Who would win Yea Forums?

yeah in the 16th century u dummy. but those are 14th century armies both

Europe would still win. For a whole bunch of reasons, the main one being sheer numbers, the other one being the ability to organise their forces under the banner of religion.

>2 seconds
fucking casual

19th century, dummy.

European for sure.

idiot. assuming its same strength armies against eachother.

yeah no shit, if someone has more soldiers they'll win. IDIOT

>who were the portuguese

>yeah no shit, if someone has more soldiers they'll win.

Attached: 1512498277886.png (645x729, 99K)

Some traders?
Are you under the impression feudalism ended with the Sengoku era?

Attached: Brain damage.jpg (843x826, 101K)

European trade didn't end the feudalistic system, it only introduced matchlocks and some transfer of knowledge/culture/religion. The Shogunate ruled until the 19th century and it was feudalistic.

There was no invading army of Portuguese in the Edo period.
The most they had were a couple of galleons.

Greasy faggots. Next question.

Europe didn't have the infrastructure tuo put more than maybe 15000 dudes in the firled, let alone unite as a whole.

lol no.

In a pitched battle, probably the Europeans.
If we assume the Samurai are all mounted, they'll probably have a strategic edge.

You realize that Japanese horses at the time where a whole lot smaller than European horses and they didn't really use them for charges and such? Their cavalry would've been slaughtered by knights.

Assuming similar armies/training/smithing/all that jazz it would probably be Europeans mainly due to the quality of materials. Most of Japanese warfare in feudal settings is making the best of a bad situation, resource wise. Their metal was bad and there wasn't a lot to go around which is why they have their famed armors being segmented to deter arrow fire rather than the European plates which were resistant to a typical arrowhead. Europeans also had typically more diverse polearm designs from your fancy Halberds/Lances to your Billhooks which could let a peasant take out an armored noble.

Hard to say for sure because of so many varying factors desu. 8 btw

There were fuckton more japs in middle ages than any european country. There would need to be an alliance

Europe has better minerals. Steel in particular. The reason why Japan has its '1000 folded steel' gimmick is the fact that their steel was absolute dogshit. The best steel ever produced pre-industrial age was in Scandinavian countries due to a fluke of them having trade routes to good steel deposits and putting the 'bones of their ancestors' into the mix. Turns out calcium is actually a really good agent to add to molten steel and hardened the fuck out of them.

And why is that a problem? European armies allied under the church.

The differences between each side are so small as to make them insignificant. Basically, who would win would depend on who has the better logistics, numbers, training, strategisers, and in sum who just happens to be better at fighting.

Equipment-wise and lifestyle-wise they're not identical, but they're very close.

Never mind even their armor which was made out of wood.
Even city militia would have been armored better.

>their armor which was made out of wood.
What are you smoking?

Plate is GOAT but it's not nearly GOAT enough to ensure your victory.
Which is why you'd use a polearm, which, believe it or not, was the main weapon of a samurai. Just as it was for men-at-arms.

In terms of arms/armor euros have the edge, but what about army composition/tactics? Europe is probably too culturally diverse to generalize, but what's the ratio of knights/samurai to peasants for both?

He's smoking "retard myths I read online once". I bet he also thinks the shitty steel gave katanas shitty blades, too. The reality is that shitty steel just needs a lot more effort put in to make it good -- not that it can't be made good. So katanas are more expensive than western swords, but they're not worse.

Cause samurais did all the fighting.
We levied peasants and mercenaries all the time.

Japan did that only during Sengoku-jidai probably due to European influence.
Even used European Muskets of the Dutch and Portuguese.

Except that Samurai fought as mounted archers, not shock cavalry.

Yaris are garbage though.

Ashigaru levies became a thing long before the Sengoku era, mostly due to how poorly Samurai-only armies performed against the Mongol Invaders.

>The reality is that shitty steel just needs a lot more effort put in to make it good -- not that it can't be made good
1000% fucking false. Go learn blacksmithing fucktard.

Nothing is steel its all wood and bamboo.

Attached: wood armor.jpg (736x1104, 250K)

Still too slow to outrun an English thoroughbred with full plate.

Japan wasn't united. Each army would have fought indivudually, while fighting other Japanese on all fronts.

None of what you said is remotely true, off yourself.
Europe never levied peasants, man. That was a dumb Victorian myth. By the late medieval period, their soldiers were middle-class professionals and upper-class knights.
They're literally just pikes.
I'm talking about naginata and the like.
Fucking retard, learn anything about Japanese history.

>but they're not worse.
They are

they're worse against anyone not dressed in a fucking bathrobe

Which is why you shoot at the horses.
You know, the way horse archers do.

The horses are armoured. Also English longbows.

Which is exactly the same for any sword ever except a fucking zweihander. That's why you use polearms.
You do realise that the English also had mounted archers, right? They dismounted to shoot their bows, but still.

okay, real question.

who would win?
WW2 USA vs Mondern USA?

ground battle only. no missiles, gunships and planes.

