well chuck,
I was just curious as to what you were doing.
But since you don't want to play nice anymore,
I guess I will just laugh and tell you I think your full of shit.
Also, I've never met a real seal yet that would brag about it.
Your not related to Mcuzi are you?

[b]McCloud{highlander}[/b]

Is he related to McUZI? line McUZI{Highlander}

hmmmm!

Ramjet,
when were you in and what kingdom?

No need to get profane, Kensei.  The man asked you a perfectly legit question about your sparring with "live" weapons.  It is interesting to me that you turn a curved weapon over and use the back of it, thereby reversing the curve to the exact opposite of the way one would really use the weapon.  Instead of a katana, one would have a shotel, of sorts. It must change the ergonomics substantially.  Still, I'm sure that someone with your level of skill adapts rather easily to such small things.  The other interesting point is that the type of sword with which you have become an expert is differentially tempered.  You would now be striking with the soft portion of the blade rather than the hardened portion.  Still, I'm sure your $3000 (just for the blade) glass-cutting katana can take it.  
You don't know the new life you have lent this thread by blessing it, and us, with your most august presence.

LMAO  Good point!

I give the advantage to the knight.  He has defensive armor and can use his sword to block the samurai’s swing.  Let that katana bang against the broadsword or shield a couple of times and it would break the finely honed edge, probably bend the blade too.  The knight can take his time, can withstand a few blows (assuming they land on his thicker armor plated areas), and use his sword and shield as both offensive and defensive tools.

If our knight is not wearing late-medieval armor but rather something lighter, I might revise my opinion.  Suit our knight in chain mail and hand our samurai a no-dachi (instead of a katana) and I’d put my money on the samurai to win every time.

I apologize for my rudenes and sincerly ask for everyones forgivenes. I just take pride in what I have worked hard to achieve and more often than not is looked at with some level of disbelief. I forget that I am confering with knowledgeable people in areas of weapons and not with the average person who only see swords as ornaments on a wall and our beloved AR's as toys for backwoods idiots. Again I apologize for my rash aditude and asure you I'm not full of shit. I'm just not used to chatting with knowledge people in these areas since I got out.(except for the occasional fellow officer with pre-force training at the furthering classes)

Charly

hey no prob charly,
but like you said, alot of people here have pretty in depth knowledge of the fighting arts.
To save yourself some trouble, when people ask questions be very specific with your answers, and if your gonna flame someone, get that nomex suit on fast[:)]

I've trained in Kenjitsu, but not in Kendo. I've never seen anyone train in Kendo with a real sword.

I consider Japanese fencing to be inferior to European, although the European style had changed quite a bit since the days of Knights on chargers.

In the early days of the Samurai, they were mounted warriors much like the Knights of Europe (although their horses and armour were inferior). I'd bet on the mounted Knight, if he was against a mounted Samurai. Likewise, a mounted Knight against a dismounted Samurai. Likewise, a Renaissance swordsman would beat a Samurai in a duel on foot, assuming both started with sword in hand (the Japanese would win in a "fast draw"). A Knight on foot vs a Samurai? The Knight's armour is superior, and not clumsy like some here think. That would give him an advantage, but I'm not sure that it would be enough--the latter day Samurai fought on foot almost exclusively, while the Knight was primarly mounted.

Don,
I agree with everything you said, but I think weapons form will come into play with both knight and samuri on foot. Due to the nature of the katana and the style that it has to be fought in to be effective, I gotta go with a knight if he is using a sword and shield. Any other weapons form? Yes, the samuri will win. As a rule, engaging a competent fighter who is using sword and shield, to beat him with a two handed weapon requires a much greater skill level.

One note about the Katana, it is not used in a chopping motion, but rather a slice.

If you watch really carefully, a cut with a straight bladed sword will have a chopping effect, the Katana however, is used so that the whole length of the blade is utilized and it is drawn across an opponent's body.

I still think that my AR-Crossbow, shooting 500gr steel spikes, with a 175 lbs. pull would take down both sides hahahaha

well Gem,
your definitely right about that. The crossbow and long bow were the bane of the armored knight.

Again, I don't see why people assume that european swords were all used as flat bladed chops.  All you need to do is not straighten your arm with a flat edged sword and you will have a slicing motion.  

Admittedly, there was probably a lot of banging going on, but given an open belly as a target, I'm confident they would have gone for some slicing.

peace!

Charly,

You wouldn't happen to be involved in the exciting and dangerous world of Mall Security, would you?

If you don't mind my asking, which ryu did you study and for how long did you study?  

Kendo does have a close relationship with seitei-gata iaido.  That set of kata was created by high ranking kendoka in order (AFAIK) to keep kendo from becoming too detached from swordsmanship.  From my observations, most kendoka that seek a more balanced approach to their study will practice iai.  Younger or more competition oriented kendoka won't.

