So, Who Do You Think Would Win This Fight? - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - So, Who Do You Think Would Win This Fight? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:15:38 AM EDT

[#1]

A fencing sword would never stand up to a katana. That's not opinion, it's fact. Not only that, fencers are not nearly as effective at cutting. As for the old time Braveheart style swords, too heavy to keep up.

I personally think katanas are a perfectly blended sword. Light enough to be quick, heavy enough to be strong.

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:19:02 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Well I had the choice between Kendo and Iaido. I like the idea of Iaido, cutting from the sword in hilt. One motion, drawing and cutting. It's really fun, but there's not a lot if any sparring... Kendo is more sparring, it's about what you do "after" you draw.

It's real fun.

Kendo is a sport. It has nothing to do with (IMO) japanese swordsmanship. Iaido IMO can be too far on the other end. Too meditative. It is beutiful powerful movment though.

Do you have the L6?
God that sword is sexy... I love my Crane though.

I am not sure. It was a custom for someone else that never claimed it. Picked it up.... I have a pic somewhere.

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:19:53 AM EDT

[#3]

If they fought in the morning, the samuari would win because they do not drink and
the William Wallace type would likely have a hangover.
On the other hand you have more fingers.

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:26:40 AM EDT

[#4]

Samurai are warriors. Fencers are gay.

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:30:46 AM EDT

[#5]

Samaruai swordsmen were very good, but you would be surprised how light and usable a medievel broadsword is… not much difference in weight and it has perfect balance. It can also be used as a clubing instrument. A Euro Swordsman was a very adept athlete too. I've seen demonstrations of Medieval Knights doing handsprings in full armour!

Who would win IMHO?

Roman Legionary?… no. The Legionarry was part of a human buzzsaw, stad, forward, stab, forward was the Roman way. Individual combat was not the Gladious' forte

Fencer with Rapier?… Probably. The Rapier and the fencer are all about speed and agility. Thrust and retreat, advance and thrust… a very good weapon with a trick up its sleeve. The pommel was degined to trap an opponets blade so you could disarm him or hold his blade while you get in a quick kill with your stilletto.

Medievel Swordsman?…Yes. The Broadsword was the equal of the Katana in steel technology, light and very strong, however it was designed with a stout hilt to absorb or deflect a blow. A Katana was a 'lighter' blade and could very well break in a parry with a broadsword. Medieval knights fought the Muslims who used the scimitar which was similar(ish) use and design to a Katana in pronciple without any problems.

ANdy

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:33:05 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Medieval knights fought the Muslims who used the scimitar which was similar(ish0 use and design to a Katana in pronciple without any problems.

ANdy

except for losing Constantinoble........

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:42:19 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
depends on how good a samuri...
master japanese swordsmen generally ended duels in one blow that came from the drawing of the sword...

no competition

Yep. Samurai - Iaijustu is the art of drawing the sword to kill the enemy. It requires quickness and accuracy. No contest.

However Ninja vs. Samurai, I'd take the Samurai EVERY time. But that's another argument ;) And I'm biased.

Quoted:
Quoted:
Samuari = warrior/soldier
Ninja = assassin
two totally different animals.

Negative, they are not animals.

Ninja Facts:
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

For authentic info on ninjas click here

ummm... a MAMAL IS an animal....

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:43:59 AM EDT

[#8]

"Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window."

Posted: 3/14/2005 11:49:08 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Medieval knights fought the Muslims who used the scimitar which was similar(ish0 use and design to a Katana in pronciple without any problems.

ANdy

except for losing Constantinoble........

You got to give them credit tho! They were out numbered 10,000 defenders against between 100,000 and 150,000 Turks attackers, and it took the Turks two months of very bloody fighting to breach the walls.

ANdy

Posted: 3/14/2005 12:23:16 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Romans had excellent warriors but their real talent was in acting as a unit

Discipline was only part of the Roman equation. They fought with enough space between each soldier that he had room to maneuver, not with shields locked like the Greeks. And by using the shield as cover and his gladius (Roman short sword) as a STABBING weapon, and individual Roman soldier was very deadly in close combat.

Not to hijack the thread, or anything.

Posted: 3/14/2005 12:24:30 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Samurai;

Fencer would push that little tinfoil ball on the end of his really flexible stick up against the Samurai and say "Touche'!"

The Samurai would look at him like "wtf?" and then proceed to lop the fencers head off.

Bingo.

Posted: 3/14/2005 12:25:03 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Medieval knights fought the Muslims who used the scimitar which was similar(ish0 use and design to a Katana in pronciple without any problems.

ANdy

except for losing Constantinoble........

You got to give them credit tho! They were out numbered 10,000 defenders against between 100,000 and 150,000 Turks attackers, and it took the Turks two months of very bloody fighting to breach the walls.

