Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 4/18/2001 5:05:30 PM EDT
Okay. Here's an off-topic question that you guys probably get all the time, but I was just interested in getting the opinions of this rather august forum. I figure you folks have opinions on just about everything!! What would happen if a moderately armored knight with a long sword/shield combination (or perhaps, just a claymore or bastard sword) got into battle with a lightly armored (if at all) samurai with a katana? Who would win and why? I only bring this up because it has always bothered me that the protagonist in the Highlander uses a katana, rather than..well...a saber. I'm just thinking that Hollywood tends to overplay the effectiveness of eastern-style martial arts to the point that some Scottish guy is running around with a weapon made in Japan. Anyway... it just doesn't seem right!!!
Link Posted: 4/18/2001 5:09:14 PM EDT
The Samurai would turn around and make to sharp of a turn and roll over. I thought it was funny.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 8:42:10 AM EDT
All other things being equal; the Samurai...hands down. I'm not an expert, but do have 20 years in the martial arts, (4th dan, TKD) so I can maybe be allowed an opinion. Quite a few years ago a kendo-ka showed up at a SCA tourny in Cali and took on, and beat, all comers. Now, while that doesn't prove a whole lot, I think it was interesting, in that them SCA fighters ain't no slouches. They WHALE on each other, man. We're talking busted bones are not uncommon. But you can't hurt what you can't hit, and they just weren't fast enough.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 8:48:58 AM EDT
McCloud{highlander} got the sword from a japanese guy.he washed up on the shore badly injured this japenese family took him in and nursed him back to health then taught him martial arts. a ruler finds out that this japanese man is harboring a gijian{sp} and orders him to commit suicide to restore his clan honor,before he does the ceremony he gives the highlander his long sword
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 8:53:00 AM EDT
1. Samurai wore armor. Elaborate armor, in fact. 2. The katana evolved in response to that type of armor. 3. The European knight characteristically fought from horseback where his primary weapon was the lance. 4. SCA aside, Japanese style swordsmanship is still studied and practised. Medieval European style fighting is known only in an imperfectly reconstructed form. 5. Two-handed swords didn't become common in European combat until armor was on the way out. They are more a product of the Renaissance and later periods than of medieval times. So what do I think? European knights during the heyday of armored knights weren't the slow, clumsy figures you see in movies. They fought all day in armor that was made as light as possible and devoted their lives to the practise of arms just as the samurai did. I think it would depend on which knight you chose and which samurai you put against him.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 8:58:52 AM EDT
For perspective Ferdinan Magellan was killed by a Filipino native armed with a rattan stick. This is despite thje fact that Magellan was wearing FULL armor and using a Eurpoean sword. Bushi(Samurai)were instructed in military arts from childhood and usually had practical experience by the age of 15. Your average medieval Bushi would have destroyed your average medieval European Knight.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 9:21:28 AM EDT
For perspective, bushi were slain by Okinawan peasants armed with wooden agricultural implements.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 9:35:11 AM EDT
Yes they were. And Okinawans such as Chatan Yara would have destroyed European Knights as well. On a side note. Truckloads of Okinawans died facing the swords of the Satsuma bushi with their sickles but that doesn't make interesting history.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 9:51:15 AM EDT
As with most comparisons, we should look to see if this apples to apples or apples to oranges. All things being equal, the best fighter. All things unequal, the luckiest. awp101 [shotgun]
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 9:54:10 AM EDT
Ever wonder on that show why they just dont shoot the guy and when he's down go chop his freakin head off?
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 9:56:05 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 10:22:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2001 10:22:08 AM EDT by AR_Rifle]
Like in any confrontation, the guy who can move fast and who can strike with precision will win period. I doubt that the Knight with his armor can move as fast as the Samurai.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 10:38:36 AM EDT
If this is to make sense, they must both be geared up as they would be for combat. That is, both would be wearing armor. The European knight might also be using a shield. Contrariwise, the other option is that neither is wearing his armor and is simply going to attack the other with his sword. I think there is a tendency to underestimate the European knight on the part of people who have studied one or another of the Asian (esp. Japanese) arts. The European knight, just like his Japanese counterpart, was raised from early childhood to use his weapons...he was part of a fighting class. Most of what people think they know about European knights and what they did is a product of Hollywood. Look what a great job THEY do with guns. Movies and dojo hype and the Japanese themselves have convinced a great many Occidentals that the Katana is the apotheosis of swords and that the Samurai were nearly invincible superwarriors with abilities that defy belief. Or I'm wrong, and the bushi were the greatest warriors who ever lived and that is why they conquered all of Asia and defeated the Mongols.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 10:59:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr45auto: Ever wonder on that show why they just dont shoot the guy and when he's down go chop his freakin head off?
