Why were Samurais much more superior than Knights?
>>18555131A trained knight would beat a samurai any time of the day.
>>18555131I'm unsure whether I prefer low effort shitposts or haplo autism threads.
Not even fucking TRYING
ACKCHUALLY knights could be quite mobile in their armor>serious hatKnights were specialized heavy cavalry and heavy infantry whereas samurai ranged from pike infantry and archers to horse archers and their own heavy cavalry and infantry. So in a classic duel the knight would probably win, especially a 15th century knight with plate armor. Samurai had trouble against Spanish rodeleros with only a breastplate and helmet so the chances aren't in their favor.However an army of Samurai would be far more versatile, even if there are an equal number of knights, most will have to shed their armor so they are not fatigued performing regular duties, and they'd have no archers unless there are crossbows in the baggage train. They'd be in trouble.
>>18555131A bunch of unwashed spics wearing nothing but an iron cuirass btfo a bunch of rogue samurai. I doubt a fully armored trained knight would have much trouble.
>>18555135Haploautism is deeply amusing
A Knight is part of a warrior class, who were raised from birth to be the perfect warriors.A Samurai is just a random guy from Japan.
>>18555139That was already completely debunked moronhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=ehTJ3M2kMPk
>>18555192>some retarded weeb
>>18555233>some retarded coper