ANdy

Crusaders SACKED Constaninople when it was an Orthodox Christian city. No muslims in that battle.

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:20:35 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Medieval knights fought the Muslims who used the scimitar which was similar(ish) use and design to a Katana in principle without any problems.

ANdy

except for losing Constantinoble........

You got to give them credit tho! They were out numbered 10,000 defenders against between 100,000 and 150,000 Turks attackers, and it took the Turks two months of very bloody fighting to breach the walls.

ANdy

Crusaders SACKED Constaninople when it was an Orthodox Christian city. No muslims in that battle.

This is true… but they did owe the Venetians money. Don't piss off Henricus Dandalo!

ANdy

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:30:13 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Samuari = warrior/soldier
Ninja = assassin
two totally different animals.

Negative, they are not animals.

Ninja Facts:
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

For authentic info on ninjas click here

Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window.

And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you don't believe that ninjas have REAL Ultimate Power you better get a life right now or they will chop your head off!!! It's an easy choice, if you ask me.

Ninjas are sooooooooooo sweet that I want to crap my pants. I can't believe it sometimes, but I feel it inside my heart. These guys are totally awesome and that's a fact. Ninjas are fast, smooth, cool, strong, powerful, and sweet. I can't wait to start yoga next year. I love ninjas with all of my body (including my pee pee).

That shit never gets old.

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:34:10 PM EDT

[#15]

Samauri. They are Japanese...so they must be tough.

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:38:31 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Well I had the choice between Kendo and Iaido. I like the idea of Iaido, cutting from the sword in hilt. One motion, drawing and cutting. It's really fun, but there's not a lot if any sparring... Kendo is more sparring, it's about what you do "after" you draw.

It's real fun.

Kendo is a sport. It has nothing to do with (IMO) japanese swordsmanship. Iaido IMO can be too far on the other end. Too meditative. It is beutiful powerful movment though.

You are both right and wrong, IMO.

Kendo is definitely a very stylized sport, and it not a "fighting" style per se. Neither is Iaido - it really IS mostly meditation, albeit with some movement involved.

However, it is also based very closely on actual training techniques, and the movement, speed, etc - is very applicable (as is the lack of real defensive moves).

I've got two answers to the orginal question.

Answer 1: BOTH would die, since the samurai woudl attack and certainly kill his opponent, whereas the "fencer" (assuming he has an actual rapier or something, not a fencing foil) would probably skewer the samurai in the torso or throat as he throws himself forward (assuming the blade pentrates whatever armor the samurai is wearing).

Answer 2: Ditka.

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:40:09 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
"Ninjas can kill anyone they want! Ninjas cut off heads ALL the time and don't even think twice about it. These guys are so crazy and awesome that they flip out ALL the time. I heard that there was this ninja who was eating at a diner. And when some dude dropped a spoon the ninja killed the whole town. My friend Mark said that he saw a ninja totally uppercut some kid just because the kid opened a window."

Back away from the bong dude, get a girlfriend or a hobby..........

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:44:22 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Answer 2: Ditka.

Give him some Levitra and it is no contest.

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:48:33 PM EDT

[#19]

Go to Sword Forum...use the search function....more data than you ever wanted to have. PS Samurai Sword vs. Rapier has historical incidents. Portugese merchants vs. Japanese Pirates....Europeans won.

Posted: 3/14/2005 2:55:39 PM EDT

[#20]

There is a recent thread in a sword forum where a fencer (rapier) and Japanese style swordsman (katana) who felt they were equally skilled in their respective weapons engaged in a series of "duels" to see if one style/weapon was superior.

Their results were 66% of the duels ended up in a mutual kill (i.e., they both achieved mortal blows at the same time). The other 34% of the duels were a toss-up between the two.

Of course their methodology was picked to pieces over the course of that thread.

Posted: 3/14/2005 3:05:22 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
There is a recent thread in a sword forum where a fencer (rapier) and Japanese style swordsman (katana) who felt they were equally skilled in their respective weapons engaged in a series of "duels" to see if one style/weapon was superior.

Their results were 66% of the duels ended up in a mutual kill (i.e., they both achieved mortal blows at the same time). The other 34% of the duels were a toss-up between the two.

Of course their methodology was picked to pieces over the course of that thread.

Holy crap

I was right about something on arfcom today!!

w00t!

Posted: 3/14/2005 3:29:17 PM EDT

[#22]

I gotta say...a lot of you guys talking like you know what you're saying haven't studied swordsmanship at all. Medieval and renaissance european swordsmen were DEFINITELY NOT HACKS. They had loads of skill. As did the samurai. It would all come down to individual training and experience, heart, and desire to win.