View Quote
No kidding. I would be having immortals for breakfast with my AR.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 11:23:18 AM EDT
The History channel has several programs about the swords of the world and the unanimous opinion of the experts was that the Japanese Katana is the best two handed sword ever made. Probably the only European swordsman that would even stand a chance against a Samurai swordsman would be a fencing master with a fast one-handed rapier. A Katana could still easily break a rapier in two if they made contact. No Katana is truely finished until it was able to cut a man in half in one stroke. Corpse's were often used but sometimes they used live criminals as well. The Katana is a unique sword when it comes to construction. They are hammer forged into a high carbon laminated steel. It is estimated that they have about a million layers in the blade. The genious of it's design is the blade remains extremely rigid and sharp, while the backbone is kept soft and flexable. It's the best of both worlds. It can be used as both a weapon and a sheild. Unlike the straight edged European swords, the Katana's curved blade can both cut, blugeon and stab. Any quality Katana can easily cut a man in two. The Claymore could maybe go halfway through with extreme force, but will probably bend or break in the process. The Mongol hoard faced 50 thousand armor clad knights in eastern Europe during the reign of Gengis Khan. The Mongols, who actually were the first to deploy heavy Cavalry, slaughtered every single knight and were poised to conquer the rest of Europe. The only thing that stoped them was news of the death of Gengis Khan. It caused a rapid withdrawl back to Mongolia. His power hungry sons raced back to fight for and claim the Mongol throne, saving Europe from total domination. During the reign of Kubla Khan, they conquered and occupied China. Their next target was Japan. 10,000 Samurai met them on the beaches and wouldn't let their landing craft reach the shoreline. During the night, the Samurai even took the fight out to the Mongol/Chinese fleet and fought them on their ships. Most of the Mongols used Chinese style swords which were soft and flexable. They had never faced a sword like the Katana. A long sharp sword that could break their smaller soft swords and could still block attacks like a shield. The 200,000 invaders couldn't land and use their Cavalry. Along with the Kamakazi, or the seasonal monsoons that further descimated their fleet while they sat off shore, the Samurai and their Katanas are largely credited with defeating the invincible Mongols. Not once but twice.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 11:32:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2001 11:35:10 AM EDT by SteyrAUG]
Completely agree. An exponent of Frech fencing, even without armour, would pose a greater threat to the Samurai than a European Knight. DK-Prof, this is for you. The Bushi knew when he went into battle he had a 1 in 3 chance of survival. 1. He is superior and defeats his opponent. 2. His opponent is superior and defeats him. 3. Both die as a result of mutual inflicted wounds. The same applies to gunfights, so train hard.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 11:49:00 AM EDT
Looking at a straight materials standpoint, the advantage lies in the Samurai. Although "moderately" armoured as you put it, they wore what I believe is an assortment of what is called "Splint Mail". (I had great interest in the medieval dept. of Atlanta Cutlery a few years ago, so I'll see what I remember). Much like plate mail worn by knights, but more succeptible to piercing blows. Advantage: Speed. The Knight would wear either plate mail or chain mail. If chain mail was worn, the Samurai would have a more difficult type trying to either slash or pierce the very effective chains. Plate Mail *could* be pierced, but the Katana/Daishi are not truly made for thrusting blows. Chain Mail, preventitive against many attacks, Disadvantage: Heavy, loss of speed. All things equal, weapons and armors in check, the knight would have a better chance of defending blows (slow, but protected), while the Samurai warrior would have an advantage in the swiftness and striking department (lightly armored, but unencumbered by it). All in all, equal equipment tradeoffs for both fighters. Winner: Samurai. More training in weapons and hand-to-hand combat. Remember, often times when both warriors went to the ground, bludgeoning with the butts of their swords/gauntlets turned into a stripping of armor and a good ol' fistfight. If this were the case, Samurai would still have tactical advantage. The Euro- would never see it coming. Jew~
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 11:55:43 AM EDT
Oh yes, another thing. I trained for maybe a year (hardly experienced) in short weapons combat. I own a Wakazashi and decided to use that, some other Aikido people practiced with their wooden swords (don't know what they were called). I also took a bit of Jun Fan last year, where I learned some very basic medium-stick and knife techniques and defenses. I think I learned more from the Jun Fan course, however I feel much more comfortable with my Japanese weapon. I can both slice and parry with it more effective than any knife or stick, and it feels much more balanced in my hands then a broadsword does. Not sure if the martial arts were practiced around the sword, or if the sword was designed around the arts sometimes, because it is truly a remarkable piece of human forging. ..unfortunately I beat the sh*t out of it eventually cutting down tree limbs and chopping wood with it. Eh, I'm a gun person now anyway, he he.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 12:01:21 PM EDT
There was a similar thread on TFL several months ago. One of the participants told of the actual results when Portugese swordsmen visited Japan and mixed it up with the locals: In "fast draw" situations, katanas beat rapiers almost every time. In staged duels, rapiers beat katanas by something like a 4 to 1 margin. You can go to http://thefiringline.com and do a search to find the thread.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 12:13:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Jewbroni: Winner: Samurai. More training in weapons and hand-to-hand combat. Remember, often times when both warriors went to the ground, bludgeoning with the butts of their swords/gauntlets turned into a stripping of armor and a good ol' fistfight. If this were the case, Samurai would still have tactical advantage. The Euro- would never see it coming.
