Thread 513529483

Both sides had magnificent armor.
Both sides had a higher social status than commoners and soldiers, and many nobles were knights or warriors.
When war broke out, both sides were important military units in the army. There was a stronger fighting force and army command ability.
So what is the difference between the two when?

>>513529483 (OP)
One was Japanese and one was European

>>513529543
big if true

>>513529483 (OP)
your gay samurai were faggots who killed random peasants for the fun of it
they were all GAY

>>513529483 (OP)
European knight would be superior in combat. We still have sword of our Hussite knight ancestor. They became landless knights after 1621 but neve4 sold sword.

>>513529483 (OP)
Japs were way behind in time, knights were high tech, Japs were running around with swords in the age of gunpowder. It's because they were a hermit nation for way too long and didn't even realize the world had kept advancing

>>513529483 (OP)
The european knight was better armored and armed, other than that socially their roles are quite similar, its almost weird how Japan developed and exact copy of a warrior caste from thousands of kilometers away with zero contact, a case of convergent social evolution

>>513529483 (OP)
about 45 cm

>>513529688
Post sword

>>513529483 (OP)
I will tell you.

A knight is a noble man who is the supreme lord in his little piece of land. He has a man above him he must fights for free whenever called, but he is otherwise a mini king

A samurai is a servant. He doesn't own land. He fights for pay. He is basically just a man at arms by european standard. He has no sovereignty.

In shorter word, knight = patrician, samurai = pleb.

>>513529769
Lol they actually ripped it all off the Spanish who basically handed their asses to them but then taught them how to make swords and tempura batter

>>513529483 (OP)
The european knight actually has protection

>>513529916
They didn't, samurai existed hundreds of years before european contact as a sort of warrior nobility very very similar to european knights
>but then taught them how to make swords and tempura batter
Top tier european swords from the middle ages are of better quality than japanese ones, the steel used is simply better and more pure

>>513530243
not even close. By european standard samurai would be considered commoners. To be nobility in europe is to be someone who owed land and had free labor from all the peasants in it. Of course you nigger finn wouldn't know it. you were tribeniggers until we civilized you.

>>513529877
>samurai = pleb.
What?
Don't Japanese samurai generally serve their lords?
The lords are their masters, and the lords themselves are samurai, and nobles among samurai.
Samurai who lost their masters were called ronin, basically bums with katanas.

>>513529483 (OP)
1. European armor was far superior
2. A much greater variaty of weapons used in Europe
3. bigger and stronger in general

>>513530243
Spanish taught them the Damascus style. Can't really blame the japs for having shitty steel locally but it's 100% on them to not use a shield or dagger. Spanish used daggers or chains in their other hand and killed the samurai quite easily

>>513530316
Samurai were basically ISIS circa 2015 to the local population

One is made of metal and one is made of wood.

>>513529964
this
/thread

>>513530343
no. Let me be more clear

A samurai has no income other than what his lord pays him. That makes him an employee of his master

A knight has his own source of income and doesn't need to be paid by anyone. That makes him a vassal or an ally of his master. A vassal differs from an employee in that you can't make a vassal do shit beyond what he is obligated to do. A knight is obligated to fight for 40 days for his lord every year, and that's it. If you want him to keep fighting for you, you gotta cajole him. You gotta pay him extra, or you gotta give him lands and shit.

One is a starbuck employee that could be paid like shit. The other is a friend you gotta beg for help from.

>>513530316
There were plenty of landless knights in Europe who served in retinues of barons, counts and dukes just like what happened in Japan with the samurai and their daimio, I think you ought to read history before talking about civilizing anybody. It is true that originally knights were land owners but the same is true for Japan aswel, later on many knights and samurai lost their lands but not their titles which led to selling military service to a lord

>>513529483 (OP)
>Both sides had magnificent armor.
lol no

>>513530465
Ahh I see what you mean, yeah samurai warfare was ritualistic to a degree, europeans didn't have the same ritualistic mindset to the same degree but more of a utilitarian view of war especially in the 1500s, a knight for example wouldn't use a sword for the most part in warfare unless his primary weapon was broken, a katana would do anything to plate armor just like european swords wouldn't

>>513529483 (OP)
Well, the difference was that japs could remove those pants while euros had to shit inside the armor and then had squired pour buckets of water on them to wash the shit out.

