Samurai against knight

**Officer of Engineers** · 25 Aug 16,, 14:23

Originally Posted by Doktor

Are you saying the Chinese made a strategic mistake by letting Europe alone, seeing it as poor and underdeveloped (to be a threat or worth the fight)?

By the time the Mongols could truly focus on taking Europe, their empire already fragmented into various khanates. To truly take Europe, the Mongols needed a united Empire, not so much as military strength required but to be sure that you won't get stabbed in the back while you're busy taking European castles. That is you can count on the Yuan to send an army to quell an uprising in Persia or Syria while you clobbering the Franks.

As such, conquering Hungary isn't exactly going to expand your riches while the Mamluks were threatening to cut off your trade.

**astralis** · 25 Aug 16,, 14:54

mihais,

Europe's estimated GDP had caught up with China by 1200.While these are modern estimates,medieval Europe was not backward or poor.

er....no. China had well over double Europe's GDP in the 1200s. even more so after Black Death ruined Europe.

Europe wouldn't catch up with China's GDP until roughly the early 1700s with the devastation caused by the Ming-Qing wars...and ironically the weakening of the Ming was partly due to the massive inflation caused by the influx of Spanish silver from the New World. roughly 40-50% of all the silver in Mexico and Peru that Spain stole from the Incas or dug up with slaves ended up in Ming coffers.

shortly thereafter, the mid-Qing economic/population boom left Europe in the dust until roughly the 1830s with the Industrial Revolution. it wasn't until the chaotic wars of the 1850s-1860s in China where European economy exceeded China's.

**Doktor** · 25 Aug 16,, 17:48

Asty,

These guys disagree with your numbers:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...oFhV7C2Oa8gFKg

**astralis** · 25 Aug 16,, 19:56

Doktor:

look at their focus, GDP per capita. even taking their numbers to be completely true, the absolute population means the overall GDP will be significantly larger.

**bestellen** · 07 Oct 16,, 15:33

The knights take this easily, their armor should easily withstand the bronze spears and steel katanas their opponents wield.

**Monash** · 15 Oct 16,, 08:50

Originally Posted by bestellen

The knights take this easily, their armor should easily withstand the bronze spears and steel katanas their opponents wield.

Hello bestellen, hope you enjoy the forum and contribute to lots of the threads. In this case however I don't believe the answer is quite as simple as you have stated - the argument has been going backward and forwards for a while now. Long story short there are a hell of a lot of variables at play in the argument including but not limited to the medieval era we are talking about (e.g. Early, High or Late Middle Ages - aprox 1000 years), the tactical situation - on foot, mounted etc and other factors. Have a look at the whole thread and then see iif you r view changes. I'm still edging my bets.

**KateNewman72** · 28 Jul 17,, 14:32

Originally Posted by Monash

Hello bestellen, hope you enjoy the forum and contribute to lots of the threads. In this case, however, I don't believe the answer is quite as simple as you have stated - the argument has been going backward and forwards for a while now. Long story short there are a hell of a lot of variables at play in the argument including but not limited to the medieval era we are talking about (e.g. Early, High or Late Middle Ages - aprox 1000 years), the tactical situation - on foot, mounted etc and other factors. Have a look at the whole thread and then see iif you r view changes. I'm still edging my bets.

You've summed up the thread perfectly. I think it’s an even contest - given both are on foot and set in the same era. The differences between combatants seem quite small to me - both are more or less similarly equipped.