View Quote
Untrue. Despite the Hollywood depictions of honorable knights in battle, they were masters of the dirt-in-your-eye, kick-in-the-balls, down and dirty school of fighting.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 12:22:06 PM EDT
I have been fencing for over 6 years and I just start learning kendo. My humble opinion is that you have to stop the Katana before it comes down. A quick arm cut with a Sabre or a quick thrust with an epee type weapon will stop the attack. The trick is to have your opponent misjudge the attack distance and step in for the kill at the same time, but one cannot expect to react fast enough to a Katana with a heavy broadsword type weapon.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 12:22:13 PM EDT
During the early part of the 20th century there was a renaissance of the Bushido code and a study of the Martial Arts. Japanese soldiers were indoctrinated in the Bushido code of conduct and Martial Arts. Did you know that we kicked their A$$ in the Pacific? Rex Applegate in one of his books talks about documented cases of U.S. troops killing Japanese Marines in hand-to-hand combat. Samurais or knights weren’t super beings they were men. Men trained in the art of war of that day. Weapons change = the art of war changes, men adapt to the weapons they are given. Nowadays why take head on what you can take out at 300 yards with a rifle. Most of the sword fighting skill of our European ancestors has been lost because of well… our dependence on firearms to wage war. Japan kept itself isolated for so long the swordsmanship traditions were able to stay alive and not be lost. We do know armor was a specialty item designed to meet a specific need. Armor was about innovation, heavy plate came about to defeat primitive firearms and deadly crossbows. Plus heave plated knights were used to smash through the enemy’s lines. There were a lot of armor styles used throughout the Middle Ages. The armor style depended upon what the knight was going to face and the climate and terrain he was fighting in. Improperly outfitted armies are almost always defeated. Back to the original question. Both opponents would seek to arm themselves with weapons based upon their strengths, their knowledge of war, and how they “sized up” their enemy. I have a respect of the Martial Arts, but don’t underestimate the battle hardened knights of Europe. [sniper]
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 1:07:48 PM EDT
I get it Garry...very nice. Hmmm...well let's see. First of all, the Katana wielder would have a serious drawback..his priary attack and defense are the same device. This is alleviated somewhat by the fact that most samurai would be unlikely to use their swords in defensive clashes anyway. So the knight need only concern himself with blocking the katana swings and poking the samurai when possible. While the samurai must concern himself with both the shield and sword of the knight. Japanese swords just aren't that great guys. One succesful parry on the blade from even a semi-crappy sword would destroy that section of the edge. Samurai knew this and avoided blade on blade contact. The knight would have no such concerns with his blade. Anyway, if you're trying to cut metal in a swordfight...you're aiming at the wrong target. Great swords like Claymores are faster than you might think. I've won this argument with my cheap reproduction against several opponents. The problem is that how hollywood uses these is different than how they should be used. try to think of them as spears and blades all in one and it will change your perspective about going after a guy with a sword easily a foot longer than yours (how thick is your neck?) Grab either of John Clements books and give them a read..better yet, try some of what he talks about in there. His take on the katana vs rapier fight was that they would both die...here's why: Katana wielder looks at rapier in disdain feeling that there is no way this long and flimsy (well there's no way HIS smith could make a sword that thin strong) sword can be swung in large arcs (well that's the way HE swings his katana) fast enought to be dangerous and anyway it doesn't appear to have much of an edge. Based on this he raises his katana, charges in and cleaves the rapier wielder to the sternum. Rapier wielder thinks wow, what a klunky sword, no way it's gonna be fast emough to deflect all the lunges I'm gonna throw at this guy. wonders in fascination why the guy is charging him, throws up his parrying dagger to deflect what he assumes to be a far-too-wide feignt and promptly skewers our katana wielding friend through the heart. Both fall over dead... Now the interesting fight would be between their seconds! "Oh shiznit! NOW what do we do?" peace!