>>513529483 (OP)
>So what is the difference between the two when?
For starters the difference between metal and wood.

>>513529483 (OP)
None in function
Both were Noble Titles who served their Lords.
Many would occupy public offices and hold Low ranking Political Positions.

The only real difference is that if a Knight tried to test his new sword on someone he would get his head cut off the next day by a Executioner.


In Modern Terms imagine a European Knight would be like a Sargeant in the Army, leading less experienced troops in larger Units (40>)

Where as a Samurai would not necessarly lead anyone and fight on his own inside his given detachment - so like a Mercenary Fullfilling his role.

>>513530714
that's only the case in the late medieval period (14th century onwards) and only true for rich kingdoms like France. Early and high medieval knights had to be landowners because the feudal economy was too shit to pay anyone a salary in gold. You need to learn what a retinue is. No baron had knights in his retinue. A retinue is a permanent army that had to be constantly paid. Most of that retinue would be non-noble soldiers, akin to samurai. No fucking baron had the money to constantly pay a knight to serve in his retinue, nor was there any reason to. Knights already fought for free for a set period every year. Imagine, a rich guy who already lived like a king in his home fief. How much do you think he would ask to be paid in exchange for leaving his comfy castle to go serve a lord when he doesn't have to?
retarded finn trying to lecture me on feudalism when your tribal ass never lived it, except for the brief period we ruled you.

>>513529483 (OP)
knights were not gay and didnt fuck their squire

>>513530343
Ronin were still samurai and they had the right to legally kill someone who insulted them, the traditional way to do it was called Kiri-sute gomen, often they would offer a paesant their secondary blade to defend themselves too, similar to european knights having the right to challenge anyone to a duel who questioned their honor or insulted them

>>513531557
Yes and the word samurai is automatically associated with the sengoku period, thats when their armor style became whats portrayed in popular media for example so I used late medieval period as the time period of comparison, samurai started as horse archers in the earlier medieval period
>No baron had knights in his retinue
All barons had knights in their retinues, I dunno what you are talking about but its not historical facts
> A retinue is a permanent army

The term retinue refers to a body of persons "retained" in the service of a noble or royal personage, its not a permanent army but a mixture of both professionals and conscripted people

You are literally wrong on everything you say, I dont have time to educate you on history m8 so I suggest you talk this historically illiterate nonsense to somebody else
>retarded finn trying to lecture me on feudalism when your tribal ass never lived it
You never lived under feudalism either and clearly haven't read anything about feudalism either

>>513529483 (OP)
Knights followed the code of chivalry which was in the context of a Christian society. Samurai and ronin followed bushido which was absent of some Christian values, for example at one point it was acceptable for some samurai to “train” on random people, so essentially they would murder normies to learn how to swing their sword.

>>513529483 (OP)
Knight derives from a word for "boy". So King Arthur and his boys bout to roll up on your crib. They were obviously black.
It is well known that the original Samurai were black.
Therefore Samurai and Knights are the same and are black.

>>513532023
bro, if you want to compare knights to samurai at the same period, knights would already be mostly obsolete and reduced to administrators.
>all barons had knight in their retinue
and they were be paying them with, what? cow shit? Do you have the slightest clue how expensive a knight was to pay in hard cash?
A knight who is only available for service 40 days a year is not a retainer. A retainer is available at all time. The average baron wouldn't have a single knight on standby at his keep. He would have only commoners who took shit for pay as his personal soldiers. Samurai are equivalent to these commoners, not knights.
Mr. Finn, please stop talking dumbshit because your people were eating reindeer shit while mine was making fat stacks trading with Constantinople, sometimes by selling your people as slaves.

>>513529590
This is true. Most samurai fucked their young male retainers.
Most dishonorable.