I've studied shinto ryu iai-battojitsu (a gendai art) for the past 6 years.  I've studied aikido for the past 11.

The katana isn't as flimsy as you would think.  I've got a samurai koshirae katana from bugei.  It is an excellent cutter and quite beefy.  The gunto of WWII that bent during an execution were poorly made, mass produced, status symbols and not suitable for serious work.

In my opinion, here is what would happen if european and japanese swordsmen met:

The better trained, more aggressive person will win.

Assuming that they are equally trained:

kenjitsu v. epee/foil:  the kenjitsu practioner gets stabbed in the throat or chest, and lops part of the fencer off.  One dies immediately, the other dies in a few days of infection.

kenjitsu v. saber: I don't know.  The saber user has the speed, the katana can deliver more powerful strikes.

kenjitsu v. SCA practioner: SCA-dian is relieved of his legs, since they aren't a valid target under SCA rules and they don't train to defend them.

kenjitsu v. sword and shield man:  I'd have to go with the sword and shield man.  Getting around that shield is a real bugger.

kenjitsu v. two handed swordsman:  I don't know.  This is the reverse case of the saber user... the katana is now the lighter, faster weapon.

LT, while many do use the Kris and the Machete the native who killed Magellan used a "stick."

Balisongs werre invented in 1949 long after Magellan.

And it was Magellan who was wearing the armor. Most Filipine natives had no armor.

My roommate and I had a discussion about a similar topic not too long ago, it was the reason that European swords developed straight and Katanas developed curved.  The reason that the katana is curved is so that it can cut.  The armor that it was used against was mainly wood with very little metal, which was cut into by the katana.  The European swords developed straight as they were designed to hack through the chainmail and later plate armor.  I would suspect that the edge of a katana would not be able to cut through the knight's armor, in fact,  after one hit, the katana would almost be dull down the edge.  The knights "sharp sledgehammer"  if it connected with the Samuri's armor and even if it did cut into it (but it probably would), then the bones underneath would be crushed.  One European sword so far that I have not seen mentioned is the hand and a half sword, which I think is about the same size and weight as a Katana, but I am not entirely sure.  It would be a good fight.                                   [chainsawkill]

I guess I should should also mention that a lot does depend on the person.  I am in the SCA and I do rapier combat (epee) and there are some people that I have met and trained with that would be very difficult to take on with any bladed weapon.  One man in particular that I used to train with was clocked at 105 MPH in a lunge, and could travel a distance of ~8 feet.  Although he is no longer that fast, his hits are still so quick that nobody can usually see them (all I see is the sky due to my mack getting hit back.) His favorite game used to be to hit as many of the buttons on your tunic as he could before you could call a single hit (speed and accuracy, a very deadly combo). I remember that celt mentioned that a guy trained in kendo-ka came to a SCA tourny in Cali and and took on, and beat, all comers.  Just because that guy was able to do that there doesn't mean that it would be the same all over.  I could be wrong about it but my brother is a good example.  He has fought with an epee for 7 years and in this area he is pretty good, but not the best and when he visited another kingdom a couple of months back, he took on, and beat all comers in a tourny.  The reason was his skill level here is medium but in the other kingdom it was expert.  Thus, the person's skill can account for a lot in fight.

My Kenjitsu training was haphazzard; I trained with some of Fred Lovret's senior Aikido students in San Diego (Lovret had sort of an exchange program with the Karate school I was in at the time). I believe it was Itto Tenshin Katori Shinto Ryu Kenjitsu, because I believe that is the style Lovret is associated with. I trained this way for a period of about 6 years, but I placed much more emphysis on Aikido than Kenjitsu. I never acquired a sword, and always worked with the bokken. Also, I got my black belt in Karate, not in Aikido.

One thing I noticed: most of the Aikido guys were Navy Corpmen, and they were all into Kenjitsu. Several were also into Karate, others didn't have a clue as to how to throw a punch or a kick.

I also studyed Judo, (Chinese) Kempo, various other Chinese styles, and Escrima (Kali). Also Western boxing. Lots of cross training.

Most of my training was empty hand, but weapons traing included the Bo, Jo, Sai, Nunchuks, rattan sticks, batons, and fighting knives. The emphysis was practical, so the rattan sticks, batons, Jo (a great thing to carry on a hiking trail), and knifes were given particular attention.

Here is some detailed information about Japanese swords from "Way Of The Daimyo" from Shogun: Total War:

Samurai were the only people allowed to carry two swords, a pair called the daisho, (the "long and short") as a badge of their unique warrior status. These two weapons, the long katana and the shorter wakizashi, were worn together although rarely used as a pair of weapons in combat. Miyamoto Musashi, the sword-saint and writer of the best-known book on swordsmanship, A Book of Five Rings, was unusual in that his "Two Heavens" fighting style did use two swords at the same time. One other sword is worth mentioning at this point, the no dachi. These enormous two-handed weapons were only ever used on foot.