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 3:47:55 PM EDT
Thanks guys! I knew I would not be disappointed! I still don't know the answer, but I have gained new knowledge and respect for both warriors and for this forum!!!!
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 3:52:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/19/2001 3:55:14 PM EDT by DonS]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: For perspective Ferdinan Magellan was killed by a Filipino native armed with a rattan stick. This is despite thje fact that Magellan was wearing FULL armor and using a Eurpoean sword.
View Quote
In fact, it is more likely that he was killed by an arrow. And it was very unlikely he was wearing full body armour. EDIT: This is what I found:
Magellan took only 60 men to battle some 3,000 islanders. After Magellan's ultimatum was refused, he decided to attack. When he went ashore, he was met by 3,000 islanders. Even though Magellan's men were equipped with muskets and crossbows, the islanders had bamboo shields which lessened greatly the effect of these European weapons. Overwhelmed by the sheer mass of men, Magellan was forced to retreat and in the process, was shot in the leg by a poisonous arrow. This injury, along with a crippled arm, slowed his retreat. Before he could make it to his ship, Magellan was clubbed to death by a mob of islanders. To forever hide this disgraceful incident, Magellan's crew burned the ship with all of the records and logs. Magellan's body was also on board this burning ship.
View Quote
So it seems you were right, he was probably killed by a rattan stick. Or tather, a bunch of rattan sticks . . . http://staff.esuhsd.org/~balochie/studentprojects/ageexploration/magellan.html
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 4:16:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sodie: The History channel has several programs about the swords of the world and the unanimous opinion of the experts was that the Japanese Katana is the best two handed sword ever made.
View Quote
I saw one of those, and in the one I saw, the experts on [i]Japanese[/i] swords thought that Japanese swords were the best. But then, History Channel "experts" don't much impress me . . .
Originally Posted By Sodie:Unlike the straight edged European swords, the Katana's curved blade can both cut, blugeon and stab. Any quality Katana can easily cut a man in two. The Claymore could maybe go halfway through with extreme force, but will probably bend or break in the process.
View Quote
The Katana is very weak from the side. I've read accounts of Katanas being used to behead people during WW2; they often bent. Took quite a bit of skill to keep them from bending during beheadings. My guess is that a Claymore would cleave a Katana with ease.
Originally Posted By Sodie:The Mongol hoard faced 50 thousand armor clad knights in eastern Europe during the reign of Gengis Khan. The Mongols, who actually were the first to deploy heavy Cavalry, slaughtered every single knight and were poised to conquer the rest of Europe. The only thing that stoped them was news of the death of Gengis Khan. It caused a rapid withdrawl back to Mongolia. His power hungry sons raced back to fight for and claim the Mongol throne, saving Europe from total domination.
View Quote
The Mongols used excellet tactics, and had units of 10 men, 100 men, etc. The Europeans fought with a much lower level of organization and command and control.
Originally Posted By Sodie:During the reign of Kubla Khan, they conquered and occupied China. Their next target was Japan. 10,000 Samurai met them on the beaches and wouldn't let their landing craft reach the shoreline. During the night, the Samurai even took the fight out to the Mongol/Chinese fleet and fought them on their ships. Most of the Mongols used Chinese style swords which were soft and flexable. They had never faced a sword like the Katana. A long sharp sword that could break their smaller soft swords and could still block attacks like a shield. The 200,000 invaders couldn't land and use their Cavalry. Along with the Kamakazi, or the seasonal monsoons that further descimated their fleet while they sat off shore, the Samurai and their Katanas are largely credited with defeating the invincible Mongols. Not once but twice.