Japanese armor is totally inferior to full plate. If Japan had enough good iron to justify forging plate, then they would have but few historical examples exist and instead they tied little pieces together with leather strapping because good iron was hard to come by. A common fighting tactic among samurai was to cut off an opponents armor. Modern Japanese katana masters also routinely praise the longsword and claim that it's superior after training with it for a while, in particular noting that the double edge allows for all kinds of extra angles of attack and that the straight blade makes stabbing much easier.

>>513534010
I quite like the samurai armor that has Spanish or Portuguese influence. I don't think it saw much use by that time period but still...pretty neat.

Samurai were mostly horseback archers, while European knights preferred melee combat. With the advancement of arbalest and later arquebuses, heavy cavalry in europe fell out of favour and was slowly replaced by light cavalry, mainly hussars.

>>513535202
Is there a knight in Russian history? I remember it took you guys many years to please the Mongols.

>>513529483 (OP)
Both are based and aryan

>>513529483 (OP)
nationality, gear and rank

>>513535320
Yes, of course. Wealthy princes or boyars could afford horses and heavy armor much like the European counterparts, although the underlying social dynamics evolved differently (in Russia they were more like direct troops serving under the Zar, while in Europe they were their own barons or in some kind of fraternity, like the Teutonic order).

>>513535569
You have a unique style of armor, nothing like the Western European style. It looks a lot lighter.

>>513534512
This is actually very aesthetic, never knew that was a thing

>>513535320
Oh and the appropriate counterpart to knight would be "витязь" imo. Picrel for another famous depiction

>>513535803
That armor isn't very accurate, i could show you more accurate ones if you're interested. It's mostly a mix of western and eastern (persian, tatar) tradition.

>>513536055
>It's mostly a mix of western and eastern (persian, tatar) tradition.
Yes, it sure has a mix of unique styles.

>>513529543
but which one was which

>>513535803
tbf not all western euro knights were in full plated armor. That shit was way too expensive and difficult to upkeep for most knights.
Most low rank chevaliers (knights) used to wear those long coat of mails with some thick leather clothing beneath or above, with plates only to protect their forearms and knees. Pretty much like Aragorn or Boromir in LOTR Ep1.

In reality, the European knight was significantly better than the Japanese samurai in every way. The armor was superior, the weaponry was superior, tactics and training was superior, physical stature was superior, the knight was just a better warrior.

>>513529769
Yeah dude it’s so weird considering basically every culture and civilization which has ever formed on this planet had that.

>>513529483 (OP)
>So what is the difference between the two when?
the Japanese copied the European knights codes of chivalry after coming in contact with Europe. Just like they glazed ninjas, they started glazing samurai in the 1800s to appeal too westerners. Actual samurai were not honorable in any way.

>>513535803
full plate armor only became wide spread in Europe after advances in iron production were made in the 13th century allowing for cheaper builds. Early middle ages was more chain mail

>>513536960
>low rank chevaliers (knights)
Are they similar to Japanese ronin?
They have a higher title than civilians, but they're poor.
Making money as mercenaries or bodyguards?

>>513529483 (OP)
One was a cleric and a warrior, the other was a bureaucrat and a warrior

>>513537057
I love nip aesthetic, but you are correct : western knights were superior in every conceivable way, especially when it cames to training and tactics. Japs were very impressed by portuguese & spanish knights first times they exchanged in skirmishes. And katanas couldn't hold a candle vs swords.
Idk if you have watched it, but to settle the debate there was a competition confronting the best nip kendo martial artist VS the swordman finalist of rapiere dueling in an olympic setup who took place not long ago in Japan.
The rapiere swordman literally anally raped the kendofag, poor nip couldn't do anything. Only points he marked was when he was kamikazing himself like a W40K orc, jumping on the rapiere dude like a monke.

>>513529483 (OP)
Europe was fuckhueg so even the lowliest knight had a random village somewhere he was lord of. Japan was tiny so most samurai had no land and were poorfags who hung around his lords court waiting for handouts

>>513537300
You could see it that way, they still held a nobility title, but often only got a plot of land with few serfs on it.

