Japanese Samurai VS. European Knights

[MIZILUS]

I always wondered what combat would have been like between the medieval knights of Europe and Japanese Samurai, both single combat and large battles. I am sure alot would depend on the individuals involved and such.
I think the Japanese would give the Europeans a serious run for their money if not flat out out-class them.
The Europeans may have had beter armor but I think the Japanese had better training and weaponry...in some cases anyway.
Anyhow, what do you all think if you care to discuss it?

[whyidie]

Here are MY thoughts on this topic. Typed out from my own fingers of course.

Romans used archers from the eastern Mediterannean who had some very powerful composite bows. I don't know what the draw strength and bow power were compared to Japanese weapons were, but any how bows weren't going to defeat Roman legions, at least not the way the Japanese used them. As to one on one combat then yes probably a samurai would've come out tops. But that's purely because the Romans were conditioned to fight as a unit not an individual. There are stories of Roman generals executing their sons for taking part in one on one combat after they were ordered not to. No Roman would have gone out to fight a samurai on his own. The Roman phalanx didn't need breaking as such. After Gladiator it's too easy to think of what Roman legionaries did there as real life tactics. It's fiction. The Romans fought in what might be refered to as a loose phalanx, but that suggests still something along the Greek lines. THe system of cohorts and or maniples alllowed battle lines to rotate and fresh troops to be brought up easily without disrupting the battle line.
as to projectile support that was primarily for sieges and the like, there was some use of it on the battlefield, but people like to exxagerate, Romans didn't have the same concept of artillery support we do. What gladiator shows is more akin to a WWI battle than a Roman one. No Napalm i'm afraid, and though if the next game is Roman and has these weapons in I'll buy it, but i'll never use them."


For more of my thoughts on this topic go here (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000890.html).

[solypsist]

christ this topic again?

[Khan7]

Well put about the historical accuracy, or rather the near total lack thereof, of Gladiator, which for some reason people like to worship (go figure). It wasn't even that good period IMO.

The Romans made limited use of archers, and the vast majority of them were captured enemy. Of course due to the difficulty of acquiring captured enemies with the special skill of archery, the auxilliary skirmishers were more often given javelins, or slings with which to hurl a wide variety of implements in the direction of the enemy. But I believe they trained very few, if any at all, archers of their own.

Two things though--

The Roman legion does not resemble a phalanx in any way. Not one. All of the things that are characteristic of the phalanx, the legion lacks, and vice versa. Plain and simple. In fact, the Roman legion can almost be said the be the very antithesis of the phalanx. I hope I will not have to lengthily explain this.

.

PLUS-- THIS IS NOT EVEN THE TOPIC!!!! We are supposed to be discussing European knights, an almost PURELY *POST-ROMAN* phenomenon. Perhaps we shall now get back on track.

Matt

[whyidie]

:lol while I'd like to take credit for my post above, those are actually the words of another user.

OT I was! Romans are not knights...

[Idaho]

I think the Japanese would have been superior in skill to the Europeans - but I think they would have been cut to pieces by the English longbow, as so many others were.

[Chiyonofuji]

This topic is analysed at graet length in this very interesting article:-
http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

Read and enjoy!


------------------
I wouldn't join any club that would have ME as a member!.

[Catiline]

Whyidie those are my thoughts http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

To remain OT the Legion was not the antithesis of the phalanx Khan, it was a development of it. The system was effectively hte phalanx massively loosened and given a ranged capability. Compared to the Macedonian phalanx the difference is marked, but I htink htat's because we can see two different developments. The Roman legions were developed from the Italian and Etruscan formations htat were in turn developed from hte systems htey met in Greek Italy. They developed the looser formations to fight enemies like the Samnites in terrain where looser formations were needed. But follow the development and there are IMO a series of clear steps. The Romans had an ability to take what was best of other military cultures and then to refine and blend it.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[RyuRatta Yamamoto]

It is a huge myth that all samurai were expremely well-trained, master swordsmen. It is aqn even bigger myth that there was no "martial art" in medieval europe. The difference is that much of the training and skill sets have been maintained in Japan, while the Europeanslet their arts die out as they moved on to other methods of warfare. There has been quite a renaisance lately in the study of medieval arms manuals, and trying to recreate the medieval martial art. Contrary to what hollywood would have us believe, European armed combat was much more than just a couple of dudes in gargatuan tin suits banging on each other with dull iron bars.
I would posit that the average skill level of professional warriors on either side would be roughly equal. Assuming equal leadership (there were exellent and miserable commanders everywhere), the contest comes down to miltary technology, and I believe that the superior armor of the euros would tell.