       The samurai used the katana to defend as well as attack and as a result never adopted shields, unlike the knights of Europe. They never needed to, because of the superb metalwork in the katana was good enough to act in both capacities.

       A samurai sword was carefully constructed out of many layers of steel and iron. The two would be hammered out and folded over many times to produce a "sandwich" of many layers. Each repeated forging doubled the number of layers of metal in a sword, in some cases 2²º — 4,194,304 — layers of metal would be the result. The maximum number of folds recorded is some 2³º (or 10,736,461,824!) layers of forged metal. This gave the sword enormous strength when the iron and steel were welded together. The iron at the sides and back edge gave flexibility to the blade, while the steel core could be hardened to make a perfect edge.

       The final process in the forging was particularly clever. The blade was coated with clay built up to a different thickness across the blade: thin at the cutting edge and thick towards the back. When the sword — in its clay overcoat — was heated and then quenched, it cooled at different speeds and the metal crystals in each part in the blade ended up as different sizes. They were large where the clay had been thick, which meant that they were flexible, but small at the cutting edge, so they would form a hard edge that could be sharpened. Once the sword blade was polished, the change from the softer steel and the harder edge could show up as the yakiba, a line that resembles a breaking wave. Once the blade had been signed by the smith and hilt and guard fitted, the sword was ready for use.

       The result of all of this was a sword that could cut a man in two — literally. Occasionally condemned criminals were used to test new swords, but it was more common to use a bundle of rushes and bamboo or to use corpses. Some swords had details of their testing carved into the tang (the piece of the sword inside the hilt).

       Thanks to the resilience of such a blade, a samurai could block and turn blows that would have shattered any ordinary steel weapon. Its razor sharp edge gave him the ability to cut through an opponent right down to the bone. These two contrasting qualities were the result of the skills and experience that Japanese sword smiths had accumulated over centuries. No other sword, even the famous blades from Toledo in Spain, ever equalled these Japanese weapons. The katana is still probably the best hand-to-hand weapon ever produced.

And some info about Jap Armor from Shogun: Total War:

Samurai did not wear plate armour in the European or mainland Asian style. Armour had been brought from China but instead samurai armour came to be made of small plates held together by silk or leather cords. Originally designed for mounted use the armour, called yoroi, weighed around 30 kilos and was quite effective for a horseman. The wearer’s shoulders carried nearly all the weight and this made the armour a little restrictive when swinging a sword. However, given that the early samurai were largely mounted bowmen, this wasn’t much of a problem.

       During the Onin War armour began to change so that its weight was more evenly distributed across the torso. This helped when using a sword in particular, as shoulder movements no longer had to work against the weight of the armour as well as the sword. The distinctive lacing was kept, and it required enormous attention in both manufacture and day-to-day care to make it "work" properly. For a country that was covered in paddy fields, having armour held together with laces might seem a little odd. The laces themselves would become waterlogged quite easily, and therefore very heavy. In cold weather, they could easily freeze. They did, however, mean that the armour was flexible, easy to wear and relatively easy to repair. Coloured laces also made it easy to identify armies and individual units belonging to specific clans on the battlefield, in exactly the same way as any other uniform does. In the confusion of hand-to-hand fighting, being able to spot your allies and your enemies quickly is rather important!

       It is this lacing that makes Japanese armour so colourful and attractive to the modern eye. The samurai were naturally practical about their armour. The samurai didn’t always approve of colourful displays just for the sake of looking good. Apart from anything else, some dyes weakened the silk and made the laces fall to pieces, which largely defeats the point of using them to hold armour together.


Fashion, however, did play a part: after 1570 jet-black dye became available and black-laced armour became popular. Armour, above all, was an important "tool of the trade" as far as the samurai were concerned, being there to keep the wearer alive in the very hostile environment on a battlefield!

"Good warriors make their stand on ground where they cannot lose and do not overlook anything that makes the enemy prone to defeat." — Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Samurai armour was made of many pieces that could be worn individually. The plates themselves were often cleverly manufactured with more than one layer to them: a backing of soft iron to absorb impacts, a harder steel face and finally layers of lacquer to stop rusting. The sectional nature of the armour meant, for example, there was no need for a samurai who was just on guard duty at his master’s mansion to wear full armour. He could manage for this task by simply using armoured sleeves beneath his everyday clothes. These flexible sleeveswere made of small plates sown into silk or leather coverings, and worn with shoulder cords to hold them in place. Likewise, when an attack wasn’t expected he could still wear some armour (in camp, say) and save putting on the heavier pieces until absolutely necessary.

