Comments by "Seven Proxies" (@sevenproxies4255) on "The Strangest and Most Beautiful Samurai Helmets - Kawari Kabuto" video.

edi: No self-respecting warlord would be caught dead at any domicile where the door doesn't fit his majestic armour and helmet. B-)
25
I agree in the sense that I generally find samurai armour more interesring to look at. But when it comes to the psychological aspect of "knight in shining armour" vs "dark samurai warlord", I have to admit that I sort of find the deceptive nature of european knights in shining armour more intimidating. Based mostly on the fact that it was just a facade hiding a terrifying nature. Sure, there were examples of virtuous knights, but let's face it: most knights and nobles were basically murderous psychopaths. So when they appear outwardly as shining, beatiful crusaders of truth but then turn into bloodsoaked monsters who only enjoy carnage and butchery on the battlefield it's more terrorizing and menacing in kind of the same way as when you watch certain horror films where the protagonist ends up in some remote village where the inhabitants all seem to be good, friendly and meek christians, but in truth they're like a cannibalistic cult who sacrifice first born children and stray travelers to Satan on Valpurgis night. The television series Game of Thrones capture this menacing feel very well I think: where you have several characters who are nobles and knights and who are very articulate, well groomed and initially appear friendly and just, but then suddenly they murder or rape someone in cold blood without batting an eye at the act (Jamie Lannister, Ramsay Snow and a couple of others come to mind). This is what the concept and imagery of knights in shining armour from medieval periods means to me, and I find the deceptiveness of it more scary than the imagery of dark, beastly looking samurai armour. The design in samurai armour is interesting looking, but the design choices create an overall image that is a bit more honest and a little too "obvious" for me. That's not to say that Samurai weren't cold blooded killers and psychopaths because plenty of them certainly were. It's just that with a samurai wearing his armour it's more "what you see is what you get". Knights on the other hand make you more uneasy because they look and dress like a force for "good", but can just as well be despicably evil.
2
Samurai = basically the japanese equivalent of noble class, usually lower nobles like knights. (the entire ruling class of japan was basically samurai, but heads families of clans usually reserved special titles for themselves and families married to their offspring that marked them out as special) Ronin = samurai without a master (daimyo). Unlike in Europe, the japanese didn't swear fealty to a king of the entire country, but rather to the head of a particular clan or house they belonged to, refered ro as daimyo who usually controlled a certain area of the japnese archipelago. Sometimes a daimyo died and didn't have a legitimate heir or discharged some samurai from his service, and they in turn become Ronin. They still belong to the samurai class (like a noble in Europe still has his titles and certain legal exceptions and rights compared to the common man), but he is leaderless and owes no fealty to a particular lord anymore. Therefore ronin were usually treated with suspicion by most, since the belief was that a ronins loyalty could shift for a variety of reason (especially since many of them earned their living as mercenaries). Soldiers in japanese armies were usually composed of retainers (servants) to the samurai and daimyo (like knights on Europe pledged men at arms from their fiefs to a kings command), as well as conscripted peasants.
2
Caramel Johnson: No it's not. Feudal kingdoms were basically formed and ruled according to the similar princioles of a modern day mafia. "Kings" and lieutenants (nobles/knights) all started out as violent subjugators who basically forced the common population to pay taxes and swear fealty to them, or they were put to death if they refused. This type of society doesn't premier a ruling class with egalitarian views and compassionate sentiments. It only encourages a belief system whereby nobles consider themselves and their lives more valuable and entitled to privilige, protection and wealth, that isn't afforded to the common man at all and all based on who happens to be born by certain parents and who isn't. So it is quite a fair assessment to claim that most knights and nobles in medieval feudal society were in fact murderous psychopaths for the most part, where those who weren't were rather the exception than the norm. If you create a society where psychopathic behaviour gains you power, wealth and privilige, then naturally the ruling classes of such societes will mostly be composed of psychopaths, because the non-psychopaths will get weeded out in time.
1