[Red Peasant]

Quite correct Ryu, part of the Royal Armouries' work in England is to interpret what is left of European manuals on fighting with a variety of medieval weaponry. I've seen reconstructions and re-enactions on a BBC programme that where very interesting, and even compared it in detail with samurai methods of single combat. The skills were extensive, intricate and complex, and so must have taken years to perfect through rigorous training regimes. But I can't remember what the damned prog was! I keep meaning to go to the Armouries to see the re-enactments live when I get round to it.

------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[This message has been edited by Red Peasant (edited 10-11-2001).]

[Tachikaze]

One-on-one, a samurai would clean a medieval knight's clock (kick his ass, mop the floor with him, dust his butt, defeat him). Not only was he a better hand-to-hand fighter, he was often trained in archery on foot or on horseback, and unarmed combat. His armor was lighter, and his sword quicker and sharper.

Samurai were equipped to fight on horseback or on foot. Knights were equipped mainly for mounted warfare.

In a large battle, the Europeans would outclass the Japanese until the Sengoku period. At that time, I think they would be roughly equal, with the win going to the best leadership and training.

[Vanya]

BUT... European Knight vs Samurai vs Palestinian Jihadi...?

The Jihadi will die for sure, but invariably 'win' by gaining access to heaven if his confrontation with the knight and samurai was in Allah's name, whereas the infidel knight and samurai are condemned to hell no matter if they live or die. But then, if the Jihadi survives (ie, *wins* the battle) then he has failed in his overall mission of sacrificing his life for God.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[solypsist]

i dunno, i guess the jihaadi would win post-death, but it's hard to battle against dynamite strapped to one's chest and deadman switch.
kinda makes swords silly. lol

[MIZILUS]

Well EA needs to make a game of it. Call it "Good vs. Evil" or "bush family private war vs. Terrorism" or "The end of the world as we know it". Just think what a good investment this game would be, you'd never finish it!!

[RyuRatta Yamamoto]

Horsepucky. Why do you think he was a better trained hth fighter? Because you know the word karate, or Bushido? Could a Japanese war arrow penetrat the European armor? The arrows of the Arabs during the crusades weren't too effective at that; One of the chronicles of the crusades tells about Richard riding back and forth in front of the enemy lines, taunting them, as hundreds of arrows were fired at him. When he rode back to his own lines, there were many arrows sticking into his clothing, but none had penetrated his armor (or his skin).
Knights WERE trained to fight on foot as well as on horseback, to believe otherwise is to be a victim of myth. As far as Samurai armor being lighter; again, myth. Chainmail is chainmail, and weighs the same whether it is made in Japan or Germany. As far as European plat goes, which we could assume a good deal of if we are talking about a late 14th or 15th century campaign; that stuff is NOT nearly as heavy as you think it is. I have two different sets of armor; one 11th c lamellar (leather plates laced together), and a late 15th c set of partial plate. The overall encumbrance of each is about the same. The myth of the Euro knight having to be hoisted onto his horse is just that, another myth.

Scripsit Tachikazi:
Quote Originally posted by Tachikaze:
One-on-one, a samurai would clean a medieval knight's clock (kick his ass, mop the floor with him, dust his butt, defeat him). Not only was he a better hand-to-hand fighter, he was often trained in archery on foot or on horseback, and unarmed combat. His armor was lighter, and his sword quicker and sharper.
Samurai were equipped to fight on horseback or on foot. Knights were equipped mainly for mounted warfare.
In a large battle, the Europeans would outclass the Japanese until the Sengoku period. At that time, I think they would be roughly equal, with the win going to the best leadership and training.[/QUOTE]
edited for Soly http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif



[This message has been edited by RyuRatta Yamamoto (edited 10-11-2001).]