       Putting on full armour involved a set ritual specifying a hand, leg or arm to be covered first. Apart from anything else, the ritual served a practical

I guess that I'll try to join this discussion.  I have the greatest respect for the samarai and all martial arts techniques, but was introduced to a vicious martial art that also used a blade with deadly precision.  I studied a Burmese martial art called, Bando and no, it's not the stuff you do body work with!  Bando is the art of the Gurkha warriors of Nepal and Burma.  They used blades called, kukris, that were about 12-15" long, but could behead or cut a man in half!  I was fortunate enough to train with the man who broght the art to the United States back in the 70's, Dr Maung Gyi.  If you want to check out one of the kukris, go to the Cold Steel web-site and take a look at the 3 kukris endorsed by the American Bando Association.  If martial training with blades is of interest to you, the kukri is a very versitile weapon.
 

I have to think a knight would crush some little japanese guy just because I am of European decsent. I hear all of you comparing advantage or not, but have yet to hear any of you say what if;
A. The knight in question bashed that little japs head in with a mace from horseback or even on the ground?
B. Shot the little bastard with a bow or crossbow from 50 feet away?
C. Ran him down on horeback and impaled or otherwise injured mr. samurai with his big joust stick?

In a fair fight I would say it might be an even match, but I don't think knights were renowned for their fair and clean fighting skills.

How about a samurai versus a grizzly bear?

[%|]

Let's try a different tack.

Would it be reasonable to say that the reason we have very accurate training techniques available for the eastern martial arts is because they were very structured disciplines?
I mean how different is Kendo now than several hundred years ago?

The argument could be made that the reason we have no real structure or existing discipline for the european art of the sword is that the fighting styles of the europeans AS WELL AS THEIR WEAPONS changed frequently due to the amount of warfare in that region.  Anyone with a better design/combat technique was copied quickly.  Obviously mistakes and bad turns in design would be almost as frequent as improvements.

But the concept that a martial art that never changed, whether because they didn't have to (isolation) or because of a quasi-religious adherence to code, would be superior to a martial tradition willing to change as necessary is perplexing to me.

By this token one could argue we'd be better off if we were still bleeding each other and using leeches than bothering to discover penicilin (sp?).

The simple fact of the matter is we don't really know how the europeans fought with various weapons because they didn't keep accurate records and the schools died off due to the gun.  Many folk are trying to rediscover what they knew...but short of a few hundred years of hand to hand combat...we may never know.

Saying your system is better because it's structure still exists intact is like claiming your poetry sounds better than that of a language no one knows how to pronounce anymore.  How do you know?

I say fight on...if we care enough about this, we MAY eventually find the truth.  That is what we want, right?

peace!

ps-I had no idea the legs were an illegitimate target in the SCA.  Oh well, I guess my friends and I can still have at, but I was really hoping to get some good training/experience later from those fine folk.

I have been "formally" trained in Kendo and Kenjutsu, as well as Iaido. In all these arts I trained with steel blades as well as bokken.

Only in Kendo did we  have contact training using Shinai and Dogi. As it was not specifically "sport Kendo" half the time was devoted to ippon kumite with bokken. Once techniqes were learned and understood. We attempted to apply them in contact training using dogi and shinai. Even in Kendo, we still drilled with steel blades, though not as extensively as in the other two arts.

What a coincidence, I, too, am deeply trained in the martial arts.

I have spent innumerable years studying Jeet Kun Do (I watched every Bruce Lee movie several times over).  Tae Kwon Do (took a class at the Y once), Kung Fu (every Jackie Chan movie, too), Aikido (Steven Segal, ditto), Kempo (Jeff Speakman, likewise).  I have a little familiarity with Hapkido (watched Billy Jack once) and Gracie Jiu-Jitsu (saw part of UFC, but couldn't stand the blood).  I am even well acquainted with fencing (watched Zorro about 250 times over--or at least the part where Catherine Z-J falls out of her dress).

Hell, I even practice intensely with the sharpened steel every day (shave in the shower every morning--only cut myself about 50% of the time---Hummm, I wonder if that's why my Wife won't let me shave her....nevermind).  I hope one day to be ordained to that pinnacle of Martial Artsdom--MALL NINJITSU!!


An interesting academic discussion on the Knight vs. the Samurai.  Kind of a moot point these days as there aren't any real, trained from birth (kill anyone who disrespects you, right of Prima Nocte) Knights or Samurai anymore.  I figure that if either one of them ever does show up and wave 3 feet of sharp steel at me, one of two things will happen--

1.  I'll run the opposite direction, and as long as I can stay at least 3 feet from his hand, I'll be fine.

2.  I'll see him coming and we can then have conclusive proof of which wins: Knight/Samurai or 9mm, 10mm, .40 S & W, .45acp, .357mag, 12ga., .223 or .308 (maybe 7.62 x 39 or .50 BMG if I am in the mood).

