Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/13/2005 6:57:20 PM EST
A samauri swordsman up against a fencing champion?

In other words, would a samuari stand a chance up against Roman swordman or a William Wallace type fighter?

Taking into consideration that both are competent with the blade.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 6:58:17 PM EST
Samuari, they have little tricks up their sleeves like throwing stars and such
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 6:58:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By rainman:
A samauri swordsman up against a fencing champion?

In other words, would a samuari stand a chance up against Roman swordman or a William Wallace type fighter?

Taking into consideration that both are competent with the blade.



The samauri would win. More heart and less rules than a fencing champion.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:00:28 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:03:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:04:38 PM EST
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
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:05:43 PM EST
The Samari would ninja his ass during tea time.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:06:40 PM EST
I would think a good samurai sword would be able to chop a fencing sword into itty bitty pieces.




Samuari, they have little tricks up their sleeves like throwing stars and such



Isn't that just Ninjas?

Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:06:50 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sigurd:


+1 the viking would come in out of the blue and kill them both
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:08:46 PM EST
the samurai would totally flip out and chop off his head to the sound of a whaling guitar!


wait....or is that someone else?
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:09:07 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:12:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By Kooter:
I would think a good samurai sword would be able to chop a fencing sword into itty bitty pieces.




Samuari, they have little tricks up their sleeves like throwing stars and such



Isn't that just Ninjas?


Samuari = warrior/soldier
Ninja = assassin
two totally different animals.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:12:13 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2005 7:18:15 PM EST by SgtWhiting]
Last week in Bakersfield, a tenant who was mad about a cell phone bill went after his landlord with a samurai sword. He hacked up the landlord a little bit, but the landlord was able to get the sword away from the suspect. Suspect retreats back to his room, gets another samurai sword and finishes the job on the landlord. Not exactly a swordsmen, but he got the job done.

Moral of the story: Even poorly trained samurai swordsmen will kill you dead. I'll go with the samurai.

The story can be found at www.bakersfield.com/
Search the story archives for last week using key word "sword"
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:14:47 PM EST
Harrison Ford.

He'd blow both of them away.

HH
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:16:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2005 7:17:17 PM EST by Lockedon]
true samurai swords btw were among the most perfectly designed bladed weapons for their time. This may still hold true today.

They may very well be able to cut through western blades of the same time period.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:17:23 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2005 7:19:07 PM EST by Sumo2000]
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
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:17:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By MrsGloftoe:
William Wallace used a big old 66" long two handed sword. Nothing like fencing. That was plain hack and slash. Powerful, but not quick or flexible.


Samurai had their version called the No-Dachi.

My vote goes to the samurai, they just simply outclassed anything Europe could put in front of them with technique.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:27:40 PM EST
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:30:42 PM EST
How about the winner agaisnt a junkie on pcp and meth with a big crowbar.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:41:12 PM EST
Never bring a sword to a gunfight.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 7:46:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2005 7:46:58 PM EST by Stealth]

Originally Posted By MrsGloftoe:
How about a ninja vs. Inigo Montoya?



He'd fight the ninja left handed. It's the only way it'd be worth his time.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:10:03 PM EST
"fencing" is usually associated with the sport rather than combat. A comparison of a samurai to a Roman swordsman would not be apt. The Roman swordsman was part of a weapons system, the century, and if he was fighting as an individual something was very, very wrong. That's why the Romans used a short sword--he'd have a shield and be shoulder to shoulder with fellow soldiers, while a few volleys of javelins hit the enemy. The general strategy was to get inside the weapon of the opponent and stab him.

The rapier was a later deveopment, more often used by civilians as personal defense weapons rather than by the military. I think the rapier wins if he can maintain distance and get in a few disabling thrusts.

www.thearma.org/essays/katanavs.htm
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:17:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/13/2005 8:20:19 PM EST by Boom_Stick]

Originally Posted By StykUrHedUp:
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

Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:22:06 PM EST
William Wallace and Roman soldiers.. um.. those aren't fencers.. That would be more like saber fighting, not a dingy foil to poke people with.

Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:29:23 PM EST
I saw on late night tv a couple of months ago a Japanese show that posed just this question.

They pitted a fencing champion against some kinda' master Japanese swordsman. Foil vs Samurai sword. Lots of padding and such.

The fencer won.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:34:43 PM EST
sword = sharp

fencing = nothing

got my money on the samauri
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:34:58 PM EST
El Zoro would first humiliate the samauri who had the missfortune to cross swords with EL Zoro.

Then El Zoro would carry off the samauris woman and teach her love spanish style.

Meanwhile....EL Zoros magnificant black stallion will ride the poor samauris little japanese pony.



Link Posted: 3/13/2005 8:59:29 PM EST
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.
Link Posted: 3/13/2005 9:33:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By NH_AR_Shooter:
El Zoro would first humiliate the samauri who had the missfortune to cross swords with EL Zoro.

Then El Zoro would carry off the samauris woman and teach her love spanish style.

Meanwhile....EL Zoros magnificant black stallion will ride the poor samauris little japanese pony.





If I had a beer , it would be all over the screen and keyboard.

CW
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 1:03:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sumo2000:
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





+1 on what Sumo(DeathRace)2000 said.


A rapier is a smaller, lighter, faster blade. It'll still kill your ass dead with a good thrust. A katana will take your farkin head off with a good shot. Perhaps a good rapierist () could nail a samurai with a thrust to the heart while the samurai was swinging. Perhaps the samurai would take the rapierist's arm off. I think a good European-style swordsman would be well-matched against a good samurai.


Sumo is right about the Romans. They weren't uber-swordsman, they just had good tactics that were some of the most advanced of their day, and did well acting as a unit. Most of the strength of the Roman legions were in their phalanx formation. It had nothing to do with excellent swordsmanship like most people think of it. It was more about staying shoulder to shoulder with your buddy, keeping your shield up, and thrusting that gladius in your right hand like a madman. There's really more to it than that, but that's the gist of it. Once you break the phalanx, the individual legionary loses a lot of combat power. The Germanic barbarians did just that when they pwned Legios XVII, XVIII, and XIX in 9 AD at the battle of Teutoburg Vald by drawing them into the trees and fux0ring up their formation. These three legions were massacred so thoroughly that we don't even know their legion names today, and their numbers were retired and never used again.

That being said, if you consider Roman tactics most of the samurais would be squealing like pigs on the ground with a pilium firmly embedded in their gut before they ever came into gladius range.


This question is a lot like "who would win this fight? A blackbelt in karate or Oscar de la Hoya?" A lot of people would give short shrift to de la Hoya 'because he's just a boxer and only uses his hands.' They don't consider that de la Hoya is a professional athlete who is well-conditioned, has great handwork, and good footwork. There's a reason Bruce Lee studied Western-style boxing.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 1:05:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By MrsGloftoe:
How about a ninja vs. Inigo Montoya?





That depends....

Did the ninja kill Inigo Montoya's father?


Inconceivable! I bet Inigo would be smart enough to not get involved in a land war in Asia, or go in against a Sicilian when death was on the line!!


Anybody want a peanut?
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 1:11:13 AM EST
I'll pu t my dinero on Inigo Montoya.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 1:27:10 AM EST
Ever see Highlander ? He kicks everybodys ass with a samurai sword.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 1:55:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By KOW:
Ever see Highlander ? He kicks everybodys ass with a samurai sword.





Ah, yes. But he is a Scot trained in Medieval European sword techniques.

What a conundrum.

Here's a better question:


Who would win in this fight?


A samurai, or Darth Vader?


My money's on the Sith. Samurai don't have The Force or a lightsaber that can cleave through high-tech StarWarsian alloys. w00t
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 2:01:36 AM EST
rapiers are a lot longer and more lethal than you guys think.

just because they dressed like fags, doesn't mean they were!
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 2:22:28 AM EST

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

I saw a old B&W film of a samuri duel made in early 1900's. In formal duel both drew swords bowed and got it on. In old jumpy film about one second later one guys arm falls off. Duels did not last long.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:30:36 AM EST
Ok. granted, I don't know much about sword fighting. And I could have worded my question much better. Maybe a Three Musketeer up against a samurai. Basically, I meant a longer sword with the fancy footwork up against a, probably short, stocky guy that has a shorter sword who thrusts and slashes.