View Quote
Yes, but had the Mongols landed, the Samurai would have been destroyed in detail. The Mongols were mounted warriors, not marines. And not good infantry. Once ashore on horseback, fighting in their organized manner (as they were able to due against the Europeans), the Japanese could not have stopped them, at least not by beating them in battle. What made the Mongols so effective was their military organization and tactics, and their skill as mounted warriors. They were able to employ these traits against the Europeans, but not against the Japanese. Not because the Japanese did anything better than the Europeans, but because against Japan the Mongols had to undertake a seaborn invasion (even so, without the Kamakazi, the Japanese would likely have lost).
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 4:52:03 PM EDT
Hmmm... Everyone seems the battle between knight and samuri would be head to head. We are arguing about defense, well samurai being skilled in martial arts and light weight armor probably wouldn't try to parry sword blows by the night. Samurais were trained in Iado which kills by drawing the sword and killing with very intense speed, sometimes blocking the striking, but what i'm thinking is that the samurai would dance around the encumbered night and make mince meat outta him. Not sure though as i'm only trained in chinese martial arts (such as the springsteel strait sword where the weilder would have to have great speed). Just a thought
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 5:25:08 PM EDT
garry posted: The Samurai would turn around and make to sharp of a turn and roll over. I thought it was funny.
View Quote
It was!
Don S posted: I saw one of those, and in the one I saw, the experts on Japanese swords thought that Japanese swords were the best. But then, History Channel "experts" don't much impress me . . .
View Quote
I agree, somewhat.. What I think many of us don't think about is that there were Very good bladesmiths, and as always, Those who's skills were less refined. Japan was not a "Country" as We think of it(At this time) as much as a series of "small kingdoms" (My best discription of the warlords holdings.) Samurai skills and weapons must have had variances from "kingdom" to "kingdom". Therefore, I would think that one might find great Samurai, good Samurai, and poor Samurai. The best of the Samurai were undoubtedly Very greatly skilled, with many more "Surfs" who made up the majority of the Samurai force. The Samurai also fought(and lived) by a very strict code(Bushido). As far as Swordsmithing goes, I would have to give the edge to a "well supplied" Samurai. I have been interested in the Metallurgy of the Samurai, European, Spanish, French and even Norse Sword making for some time now. I beleave that (At this point in time in the world) the Japanese "Smiths" had some of the best steel and forging anywhere. Modern "Smiths" using old steel, are just now relearning Their methods. I read an article in Bladesmith magazine by Don Fogg(One of the top Bladesmiths today.) about a blade that He made (Old steel) that they were chopping hunks off of the shop dumpster(s) with. They make the blade, then clamp it in a vise, then beat it till failure, discuss the results and restart the whole process again. They still claim that they are not up to the "Top" japanese "smiths" yet.
Jewbroni posted: Looking at a straight materials standpoint, the advantage lies in the Samurai. Although "moderately" armoured as you put it, they wore what I believe is an assortment of what is called "Splint Mail". (I had great interest in the medieval dept. of Atlanta Cutlery a few years ago, so I'll see what I remember). Much like plate mail worn by knights, but more succeptible to piercing blows. Advantage: Speed
View Quote
Actually,At least some of the Samurai Were armored with Plate armor (Usualy Iron with heavy leather under), it was worn over a padding (To spread out the blows) Much like Their European counterparts did. Some of the armor was used on the horses in the Cavalry (Yes, there were Cavalry.) and the experts think that this is where the "foot soldier's" armor came from.
sgf posted: During the early part of the 20th century there was a renaissance of the Bushido code and a study of the Martial Arts. Japanese soldiers were indoctrinated in the Bushido code of conduct and Martial Arts. Did you know that we kicked their A$$ in the Pacific? Rex Applegate in one of his books talks about documented cases of U.S. troops killing Japanese Marines in hand-to-hand combat. Samurais or knights weren’t super beings they were men. Men trained in the art of war of that day. Weapons change = the art of war changes, men adapt to the weapons they are given. Nowadays why take head on what you can take out at 300 yards with a rifle.