OK:

A knight with a two-handed sword vs. Ditka w/ a Katana?

How about if Ditka had a one-handed sword and shield, vs. A team of mall-ninjas?

Is this an open stadium or a dome (roller-rink)?

Who really gives a rat's ass?


Adam

How about this:

A samurai, a pit bull, two mall security guards and a rattlesnake

versus

A knight, McUzi, three angry cats and Stone Cold Steve Austin?

The winner gets to take on the winner of Ditka and the mini-Bears versus Fidel Castro and the members of Metallica.

The "native" who killed Magellan?

It was natives. Magellan was wounded in the leg with an arrow.  Then he and his men retreated to the beach, where they held off the natives for an hour, when Magellan was wounded by a spear to the face. He killed the native who wounded him with his lance, and tried to switch to his sword, but was cut down before he could withdraw it by a large number of natives who used "spears and scimitars and every weapon they had" (per an eyewitness account). It seems he had another wound on the arm, which made it difficult for him to draw his sword.

The Spanish were outnumbered over 20 to 1, and most probably many had little or no armour. None would have been wearing full armour, which had been rendered obsolete.

I believe this originates with Mark Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court".  

Hey guys, check out this out, I think that this may shed a little more light on this issue.  

[url]http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm[/url] = http://www.thehaca.com/essays/nobest.htm

Yes I know the article is long, but it is worth reading.

There are a lot of misconceptions here.

Samurai did use their swords to deflect the swords of their opponents, however they did two things differently from Western "blocking":

1.  They avoided edge to edge contact, using the softer back of the katana to block the edge of the attackers sword...in this way, both swords were unharmed.  

2.  The block was the clumsiest move you could make.   The Japanese believed in economy of motion.   The goal was to deflect (i.e. change the direction of the attackers sword slightly) and allow the momentum of his attack to continue, while you allowed the force of the contact and the momentum of your defelction to carry your blad around and deliver a cut to your opponent.  

Furthermore, Portugese dueling stories have to be taken with a grain of salt.  However, even if they are to be believed, the period in which these duels took place lacked very many real samurai.  At the time, they were mostly administrators with only vague notions of how to fight with a sword.  Dueling was prevalent, however, and the prevailing art was Iaijutsu, the art of drawing the sword and killing the opponent in the same motion.   What to do after the fact was a rare art at the time.  This explains perfectly the discrepancy between fast draw duels and sword out duels.

European "knights" did not spend a great deal of time training in the martial arts.  They spent almost all of their energy practicing for tournaments, jousting, and the like.  Even when they did train for war, they trained mostly on horseback with lances, maces, and hammers, because that is how they fought.

Your average samurai would slaughter your average knight in a sword fight, but that is not fair.  Your average knight would kill your average samurai in a joust, but that is also not fair.

A samurai would kill a knight in a duel on horseback, no questions asked.  Ever see Japanese mounted archers?

This was the reason the Mongols slaughtered the Europeans.  Understand that...they did not win..they slaughtered them.  There was no contest, no hope.

The Japanese fought the mongols, and though they did not have an easy time of it, they won.  They also slaughtered the Koreans, the Chinese, the Phillipines, the Okinawans (despite romantic Karate Kid history), and anyone else they every fought (in that era).

Now a fencing master...that is interesting.  A fencing master is very much like a Japanese samurai.  They are devoted to their art, they study intensely, and they are great swordsmen.

A comparison between master fencers and samurai in real life would be very hard to find, because by the time fencing became prevalent and fencers made their way to Japan, the samurai were being domesticated and made into administrators.

So we would need to look at it hypothetically.

Fencing, with only the one sword, has two very serious draw backs:

1.  The thrust is the easiest attack to defend against if you know it's comming.

2.  The thrust is the only effective attack a rapier or small-sword can deliver.  (so you know it's comming)  This means that in close quarters, the rapier is useless.  All you have to do is close the distance.

Now if you add a main gauche to that equation, it becomes a lot more intering.  The only real question, then, is who would win, given the same skill level, a samurai, or a European duelist with rapier and main gauche?

I have no clue.  Anyone care to speculate?

Bill Wallace

The Europeans pre-rapier appeared to have avoided edge to edge contact as well.



I tend to take a lot of Samurai/Katana stories with a grain of salt. I'm more inclined to believe the Portugese.



How do you know this?



Early Europeans used a sword and a shield. Such a combination would be superior to a Samurai with a sword (both would be wearing some body armour).