So far, it seems that a samurai is not the ultimate swordsman.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:42:33 AM EST
I saw a video of some UK stuntmen who were reproducing the techniques for two-handed swords. Thats the 6' monster swords. Talk about a buzzsaw. You'd think it would be slow and clumsy. Wrong, very fast and hard. Looked like a combination of sword use, staff use, dagger, and axe, as they used every surface of the sword.

I'd think if the Samurai didn't win in the first few seconds, he'd be in trouble. It also depends on the type of fencer. A "real" fencer ala the Three Musketeers would give a samurai real trouble.

Also, "would win" is a misnomer, how about "win most fights", or "win 3 of 5"?
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:43:44 AM EST
You guys keep forgetting Darth Vader. He's the ultimate.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:44:16 AM EST
I'll take the Three Musketeer over the samurai everytime. I love the creamy nougat center!


Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:46:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By SgtWhiting:
Last week in Bakersfield, a tenant who was mad about a cell phone bill went after his landlord with a samurai sword. He hacked up the landlord a little bit, but the landlord was able to get the sword away from the suspect. Suspect retreats back to his room, gets another samurai sword and finishes the job on the landlord. Not exactly a swordsmen, but he got the job done.

Moral of the story: Even poorly trained samurai swordsmen will kill you dead. I'll go with the samurai.

The story can be found at www.bakersfield.com/
Search the story archives for last week using key word "sword"



He should have used an axe like they do in England.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:46:35 AM EST
Samuari
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:48:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By jdgiii:
I'll take the Three Musketeer over the samurai everytime. I love the creamy nougat center!


members.tripod.com/snickers99/thumb/3musketeers_t.jpg



smartass



Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:50:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/14/2005 9:53:21 AM EST by WaWaTuSi]

Originally Posted By AssaultRifler:
Samuari, they have little tricks up their sleeves like throwing stars and such





Dood those are Ninjas... Samurai don't use those...



pfft....

WIth that though... A fully armored samurai and his razor sharp Katana would dipsatch the fencer and his pointy little rapier with little fuss...


Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:53:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sumo2000:
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.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 9:56:35 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/14/2005 9:58:17 AM EST by WaWaTuSi]

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
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.



Is yours a razor sharp Katana? I thought you guys used a dulled type katana called an IAITO and not a true Katana.


I have the latter....


Link Posted: 3/14/2005 10:00:53 AM EST
We use the iaito for practicing form or technique.

I personally own a Bugei Crane. My Sensai doesn't allow cutting in his classes, and he doesn't insist on cutting, he says form and meditation is all you need. He goes more into spiritual art of Iaido then actual cutting.

I perform cutting on my on leisure, with the Crane though. I haven't been doing the cutting for long though.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 10:04:40 AM EST

Originally Posted By HottNikkels069:
We use the iaito for practicing form or technique.

I personally own a Bugei Crane. My Sensai doesn't allow cutting in his classes, and he doesn't insist on cutting, he says form and meditation is all you need. He goes more into spiritual art of Iaido then actual cutting.

I perform cutting on my on leisure, with the Crane though. I haven't been doing the cutting for long though.




Form and meditation is all you need if form and meditation is what you are after. Why I never got into Iaido. I have a custom Bugei and cut all the time.... Love it....


Link Posted: 3/14/2005 10:08:43 AM EST
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.

Do you have the L6?
God that sword is sexy... I love my Crane though.
Link Posted: 3/14/2005 10:10:09 AM EST
Samurai wins...





Link Posted: 3/14/2005 10:10:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By rainman:
Maybe a Three Musketeer up against a samurai.



Wouldn't the musketeer rather blow away the samurai with his musket?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top