View Quote
As far as the "renaissance of the Bushido code and a study of the Martial Arts." In the early part of the 20th century, I think You stated it correctly, Time
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 6:40:03 PM EDT
The Samurai will win. He is faster and will out manuever the Knight with his heavy armor.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 6:50:52 PM EDT
Hi guys, I'm not an expert here (although I do play one on TV - LOLs), but I would like to clear up one thing and add opinion on another. 1) Why does McCleod use a katana? In his early years he traveled to feudal Japan and befriended a Samarui. This man taught McCleod the use of the katana sword. In addition, the man had to take his own life on order from the Shogun for refusing to kill McCleod. He gave his family Katana to McCleod. Plus on TV the katana looks cool. 2) Why does everyone think the knights of Europe were idiots in the martial arts department? Look they didn't have stylized practice as do the eastern arts, but a noble boy was trained in martial arts (meaning ARMED martial arts) from the time he could walk. These guys had no other function in life BUT fighting - same as the Samarai. I do suspect an edge goes to the Samarai in a strict sword duel. The Europeans spent much of their training on horseback. This time spent does not improve basic sword skills. In all, BOTH were formidable warriors. They were of warrior class, and lived in violent worlds where the slow died young. It would have been swift and brutal had this type of combat ever taken place. In the end, the better and luckier fighter would have prevailed. And the difference in winning percentage would have been close. James
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 7:06:53 PM EDT
Speed isn't everything. The cat is faster and has sharper tools, but the dog is bigger and has greater strength. The cat will almost always be crushed by the jaws of a dog.
Link Posted: 4/19/2001 7:11:29 PM EDT
Nations that have access to other nations quickly absorb the best of other nations. The Euro knight's gear and tactics were assembled from centuries of battles with Asia, Africa, the Middle East & Europe. Japan has always been a private place, and while they spent centuries fighting each other, they didn't really learn from others. [smoke] The Knight wins.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 2:43:27 AM EDT
In the original movie "Highlander" with Sean Connery and Christopher Lambert, Conner McCleod got his Katana after Ramirez's death. Ramirez got the sword from his former father in law, a japanese swordsmith I believe. They do provide an explanation to how they came by their Katana's if you pay attention. Seems some people are comparing the attributes of each opponents weapons rather than which warrior would win. As someone already pointed out, the most skilled(experieced, battle hardened) would win. Both types of weapons offer advantages and disadvantages, but the best man would win. I personnally have an affinity for the japanese swords, because of their strength/weight ratio. Very strong for relatively light swords. You must take into account the warriors cultural backgrounds and historical opponents to understand the developement of their particular weapons and tactics. Also, I think one might concievably make the allowance for carrying a wakazashi(japanese short sword) into battle in these modern times because of the moderate weight. You wouldn't have to sacrifice much in ammo weight allowance if any at all, and a quality (read: not some $30-$40 cheap stainless steel knock off) short sword would be much more effective than any knife if things got bad and turned to hand to hand. Just my humble opinion though. Also the japanese did have cavalry(rent RAN and you'll see-very cool movie if you don't mind subtitles).
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 4:49:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: For perspective Ferdinan Magellan was killed by a Filipino native armed with a rattan stick. This is despite thje fact that Magellan was wearing FULL armor and using a Eurpoean sword.
View Quote
I beg to differ. Most of the Filipinos were armed with a KRIS. A short sword. Also with BALISONGS and Machetes. Although the majority were armed with sticks, and all did not wear armor.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 4:54:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ASR: The Samurai will win. He is faster and will out manuever the Knight with his heavy armor.