Later European Knights could fight on foot in full body armour, with a two handed sword. The European's full body armour would give him an overwhelming advantage over the Samurai.

Basically, in order for the Japanese to win, the European would have to be restricted to similar armour and no shield. In other words, equipment similar to the Early Europeans who fought with sword and shield, but sans the shield. In this case, the Samurai would proably win.



Even see a mounted Knight?



The Mongols won because they had an advanced and organized military system.

This is generally the case when one side wins big. No one wins big because, as individuals, they are superior. It is always due to a superior system at a higher level.

The Mongols were organized into units of 10, 100, etc., just like modern armies are organized into squads, platoons, etc. They represented the highest level of military science at the time. They utilized excellent tactics and stratagy. On an individual level, they were first rate calvery, and their primary weapon was the compound bow.

The Mongols were also at their peak when they invaded Europe.



Yes, but they never faced the same Mongol threat. Had the Mongols gained a foothold on Japan and been able to employ their tactics as they had done against the Europeans, the Japanese would not have done any better. The Japanese were saved by the fact that they are an island nation, and the Mongols were never able to land a sizable force (due to the Kamakazi, Japanese resistance at the invasion site, and probably Mongol failures at naval invasions).

Had the Mongols gained a foothold, Japanese skill with swords would have played a small footnote, except for their use in mass suicides.

How do you know it isn't true?  

We have elaborate texts on jousting methods, on fencing methods, but very little on sword play.  What we do have is strategy, eg if he does this you should do this.  Very little on actual training.

Plus it's reality of a knight's life.  Winning tournaments is how a knight got ahead in life.

Do you even know what a knight it?  It's a land holding noble whose duty is to fight for his liege lord.  Most people on European battlefields were not Knights.

European soldiers?  They were lucky to get much training at all.  




Really?

How do you know that?  On what grounds do you say that?

If shields were so great, why were they abandoned when better armor was invented?  Surely if they gave such a tactical advantage they would have been preserved.



Really?  How?

1.  Full body armor would not prevent death if struck in the head with a sword.  The severity of the blow would scramble your brains.  Plus, a katana could easily cut through a helmet.  Look up Toshishiro Obata and his helmet cutting.  It didn't need to cut..the blunt trama is lethal..but it could.

Full body armor?  Do you know who had full body armor?  Nobles.  Everyone else used chain and pieces of captured armor here and there.

Do you know how restrictive full body armor is compared to Japanese armor?  Have you ever worn it?

You are demonstrating a severe ignorance of not only Japanese weapons and armor but European as well.


This is a side issue, but a Japanese mounted archer could hit a dinner plate at 30 yards while at full gallop (they can still do this today).  Please explain how a mounted knight would be able to survive this?




That was one reason.  The other was mounted archery.  They would ride up to the European ranks, let loose, and withdraw.  Then they did it again, and again, and again.  Then, when there was nothing left, they swept in for the kill.

That was how they won.



Sure they would have.  They had mounted archers too, and excellent military organization.

But that is not the issue here.



You seem to dislike the Japanese.  For this reason, I will assume your logic is based on bias.  This is unnacceptable for an argument.

I am not biased.  I am a European.  I have trained in long sword +shield and fencing extensively.  I also hold a menkyo from a family kaden in Kenjutsu.   I have no doubt who the superior warriors were.  

Plus, the Japanese bathed and did not stink like donkey feces, which all Europeans did.

That alone should settle this argument for good.  :)

Bill Wallace

Excellent reference, Big Rod, Thanks (in fact, the entire site made interesting reading).

Garry -- I'm surprised that you made no reference to the Toyota Highlander!!

Bill Wallace and Don S are arguing over what I was talking about before.

Bill points out that we KNOW what the eastern disciplines were like...and to a great extent I agree with this.  This is true because there was a TRADITION associated with the arts themselves.  Tactics and equipment went through very few changes even up to today.

In Contrast, Bill points out that the european schools may not have had such organized disciplines.  This is possible, but unlikely it seems to me.  The europeans were in a constant state of war...and...unlike the eastern martial traditions, they most likely changed fighting styles and tactics as often as new equipment or fighting techniques became available or were encountered.  This by itself would tend to reduce the amount of available literature available to us later in time because they would be repeatedly discarding older 'useless' texts in favor of the 'new way'.

If you had to try to reconstruct the eastern arts from JUST THE TEXTS FROM THAT TIME THAT EXIST NOW, without the aid of an uninterrupted line of trained practitioners, do you believe for one second that those arts would exist today in their finely polished states?

When the gun came to europe...it killed the martial traditions FAST! and rightly so!  certainly we today recognize that the gun makes most martial traditions useless, as long as some few feet seperate the antagonists.  The eastern cultures loathed the gun as the weapon of cowards...and/or feared them...but definately controlled their use as much as possible in favor of the 'old ways'.  Surely this decision played a huge role in the ability of the eastern martial arts to survive!

