn’t matter in war, look how the european lost to the mongolians that were much smaller.
@@shamerzaihan8638 you do understand they attacked the Eastern Europe with too many losses and got pushed back after 4 years .... And still Mongols didn't wear Japanese armour .... Mongols got many losses from Japan too but mostly cause of the Tornado while they were sailing and got weakened by it
@@shamerzaihan8638 never happened. They were likely the same size, as both groups were starving.
I really love samurai and I think they're epic, so I don't like to say this, but technologically the knights far outshined the samurai. But what I think is important to say here is also that Japan only fought against themselves and select eastern Asian countries for most of their history; whereas in Europe, there was constant fighting with countless technology levels and cultures, so the Europeans adapted faster. This is a question of innovation. The Japanese had no need to improve because their enemy wasn't.
Samurai adapted to guns far earlier before knights decided to be gunners along with their riflemen
Knight wins but I love the Samurai
The samurai and knights are a very different type of warriors.
sky1Army samurai wins all the way
TurtleOppzz lIl Not a chance. A weebstick that is designed for cutting can’t do anything to plate armour+male,gamberson.
ToXic Ela Main samurai used plate armor and how dare you call any samurai a weebstik you crusade loving dick
@@wendyandmiketerell997
Not as strong armor as european knights. And it is a weebstick.
Here, why did the knights lose to mongols, even the knight has more far better armour than the mongols. And u think about knights are strong? Lol
Good video on a highly emotional topic for some people. I'm glad you bring up the "luck" factor and how anyone else can get lucky and beat the best trained guy. What it comes down to is we're still created equal under the armor.
I been trying to say this/explain this to my family and friends about when I was in combat in Ramadi in 06 as a US Marine. Before getting into country, I was extremely arrogant/cocky/confident because we're going against untrained civilians or "peasants" if you like, and I am part of one of the world's most elite fighting forces, I'm an "expert" with my rifle, I have the best gear, highly trained, and much more disciplined. My very first day I get to the main base in Ramadi (Junction City/Camp Ramadi) I go to the chow hall and not even 5 minutes into my first meal there, the chow hall takes a direct hit from a volley of old soviet mortars. Next thing I know they are running around asking for B+ blood.
Now, those guys that sent those mortars, were barely trained, most likely illiterate, peasants. Nobody in the entire chow hall ever even seen the enemy that got very lucky getting the angles perfectly, even though they never had formal training with it. Everyone in that chow hall trained like hell and spent hundreds if not thousands of hours getting our bodies and minds trained for war. Those dudes picked up some artillery, and sent rounds down range, and in that moment got lucky and "beat" someone much better than them. Really changed my whole idea about war was right then and there.
Dude is wrong since Samurai had guns
@@wa-bu3ke bruh i dont wanna be the guy but i think europe was for a long time far ahead in tech compared to japan, and by the time japan adopted guns europe used them since like 200years and well even tho most knights didnt like guns, nobody could tell em to not use em, knights made their own loaouts so they could use whatever tf they want.
@@edgyhegi9547 Well it wasn't. China invented gunpowder, so Japan had guns first
It's obvious a Witcher would win.
I've said it for years the european sword is the more evolved weapon!
Different* It is clear to me that any Knight would shove his blade up any samurais *ss before he can even find a spot to tickle the knight but the Katana was meant to be something entirely different than the Broadsword (or whatever one you mean)
Yeah, but they probably wouldn’t be attacking each other with swords.
Bro who has been listening to you for all those years?
@@kn1ght128 karana are more balanced, thus not being super good in anything like cutting and thrusting
@@ReiChiquita567 what should I do with that information.
Did u make a typo or just agree with me?
AFAIK European warriors were used to fight many different kind of foes while samurai were more specialized due to lack of variety of adversaries being on their islands, which would give the martial upper hand to the knight.
JuQmadrid Samurai fought the Mongols, Chinese and Koreans as well as Portuguese, Dutch, British and French
Spike Spiegel Dude the Mongols that managed to wash up in Japan were captured and executed
JuQmadrid
Cagayan battles .
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1582_Cagayan_battles
@@sirsardining2393 No, they fought multiple battles and the samurai won most of them. Just accept the fact the Mongols for BTFO.
@dimagalfo You don't know much about Asiatic history. Typical euromutt.
I’m Japanese and I feel like everything this guy said is spot on.
Well, Japan did need to face European Knights since there was *iSOlaTioN*
Musashi..... best duelist in japanese history :D
Not really, mistakes are made here Samurai armor was more protective than what's is given credit here and had a lot of variety
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2017/10/tosei-gusoku-body-coverage-explained.html?m=1
The part about Japanese swords(and the truth about about Katana series) contain many flaws as well
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/02/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1
gunbai-militaryhistory.blogspot.com/2019/01/iron-and-steel-technology-in-japanese.html?m=1
I'll leave it at that and just to make clear I'm not trying to bash him lots of his videos are quite entertaining but I feel his contact concerning samurai stuff is lacking.
@@eagle162 He didn't said that it wasn't. But comparing most advanced versions of both, Plate has advantage. Like he said, both are equally flexible but plate cover more.
@@TheRezro both are plate armor, he said Samurai armor covered less which is not the case and plate does not automatically mean more coverage, also depending on the type Samurai armor can be more protective than Knight's armor or some other warrior armor.
3:36 when you play Kingdom Come: Deliverance for the first time.
European Knights in plate armor and their superior weapons? Objectively I don’t see how the Samurai would stand a chance.
"Plate armor" which time period? 14th century? 15th century? 16th century 17th century?. Also samurai can just use a kanabo and tetsubo and also a warpick against a knight. And btw in 17th century.... Knight mostly wear breastplate(with few exceptions of someone's wanted to be very protective like sir Arthur haselrig) which mean that all samurai have to do is just stab his face and cut his arm and leg bruh......
@@chayudyodchit2872 To be fair there are virtually no accounts of armored duels in Japan, aside from _maybe_ having (chain)mail sown into a kimono. Given that Japanese mail was less resilient than its European counterpart on average, in a duel the knight would still be better protected even if only wearing a breastplate.
@@corneredfox chainmail in 17th century were not common in Europe tho.
@@chayudyodchit2872 Who are we talking about in terms of commonality? In Europe it's true it's wouldn't have been common, but in Japan it's debatable. There are many patterns/weaves (not sure which is necessarily the correct term here but both actually fit) that, to my knowledge, don't appear in Japan until the Edo period. That strangely suggests that some of them may be decorative in nature (I say strangely because with mail you couldn't tell unless you were literally inches from it, begging the question of "Why?"). However it also suggests that the Japanese continued using and exploring the protective qualities of mail armors, and therefore that it was more commonly used/worn than otherwise believed. After all, if you're going to sow the mail inside of a kimono why bother doing so with an intricate pattern/weave that no one would ever see?
And yes visuals were important for the Japanese, it's why most katana today are actually "left-handed" (a trend that started in the Edo period and even many "high end" katana are guilty of having). The menuki (ornaments) are supposed to fit in the palm, but they aren't as easy to display that way on a right-handed swords worn on a right-handed person. So they flipped them around to make them easier to display, even though this meant the menuki were on the finger tips and not in the palm as they should be (which provides better orientation as well as superior comfort when wielding the sword).
@@corneredfox sorry i forgot to say that chainmail were not common in 17th century Europe