View Quote
Ditto. Did you know that a knight had to be hoisted up on his horse due to the weight of the armor? And that he was not able to get up quickly from a fall again due to weight. So how can a linear fighter, defeat a more agile angular and circular fighter. Providing of course their abilities in their own fighting styles were equal and equal on battle experience.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 6:59:07 AM EDT
I have been formaly trained in both kendo/bushido and European fencing styles. I eventually chose to continue kendo because in every way it is superior. In kendo you have 5 very specific, very deadly targets whereas the objective with a longsword was to basicly bludgen your opponent to death. I learned kendo the same way my maaster did from his father with a very sharp katana that he presented me when he took me as a student. The only wound he ever recieved from a sword wa when his father took his pinky finger because it was sticking out and I've never had blood drawn although every blade I have has drawn someones. As far as strength and sharpness, I have a sword similar in style to the one on Highlander(series) that was made for me in Japan and the blade alone cost me almost $3000. I have many times to refine my skill hung beer bottles from tree limbs and systematcly cut(not shattered) the necks of them without any damage to my blade(still cuts silk like in The Bodyguard). P.S. In Kendo you always attack never block. Even when you repel another sword you attack the opponants sword with your own to achieve a universal reaction and lead your next strike. And always with the side or broad edge never you leading edge when contacting another sword. The always attacking never blocking is also what we learned in SEAL hand to hand etc.(SCARS Program)
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 7:40:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 7:55:45 AM EDT
Damn, how did I miss this thread.......I gotta weigh in here. Backround.......Tang soo do (korean karate) 15+ years SCA armored fighting......7 years to current One on one fighting.......With equal skill levels the Knight will win with sword and shield The samuri will win with single weapon (2 handed sword) There are lots of variables (obviously) but I have fought many samuri.......knights armor can vary from cloth to metal The same applies to samuri. Since a samuri has to make thier cuts correctly for thier sword to work, a shield can easily deflect the blow enough for it to be glancing(punch blocks). If a sameri can't "cut" with his weapon, it is ineffectual. A knights sword is designed for crushing, not cutting. Therefore, even a glancing blow will have an effect. A single handed knights sword weighs about the same or less than a katana. A samuri will be able to utilize his sword speed much better than a knight with a two handed weapon, since a two handed knights sword is much heavyer than a katana. Therefore the samuri has an advantage.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 7:56:20 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lordtrader: Ditto. Did you know that a knight had to be hoisted up on his horse due to the weight of the armor? And that he was not able to get up quickly from a fall again due to weight. So how can a linear fighter, defeat a more agile angular and circular fighter. Providing of course their abilities in their own fighting styles were equal and equal on battle experience.
View Quote
That is just not true, many knights could vault into the saddle, do handsprings, and turn cartwheels in full battle armor. A properly fitted fighting suit does not restrict movement and only weighs around 55-65lb. Even the heaviest suits of tournament armor were in the 100-120lb range.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 8:09:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By lordtrader:
Originally Posted By ASR: The Samurai will win. He is faster and will out manuever the Knight with his heavy armor.
View Quote
Ditto. Did you know that a knight had to be hoisted up on his horse due to the weight of the armor?
View Quote
This is inaccurate. Properly made and fitted armor didn't hinder knights as hollywood would have us believe. I've seen guys in armor mount (the legal version) horses VERY quickly. Again, I'd like to propose that the knight, if armed with a shield and a singe-hand-wield sword would have the advantage. He need only block the katana movement and he then has an easy stab at his opponent. Why people discount the butchering ability of european sword designs while praising the eastern designs is beyond me. All sharpened, hardened, flexible pieces of steel are dangerous. Please guys...stop using highlander, or other movies for research. Macleod got his sword from the same place Robin Hood and Obi Wan Kenobi got theirs...the props department. peace!
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 8:15:10 AM EDT
Greetings, After having glanced over the posts on this subject I thought it would help to give a couple of links to sites that have addressedthis topic from a practitioners standpoint. www.thehaca.com look in their essays section. www.swordforum.com usually has somthing going on related to this on one of their boards. To paraphrase Maj. Forrest Morgan author of Living the Martial Way there are only warriors and non warriors. real warriors do not argue which style is better. After attending one of John Clements longsword seminars, Adrian Ko of swordforum.com and an asian stylist stated that european swordplay was the equal of any european system. Most of my background is in european rapier and dagger, limited armored combat and most recently Kali. I have also studed sport fence which is now so for removed from practical combative swordplay as to now only be an abstraction. In all truth all systems have somthing to recomend them. All fighting system evolve in a context unique to their enviornment and all systems are artificial. My apologies if this has seemed a bit disjointed as it is a rabling series of thoughts. If anyone is in northeastern Oklahoma or surrounding area and interested in European swordplay, feel free to email me at joneppler@msn.com if not in my area I can possibly direct you to quality training. Best regards, Jon
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 8:18:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Originally Posted By CharlyB715: I have been formaly trained in both kendo/bushido and European fencing styles. ... I learned kendo the same way my maaster did from his father with a very sharp katana that he presented me when he took me as a student.