So again...to say one is superior to the other is a tough call...as one of these today exists in a flawed state, unable to prove or disprove it's usefulness.  I have a great deal of respect for all practitioners of ANY martial art.  I have myself only been able to achieve a Blue belt rank in Tae Kwon Do.  Those who would choose to try to resurrect a 'dead' art from limited information deserve much respect IMHO.

peace!

stimpsonjcat,

You just reminded me exactly why Japanese sword arts are superior to their European counterparts.  It was something I knew for a long time, but simply forgot as my interest in swords dwindled and I took up the AR.

You pointed out that European arts changed frequently with new inovations.  This is certainly true.  European swords continued to evolve up until they were phased out.  So did the techniques for using them.  

The Japanese sword existed in the 12th century as the tachi!  It was essentially the same.  The methods for using it were, essentially the same.  These methods were honed, refined, and improved over 700 years of war!

NO European art can claim anywhere near that level of longevity.

And as for the swords themselves, show me a European sword that can cut through a steel helmet with no damage to the edge (NONE!), parry a strike from a sword whose edge is 96 on the rockwell scale without suffering any damage or damaging the arm of the wielder, AND be able to cut through the hips of a boar, or three piled human corpses, in one clean stroke.

You won't be able to, because there aren't any.  So what are we arguing about?

Bill Wallace

In fact, the Katana does well when using a draw-cut, which works well on flesh and bone, and which makes the Japanese blade so effective on exposed human tissue. However, a draw cut doesn't work well on armour, and the Katana is a poor anti-armour sword.

A Katana may be able to defeat a weak helmet, but not a helmet made of proper armour plate. And a European sword designed for use against armour would do better at this (although, due to design constraints, it would not be as effective in a draw-cut, and would not be as impressive on exposed flesh).

Swords don't strike metal without the possibility of damage, and a Katana is no different. And the Katana is no better than a European sword, just different.

But the Katana does benifit from a lot of hype, much of it just plain silly.

The same is true of most Japanese. Even Samurai varied greatly in quality.




No doubt if the sword and shield had originated in early Japan, it would have been preserved.

Fully articulated armour is superior to sword and shield, just as sword and shield is superior to a single sword, used in the Japanese style.




I don't believe it could cut armour, or that the force of the blow was sufficient to do the job. I believe Obata uses helmets of inferior quality. The thick Katana blade and sharp cutting bevel result in a poor design for cutting through steel. Certainly, inferior to its European counterparts for this specific task, a fatal shortcoming if it was used against a European Knight in full body armour.



Do you know which Japanese had swords? Nobles.



Full body armor isn't all that restrictive. Perhaps you tried out a suit that was too large . . .



The key was their organization, which neither the Europeans nor the Japanese had.




They had about the same level of organization as the Europeans, and they would have lost just as bad.




I don't dislike the Japanese, but I have a low opinion of those who hype the asian fighting arts.

"I don't dislike the Japanese, but I have a low opinion of those who hype the asian fighting arts. "

I agree.  

Ask any practitioner of any martial art and s/he/it will tell you that particular style is the best.  There will also be stories about how Grandmaster Wun Long Dong once killed 50 opponents who were wearing full body armor and armed with chainsaws and flamethrowers.  Give it a rest.
 
I particularly weary of hearing about the samurai and their swords.  Every samurai wasn't Musashi.  Every katana wasn't forged by Masamune.  For a group who are supposed to have been so bloody invincible in combat and armed with such superior weapons, the Japanese don't show much of a record militarily at any point in their history, except -possibly- the Russo Japanese War.  They appear to have mainly been adept at fighting each other.

Really?  How about Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea and Southern China?  Total slaughter, pitiful resistance by superior numbers.



Thank you.   Japanese had fully articulated armor, with very effective cut resistance.  Yes, the armor was inferior in protecting against thrust attacks, but the increased mobility more than made up for that.

You watch too much television if you think samurai fought without armor.



This statement is so ludicrous and innaccurate, that you have lost any and all credibility.  It is obvious you know nothing of Japanese history or their arts.



I do not hype asian fighting arts.  Most modern asian fighting arts are silly and decadent, surviving on hype alone.  Kung Fu for example, looks so flowery because it was cloaked in dance moves to allow its practicioners to continue training despite it being banned by the government.  Modern kung fu fighters don't know what is dance and what is fighting anymore, nor do they care or understand the distinction.