>Better Armour
>Better weapons due to superior steel
>Canons
>gun powder
>crossbows
Gee, idk user.

Depends on the period. Around the time Europe had affordable and widespread full plate (mid 15th century), Japan was arming all of its troops with guns as their main weapon. The default weapon being the bow on horseback and the spear on foot (with a sword as a backup). While a knight might hold their own in melee, the peasants that made up the armies of Europe would be outclassed in every way by the peasants of Japan who became professional and highly trained soldiers, receiving the same training as samurai. Some Japanese peasants rose to become samurai and generals, with one of them actually reaching the rank of Shogun. But the most important detail is that even if a crusade were called against Japan and all Christian nations invaded the country, they would be vastly outnumbered by the Japanese.

>Europe never levied peasants, man. That was a dumb Victorian myth.

What are the Leugemeetefresc then.

Its obvious you are not European cause every European city state prided of hes well trained city millitia that is made up of guild workers.

Attached: Flemish city millitia.gif (529x310, 15K)

Modern USA. That isn't even a question

>ground battle only. no missiles, gunships and planes.
Does the modern US army still get to use their mobility scooters in battle?

Where? Modern USA is well versed in guerilla tactics and using the terrain.

Modern, not even remotely a contest.
Better weapons, better armour, MUCH better communications etc.

definitely Europeans, superior armor and weaponry.

You fucking retards, history isn't like a videogame. There's no rock-paper-scissors system, and each nation doesn't have its own carefully picked traits and units.

NEITHER would win. Or either would win. They're very similar. Yes, plate is better than Japanese armour, but it's not going to make THAT much difference. And no, they both used middle-class professionals, and they both used polearms, and they both used advanced mass-military tactics.
I'm very much European, but unlike you I'm not ESL. CITY militias are not PEASANT levies, and they were frequently well-equipped and well-trained. And they were always made up of the middle class.

Burger militia is a far cry off "Peasants", genius.
And those hardly ever went off to fight outside of their home.

user, the high amount of impurities meant that the best thing Japanese could do was to raise the martensite fraction massively by rapid quenching, folding and reforging. The layers of martensite and regular ferrite/cementite also made them rather bendy. In total, superior oversized razor blades. Martensite can be sharpened to a incredible degree but it is rather brittle, needing other steel-carbon combos as a backbone.
Europeans didn't have to do that. Some martensite formed on quencing on the outside and that was enough.

%6 of the troops are either faggots or tranny. higher suicide rate than ever.

I mean our troops have severely degraded in quality. PTSD? I never heard that on WW2 vets.

I don't understand what point you're trying to make here.

The ones using katanas of course.

Attached: Katana vs Broadsword.webm (1280x720, 783K)

Japanese steel is shit

>the peasants that made up the armies of Europe would be outclassed in every way by the peasants of Japan who became professional and highly trained soldiers,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company

>PTSD? I never heard that on WW2 vets.

Attached: no points.gif (500x244, 495K)

>I never heard that on WW2 vets
They invented it. The number of suicides post WW2 in USA was astounding.

Cringe image that is completely wrong.

Until you treat it.
The English longbow isn't THAT good, man. It's kinda cringy how much foreigners go on about it.
You're right that Euro peasants wouldn't be outclassed, though.
Almost like it's bait, genius.

He's obviously >just pretending
to trigger the mental illness crowd and derail the thread.

>Until you treat it.
No, it is still shit.

Any European army that had fullplate cavalry would level the japs no question. It's like sending tanks againts infantry

HAHA no man they where trained by the guilds and equipped and even if they couldn't get weapons by themselves the city loaned weapons and armor.

City boys got even trained from like 6 years old to shoot crossbows in Antwerp.
Was more fun than just being rascals in the city steets.

And every able man could be levied by city law or be punished as we call standard fleeing.
1/3 or even 2/3 of all men could be gone for campaign in one city.

>Until you treat it
It is still shit after you treat it because you can only produce razor blades with them

Wait, is this thread not Knight video games vs Samurai video games thread?

The point of linking the history of the long bow page was to emphasise that even the English peasantry were well-versed in military matters, being required by law to practise the long bow every week, in case they should be called to war.
Also, it WAS that good, and only the strongest, thickest, steel plate armour granted protection from it. The only Frogs at Poitiers and Agincourt who survived longbow shots were the richest of the rich with the sturdiest and best steel plate.

No, this is the /his/ on Yea Forums thread.

Absolute legend of an ESL, peasant = countryside serf tied to the land, usually poor but not always. It very much does not mean "middle class urbanite".
We have actual swords proving you wrong, you know.
What do you think Europeans did when they saw a host of men-at-arms charging them?
Men-at-arms are countered by pikemen, huge volumes of arrows (like, truly huge volumes), and by polearms. The Japanese had all of these.

By your reasoning they could be using swords made out of clay because they could be just as good as long as they were properly manufactured.