Posted: 3/14/2005 3:48:10 PM EDT

[#23]

I remember an episode of some show on either the history channel or TLC or something a few years back about this type of thing. They went over how a medevial knight would fair against a samurai. Their conclusion was basicly they would be evenly matched. Samurai would be quicker but the knight would have far superior armor. Blade capabilities would have been very close as the medevial blades are far better than people give credit for now days.
Quite a bit of the samurai myth came from after they became obsolete. Once there weren't any wars to fight the samurai class settled down and became more of a poet/philosophers.
As for a fencer, I have seen some of them, those boys are damn fast, I dunno how that would end up.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is the Boxer Rebellion. All the best martial artists the orient could muster got their asses handed to them by a bunch of american farm boys wielding firearms.
My money is on Joe Sixpack firing his AR/AK/Uzi/whatever into a whole crowd of the best hand to hand guys you can get together.

Posted: 3/14/2005 4:06:17 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Would depend on the fighter. It's a misconception that Samurai were some sort of uber-swordsman while Europeans were hacks. Yea, Samurai were good swordsmen but knights were often trained since childhood in combat and could be highly skilled fighters. European armor beats Japanese all to hell and blade quality on a quality Western sword could be as good as a Japanese blade.

Also, a fencer uses a much more substantial blade than many think. The skinny little thing used in competition is an Epee, not a real sword. A real rapier is a good sword, just designed for a specific purpose - thrusting fencers also have excellent footwork and parrying.

As for the original question "In other words, would a samuari stand a chance up against Roman swordman or a William Wallace type fighter? " Neither are fencers. Romans had excellent warriors but their real talent was in acting as a unit and William Wallace was nothing like "Braveheart" portrayed him. A better comparison would be Robert the Bruce, by all he was a hell of a swordsman.

They may very well be able to cut through western blades of the same time period.

Another common misconception

That's no misconception. Google it, you will find many pictures of armor and weapons that had been cut right through from katanas. It has more to do with how good the samurai is at his cutting angle. I own a katana and take Iaito classes.

Never said armor couldn't be cut with a sword, if that were so then knights would be invulnerable, which they weren't. and if the armor was cut through with a katana then it's probably Japanese armor which was crap compared to European armor.

The myth is that the Katana is some sort of lightsaber that can cleave through anything. Simply not true. Read about the Mongol invasion of Japan where the superfantastical Katanas would break against the Mongols heavier swords or get lodged in their leather armor & snap.

I happen to love Katanas & think they are among the greatest weapon designed for what they do, but too many people get this silly idea that the Samurai were unbeatable supermen with magical swords that chop cars in half, it's just silly.

Posted: 3/14/2005 4:39:02 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
I remember an episode of some show on either the history channel or TLC or something a few years back about this type of thing. They went over how a medevial knight would fair against a samurai. Their conclusion was basicly they would be evenly matched. Samurai would be quicker but the knight would have far superior armor. Blade capabilities would have been very close as the medevial blades are far better than people give credit for now days.
Quite a bit of the samurai myth came from after they became obsolete. Once there weren't any wars to fight the samurai class settled down and became more of a poet/philosophers.
As for a fencer, I have seen some of them, those boys are damn fast, I dunno how that would end up.
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is the Boxer Rebellion. All the best martial artists the orient could muster got their asses handed to them by a bunch of american farm boys wielding firearms.
My money is on Joe Sixpack firing his AR/AK/Uzi/whatever into a whole crowd of the best hand to hand guys you can get together.

Didn't see the show, but I suspect the result would really depend on the terraine where they fought. The difference in styles is largely the result of differences in the local environment. Europe is very hilly, with numerous forest, rivers, and other obstacles to break-up the land and make it hard to maneuvor. In such a situation a good tactic is to close with the enemy quickly, and overwhelm him with sheer force of arms. Heavily armored knights are perfect for this. On the other hand, a fight on the Asian steppe would go to the Samuri horse-archers, or any other competent horse archer for that matter. With greater room to maneuvor, the samuri would ride around the knights out of range of their lances and shoot them with arrows.

Posted: 3/14/2005 4:46:31 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
It would depend on whom was the better swordsman, Europe DID have a significant warrior tradition.

One that was more rooted in conventional military engagement then Japan's, The European swordsman was nothing to be taken lightly and many were trained from birth for the task and hardened in combat against enemies using dissimilar equipment.

The only reason the Japanese Samurai maintains its mystique is that firearms were banned on the islands and they persisted in maintaining swordcraft as a tradition until very near the modern age, whereas the art of the gun supplanted Swordsmanship in the west.

+1

Posted: 3/14/2005 4:56:37 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Samuari = warrior/soldier
Ninja = assassin
two totally different animals.

Negative, they are not animals.

