re: Ever wonder what a samurai vs. knight battle would look like?

The Hollywood katana samurai were basically militarized police not soldiers while knights were basically human tanks. No shvt the knight wins. The edo period of Japan saw no major wars for 250+ years.

quote:

---

Now earlier samurai’s would’ve whooped a knights arse based off what the mongols did to them in Eastern & Central Europe.

---

You're trying to equate Samurai as units, versus elite cavalry archers as a force. An army.

1 vs 1 a mounted heavy knight is probably going to beat a light cav archer.

But that's when numbers and tactics come into play. The Mongols (and many other horse armies) simply out maneuvered and out-savaged the primarily infantry based armies of Europe in that period.

The knight would have knelt and prayed for the soul of the heathen lad IRL

quote:

---

A single mounted, plate armored and heavily armed knight is going to overwhelm a single cavalry archer. Aside from a lucky hit, the cavalry archer's bow isn't going to penetrate the armor. This was seen in the Battle of Dorylaeum. It's en masse and relying on superior movement and tactics that the mounted archer reigns supreme. Force a 1 v 1 scrap and the knight crushes as soon as it closes the gap.

---

You are implying that a heavy knight has the speed and mobility to catch a horse archer. In regards, the mofo can just shoot down the horse.

You love the word fanboy. Makes me think you are 800lbs shite talker on the internet

quote:

---

A destrier is still fast, still agile, and bred for endurance. Put them in a canyon, or somewhere the mounted archer can't run away forever, and the knight is going to make quick work once they make contact.

---

There’s way more scenarios for the horse archer to win while the knight has to be armored in the best armor with a field advantage to have a chance. The horse archer simply just beats a knight. Theres a reason armies of horse archers dominated the globe while armored knights only dominated a section of Europe that coincidentally didn’t have horse archers lol.

quote:

---

You're missing the point. Armies of horse archers beat armies of knights. A horse archer isn't going beat a mounted knight in much other than running away. Plate armor is stupid strong

---

1). For the knight to win, it has to actually be faster than the horse archer which I don’t see happening .

2). The horse archer can kill the horse from under the knight.

3). The archer can hit the joints, gaps, and other weak points in the armor.

4). Again, a horse archer isn’t letting the knight catch up to him unless he is suicidal.

quote:

---

A top tier marine would toss around dudes from that far back without any issue.

---

This is an absolutely ridiculous claim. Knights spent their entire lives from youth training and fighting. Grappling and melee weapons. Humans have not evolved at all since then and the only difference is nutrition, and knights were not starving serfs. A modern Marine would be startled and overwhelmed by a knight’s skill and violence, and the knight will have far far better cardio.

Dana should have taken an interest in this rather than stupid slap boxing.

quote:

---

The actual samurai that fought wars was beyond well equipped to defeat a knight.

---

Are you some sort of weeaboo?

First you are dead set in clinging to your notion that a single horse archer is some uber-unit vs armored mounted (with armored mounts) unit.

A horse archer is much like a single pikeman.

Alone, it's not especially powerful. Significant weaknesses.

Now, as part of a cohesive, massed unit? Incredibly powerful. But quantity is its greatest quality, and tactics. Not the unit itself.


And now you have elevated Samurai to god-tier again. Probably think a katana is the best sword ever and cuts through metal like butter.

It's simply not true.




You vastly overestimate the power of the bow and underestimate armor