View Quote
Can you explain to me how you were "formally trained" in kendo with a "very sharp katana"? I am not aware of any way of practicing kendo with a steel katana, unless you are talking about performing the katas by yourself, and not actually sparring with anyone. Very curious - please tell
View Quote
We started out learning the katas then after my friend and I showed proficiancy in technique he spared with us starting off at about 1/4 speed then working our way up to having people stop in the middle off the road when we practiced in the front yard thinking we were trying to kill each other. My teacher moved here from Japan and his method was pretty much embedded in the primise that when he lost his finger his first time to hold a sword to his father he never made that mistake again. Pain is a hell of a teacher. FYI his grandfather was the Grandmaster of Akido and old tradition was deep in everything he taught me.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 9:02:48 AM EDT
Just to clear up a few misconceptions here. A knights armor went from cloth, leather and chainmail in the the 1100s thru transition to full metal plate in ther 1400s. The maximum weight of a battlefield knight did not exceed 60lbs...........the tourny knight of the 15 and 16oos did wear much heavyer armor but never fought battles with it. I have 3 harnesses I fight in. 12century-cloth,leather and chain......wgt about 30lb 14th cent........cloth, chain and plate.....about 45lb and 15th cent......all plate with padded arming coat.....about 55 lb I can assure you that movement is not a problem with correctly fitted armor. I have spent 8 hours at a time in plate.......sitting, running, walking and fighting and it is no problem if you are fit. You should be able to make any movement that you can make out of armor. This applies equally to a samuri's armor along similar time periods. Also, I have to comment on Charlys post....I know alot of aido and kendo people and I seriously can't beleive that any teacher in his right mind would allow live blade sparring with anyone below a masters rank......sorry.....not gonna happen.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 9:13:11 AM EDT
"As far as strength and sharpness, I have a sword similar in style to the one on Highlander(series) that was made for me in Japan and the blade alone cost me almost $3000. I have many times to refine my skill hung beer bottles from tree limbs and systematcly cut(not shattered) the necks of them without any damage to my blade(still cuts silk like in The Bodyguard)." This humble one would be much obliged if you would be so good as to post a photo or mpeg of your most enlightened self doing that, O kensei.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 9:26:50 AM EDT
Also, I have to comment on Charlys post....I know alot of aido and kendo people and I seriously can't beleive that any teacher in his right mind would allow live blade sparring with anyone below a masters rank......sorry.....not gonna happen.
View Quote
This wasn't a class environment. He didn't teach anymore except for few private lessons in Akido and the only reason he taught me and my friend was because I dated his granddaughter in highschool and learned of my collection of swords and some akido lessons. When his granddaughter finaly talked him into it he said if I wanted to learn I would learn the same way he did. And for your info I've become damn good under his teaching over the past 10 yrs, I improve myself everyday as a way to relieve stress.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 9:36:50 AM EDT
"I have many times to refine my skill hung beer bottles from tree limbs and systematcly cut(not shattered) the necks of them without any damage to my blade" Run a search on "champagne saber" and this becomes an awful lot less impressive.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 9:55:23 AM EDT
yea, but what if one of them had an m60 with lots and lots of ammo?? huh? then who would have won?? huh?? Depends, it probably would of jammed and he would have been a fast runner or chum in the middle of tokyo harber.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 10:07:18 AM EDT
I'm curious Charly. How do you sparr effectively with live blades? The whole object of advanced sparring is to actually hit your opponent. How can you possibly sparr for this long with live blades and not have killed your opponent or died as a result of missing a block. Even if you can pull the technique before you do damage, you can't do that 100% of the time, especially in the heat of an engagement?
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 10:19:52 AM EDT
I wasn't trying to impress anyone. Especially someone that would basicly call someone else a liar of whom they do not know. I've read some ? shit but I atleast give them the benifit of the doubt until givin reason other wise not to make a fool of myself and disrespect a perfect stranger. Back on subject:All I was emplying was that a high quality katana, not a flea market special, is very durable and don't damage, bend, break, or other wise like someone emplyed.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 10:31:23 AM EDT
Man, I haven't thought about the SCA in years! Ahhh...my younger days. In my attic is my full suit of chainmail (spl) that weighs about 60 pounds, some plate that fasten to it and my helm. I was extremely agile both in the saddle and on hard ground. With helm, armour, sword and sheild, I topped out at over 90 pounds but never really felt it. Visibility was my greatest problem. You could sneak up behind me and clean my clock.
Link Posted: 4/20/2001 10:34:26 AM EDT
turn the blade over when going full speed dipshit. And with my friend Chris that I learnrd with we can go near full speed leading edge. Basicly the same way in SEAL leathal hand-to-hand combat training you spar using leathal techniques without actualy killing your partner or vise versa. Also if you are afraid to die then your thinking of something other than what your supposed to be. "Yeh as I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil because I'm the meanest, baddest, and deadliest mother fucker in this whole God damn valley"
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top