>>513537924
>best nip kendo martial artist VS the swordman finalist of rapiere dueling
wut? Arent those completly different styles? Its a sport after all, not a fight to the death.
I am not a weeb, but the only "fight of cultures" I am aware off was kickboxing vs muai thai. The thai guy won clearly. But it was more due to emphasis on leg kicks. A kickboxer could adapt easily, this is why you dont see dominance of a single culture in MMA.

>>513538717
>wut? Arent those completly different styles? Its a sport after all, not a fight to the death.
well you aren't wrong, but it's the best we got recorded on video. Otherwise only historic testimonies we got are partial, one way or the other, and we came in contact with Japan after what we could consider the golden age of european chivalry. Rapiere + dagger were already the standard back when Portuguese sailed to Japan to open trading posts, so we never got any historical record of katana VS longsword or 2 handed swords for example.

>>513529483 (OP)
Four bank accounts, three ounces, and two vehicles.

>>513539016
Well, I understand your desire to learn "who is superior", but its really not that simple. If a race is inferior, it dies or is enslaved. Like indians, negroes, atztecs etc.
But I would argue that most desciesive victories are due to technological progress which is not intrinsic to the race itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcUVcvpV0E

>>513539016
Rapiers were a civilian weapon, in the sense that it was typically used without armor. Its a mismatch because it's several centuries ahead of samurai technically and was used for a different purpose. I have no doubt it wouldn't be much different switch with longswords. They're extremely manouvreable and specialised in thrusting while retaining enough stiffness to penetrate lighter armor or get into gaps. They're considerably longer and the cross guard is designed to allow every defense to also be an attack and vice versa. The Japanese had good training, but theyre just hopelessly outmatched by more advanced weapons. That said, modern longsword hemafags either suck or play the meta set by the rules they fence by, they're not a good representation of historic longsword combat. Kendo and co. In turn are heavily ritualized but the training is usually much more intense than what we do with hema.

>>513533356
>trading with Constantinople, sometimes by selling your people as slaves.
That is not something to brag about, sir.

>>513529483 (OP)
This thread definitely insulted the europoors.
Great bait OP I enjoyed laughing at them.

>>513529483 (OP)
European Knight had superior equipment, superior genes, and a superior body.
Samurai would get absolutely btfo by European Knights.

>>513529483 (OP)
Knights were far more effective than samurais.

>>513529483 (OP)
I dont know. Maybe its the code of conduct they live by and technology they use to accomplish their tasks.
Tlingit are way cooler anyways.
Imagine beibn some russian trader abd having your entire basecamp fucked by these dudes at twilight hours.

>>513529543
Holy shit

>>513536960
Gambeson was a popular garment as well.

>>513529688
Sell me the sword, Hittite.

>>513529483 (OP)
I wonder how much truth there is in the depiction of Japanese warriors. Wouldnt be surprised they were sandal wearing primitives.

>>513529483 (OP)
ROBERTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooo..........................

>>513530343
A samurai's connection to their lord was much deeper than I knight time his king/noble. The book Hagakure can help explain the samurai/master dynamic

Knights were comparable to Olympic runners and athletes, they were crazy strong due to carrying all the armor all day. Like they were lugging around heavy shit than gravy seals carry with their zogpacks

>>513543370
*than a knight to his lord
Im phone posting between sets at the gym. Thats my excuse

Japan had shitty steel so they overcompensated by making extremely hard katana's. They would regularly shatter.

Not all Knights are created equal. A Norman Knight (or chevalier) in 11th century would have been terrifying to any Japanese Samurai of his day.

Raised since birth in a terrifying Martial Ethos required to survive in feudal Japan a Norman Knight was also extremely Christian in his belief that HE was on God's side, and would often fight suicidally against many greater odds. Nothing in Japanese history shows anything equivalent of the Viking-Frank-Christian warrior skills and mindset, and Frankish weapons and armor were FAR superior to anything in Japan.

Believe me, if you were being invaded, you would choose an army of Japanese samurai over a Norman raiding party every time.