Ninja Facts:
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

For authentic info on ninjas click here

Posted: 3/14/2005 4:58:31 PM EDT

[#28]

My moneys on Zorro the gay blade

Posted: 3/14/2005 5:26:39 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Perhaps the most important thing to remember is the Boxer Rebellion. All the best martial artists the orient could muster got their asses handed to them by a bunch of american farm boys wielding firearms.
My money is on Joe Sixpack firing his AR/AK/Uzi/whatever into a whole crowd of the best hand to hand guys you can get together.

Never discount the martial art of Ching Ching Pow.

Posted: 3/14/2005 5:30:47 PM EDT

[#30]

Too much disrespect for the European martial sword use... The samuri just have a better PR firm. The Euros just gave up on the sword about 300 years before the Japanese for the real ultimate power... Gun Fu.

Kent

Posted: 3/14/2005 8:06:03 PM EDT

[#31]

Greetings:

Katanas that can cut machinegun barrels, concrete columns, car doors... Baloney Sauce!

Ever see any samurai swordfights at theaters/tv? They parry with their edge! Baloney Sauce! They would end up with edges looking like cross cutting saws! , but no... they have perfect edges.

Please visit these websites for further information.

Regards

ACK

www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

www.thearma.org/essays.htm

Posted: 3/14/2005 8:19:30 PM EDT

[#32]

Their was a movie a long time ago about this subject. The Samauri knocked the fencer out with his bambo sword(it was a game, lets see).

Posted: 3/15/2005 3:39:02 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would depend on the fighter. It's a misconception that Samurai were some sort of uber-swordsman while Europeans were hacks. Yea, Samurai were good swordsmen but knights were often trained since childhood in combat and could be highly skilled fighters. European armor beats Japanese all to hell and blade quality on a quality Western sword could be as good as a Japanese blade.

Also, a fencer uses a much more substantial blade than many think. The skinny little thing used in competition is an Epee, not a real sword. A real rapier is a good sword, just designed for a specific purpose - thrusting fencers also have excellent footwork and parrying.

As for the original question "In other words, would a samuari stand a chance up against Roman swordman or a William Wallace type fighter? " Neither are fencers. Romans had excellent warriors but their real talent was in acting as a unit and William Wallace was nothing like "Braveheart" portrayed him. A better comparison would be Robert the Bruce, by all he was a hell of a swordsman.

They may very well be able to cut through western blades of the same time period.

Another common misconception

That's no misconception. Google it, you will find many pictures of armor and weapons that had been cut right through from katanas. It has more to do with how good the samurai is at his cutting angle. I own a katana and take Iaito classes.

Never said armor couldn't be cut with a sword, if that were so then knights would be invulnerable, which they weren't. and if the armor was cut through with a katana then it's probably Japanese armor which was crap compared to European armor.

The myth is that the Katana is some sort of lightsaber that can cleave through anything. Simply not true. Read about the Mongol invasion of Japan where the superfantastical Katanas would break against the Mongols heavier swords or get lodged in their leather armor & snap.

I happen to love Katanas & think they are among the greatest weapon designed for what they do, but too many people get this silly idea that the Samurai were unbeatable supermen with magical swords that chop cars in half, it's just silly.

lol, agreed. They were not superman. But the piece of armor that it was hacked through was a steel helmet of European design. I had a picture but I lost it. The study of the cut and the time period / location, had them narrowed it down to a katana blade. They are very well designed blades.

I LOVE european swords in comparison though. I think they're much cooler then katanas, for fighting purposes, I think the katana is a little more practical though... but then again I have no training with european longsword/broadswords. I have a William Wallace sword, it's almost as tall as I am lol

I think the battle would be a draw. Depends on the people fighting and their skill though. The rapiers are EXTREMELY quick and are very sharp at the point. As long as a Samurai was wearing traditional armor, chances are the fencer could penetrate it.

European soldiers used metal however to cover themselves, only the joints usually remained open to attack (no armor so that they could move and flex the joints)

I vote to say a European knight/soldier would do better against a fencer then a samurai would.
Knight > fencer
Samurai = Knight
Samurai = Fencer
Fencer > nothing, he has to get lucky.

Then again an archer > all....

Posted: 3/15/2005 6:46:56 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Greetings:

Katanas that can cut machinegun barrels, concrete columns, car doors... Baloney Sauce!

Ever see any samurai swordfights at theaters/tv? They parry with their edge! Baloney Sauce! They would end up with edges looking like cross cutting saws! , but no... they have perfect edges.

Please visit these websites for further information.

Regards

ACK

www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm

www.thearma.org/essays.htm

Those are the guys who claim to know the technuiqes of european sword arts.....

They dont, they are only guessing.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - So, Who Do You Think Would Win This Fight? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us