Most small asian nations like Thailand and Phillipines boast their own martial arts, which are ridiculous to say the least (oh no look, it's an ancient Phillipino warrior..run!).  Japanese karate has been so diluted by post-war reformation as to be useless.  Same thing with most other Japanese arts.  TKD is a sport and that's all it is.  Jujitsu is great for two gay men with lots of time on their hands, but fairly useless as a martial art. (no flames, I hold degrees in a lot of these arts, as you potential flamers probably do).  

However, we are not talking "Asian fighting arts".  We are talking about Japanese samurai, in a time when they were real warriors and not administrators, and their abilites in battle, and the merits of the Japanese sword, which is believed by most unbiased people to be the greatest sword ever created by the hands of man.

Whatever you may believe it can or cannot do is irrelevant. You don't know anything about it.  You think it is designed for draw cuts in the western sense.  Wrong.

You know nothing of how it is supposed to be used.  You think you do?  How?  Do you have a menkyo in a Japanese sword art?  Or even a dan grade in iaido?

So why are you sitting here and telling me what a katana can and cannot do and how it was meant to be used?

Bill Wallace

You know, the experts have answered the question for us.  Check out:
[url]http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm[/url]

These guys acually have done the reseach necessary to answer the question, so I will side with them.

Hank Reinheart(sp) is a collector with a very strong European bias.  He works for Museum Replicas limited, 95% of whose inventory is Europen style replicas.

In fact, I read somewhere that Hank doesn't own a single Japanese sword.

I'll bet you have opinions on lots of things you don't own.

The point is that his opinion can not be said to be unbiased because he has clearly demonstrated a bias towards one side of the argument.

It is also a fact that Hank knows very little about Japanese swords.  He doesn't know the full process by which they are made, and, unlike a real Japanese sword expert, he cannot pick up an unsigned blade and tell you where, when, and by whom(or at least what school) it was made.

He does, on the other hand, posses an exceptional knowledge of European arms and armor.

Now what doest that tell you about his opinion on THIS subject?

Bill Wallace

Well,
I'm going to maintain my previous opinion. As I said in my previous posts.......against equally skilled opponents a sword and shield will beat a katana.......a knight with a 2 handed weapon will lose to a samuri. Samuri armor was not superior to knights armor beyond the 14th cent. and although samuri armor has a high resistance to cutting, the european sword was rarely sharp in the sense of "cutting" sharp and was designed for crushing.  

John Clements is the Director of Historical Armed Combat Association, and the second article that I posted was written by him, not Hank Reinhardt.  Mr. Clements is trained in both rapier and katana fighting, and thus I figured he probably knows what he is talking about.  While I do realize that Mr. Reinhardt specializes in European fighting techniques,I thought that his article was researched rather well.  Mr. Clements also wrote a another article, this one on Katana vs. rapier, which is also good reading.  Enjoy!

[url]http://www.thehaca.com/essays/katanavs.htm[/url]

The Mongols lost to the Japanese because the Mongols were not adept to sword fighting.  The Samurais took the fighting out to he Mongol's ships, forcing them to fight on foot, in close proximity with their swords and lances.  The mongols were adept in horse back fighting, using bows and arrows.  The Mongols lost the battle because of their sloppy swordsmanship.

Bill Wallace:

What about Japanese invasion of Korea in the 15th century?  I read in the history book that the Ming dynasty imperial troops defeated the Japanese in Korea.  Futile resistance by the greater masses?  I  don't think so.  You know a lot about the Samurais and the Japaese fighting arts, but I know quite a bit about ancient/medieval Chinese military and their arms from reading volumes of works.  And I can tell you that the Japanese were not the only people with military prowess.  The Chinese had their own fighting class full of competent fighters trained in various arms.  They were also great military organizers and leaders.

I agree with you whole heartedly, however, that modern Kung Fu is being degraded. Many old Chinese martial arts grand masters complained bitterly that Wu Shu tournaments are bad for Kung Fu because the participants in such tournaments use techniques that can get them killed in a real fight.  The purpose of such tournament is to show off styles and in order to make their styles better and prettier, the Wu Shu competitors tend to use techniques that can get them killed in a real fight.  Case in point: in straight sword (Jian) category, the competitors often twirl their swords between their FINGERS, to create a whirling motion.  Pretty to watch, but trully a no no in a real fight.  A real swordsmanship technique may not be pretty to watch, but its original purpose was to maim and kill people, not for entertainment.

If a knight met a Samurai in a duel, it depends how good the knight or the Samurai is.  I cannot over stress that the sword does not dictate who would win a sword fight.  It certainly is a factor, but a swordsman with greater skill would defeat another with lower skill, although the earlier is armed with inferior blade.  Just like somebody iterrated, not all Samurais have swordsmanship level to that of Mushashi's.  Unlike what most people think, the Europeans and the Chinese were great swordsmen, the Japanese were not the only one who knew how to use swords.

Johannes