[solypsist]

to whom it may concern: learn to use the UBB codes properly and judiciously if you're going to use them at all.
thx

[RyuRatta Yamamoto]

whoops, my bad. So sorry to have offended your delicate sensibilities.
I actually thought I had acidentally deleted the quote command.

[Tachikaze]

I've read descriptions of knights falling from horseback and not being able to defend themselves properly on foot. I've seen suits of European armor specifically designed for protection while mounted, but which did not adequately cover a standing soldier.

As far as arrow penetration, you would have to specify the era. Mongol horse archers had a field day versus European knights. Later knights had heavier and more-deflective armor to counter arrows, but that was even more cumbersome. Anti-arquebus armor (like Maximillian) was extremely thick and heavy. A warrior on foot would tire very quickly trying to fight in that stuff. The joints are designed for only a limited number of limb movements, and, unlike samurai dô, the torso did not allow twisting at the waist. A man would look like an idiot trying to fight on foot in that armor. Do you want to talk about visibility?

European knights were much more specialized than samurai for mounted warfare, which is one of the reasons Europeans would probably win a large field battle versus pre-Sengoku Japanese.

[MIZILUS]

About mounted warfare, has anyone ever seen "the Seven Samurai?" The scene where an archer and a spearman (both mounted) are allowed through the defenders lines...While a European lance is longer the expertise in which the japanese spearman used his yari was nothing less than inspiring http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I am not sure how the japanese would have handled a charge of heavy cavalry though.
As far as armor is concerned I dont imagine that either side would have all that many "well armored" soldiers.. peasants on either side wouldnt have all that much in the way of armor and I imagine both sides would have many peasants as soldiers.

[Khan7]

Well, we do know for a fact that Knights (or, as is more appropriate, "men-at-arms"), did fight on foot. This was a tactic used throughout the Hundred Years War. For instance I remember specifically that in the first big battle, "[insert name here]", the English dismounted their men-at-arms and had them stand in the front in a trench and fight with their lances. French charge, archers on the wings blacken the sky, and the men-at-arms are decisive when the French dash foolishly upon their rock-solid line. You get the picture-- French defeat so bad it's almost funny.

Of course the next big battle, "[insert name here]", I believe the French, seeing how well it worked for the Enlish, dismouted THEIR men-at-arms and went to fight. They just didn't quite realize that this only worked when **DEFENDING**. Another pathetic and amusing French defeat..

Anyway, I can't comment any more except to provide these excerpts, and to comment that I know for a fact that Knights and men-at-arms were at the least TRAINED extensively in un-mounted combat..

Matt

[Catiline]

During the Wars of the roses the English Knights fought almost exclusively on foot, hence in many cases the terrible casualties among the nobility after their defeat, they couldn't flee fast enough, eg hte Earl of warwick cut down after Barnet. THis also accounts for the Halberd formation, the chopping weapons hugely efficient against a foot opponent, not so effective, though still relatively so, against mounted.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[TakaRatta Yamamoto]

As a person who has personally fought in plate i can assure you the accounts you speak of are exagerations. Period authors had a way of stretching the truth to almost a point of absurdity. The armor the Lionheart fought in during the early crusades did not, in fact, deflect the arrows. A felt gambeson underneath a chain shirt has amazing arrow stopping qualities, as a few people i do re-enactment with have demonstrated to each other by making a dummy, putting a felt gambeson then a chain shirt, like they wore in period, and shooting, both directly and indirectly. You would be amazed at the results. Most likely, the arrow gets stuck in the chain, and lodges itself into the felt jsut enough to be stuck, but no penetration. We (my group of re-enactor friends) have some very heated discusions over this, so it drives them out to see how effective arrows actually were against chain and felt. If you think, for a moment that the Europeans would have fought in armor so restrictive as to not allow hip movement, which you MUST have to properly swing a sword, you are gravely mistaken. Try it, grab a stick, and just use your arm to throw shots. You will soon discover that it is not the best way to go about it. I did, although it took me a while (i still have a tendency to not use my hips, and my shoulder lets me know about it the next day!!)i have unlearned that particular habit.

I am not saying that i feel either one had an advantage, just relaying what my research has shown me...

[Khan7]

Anyway, a little more of the OT discussion..

Well, Catiline.. the basic jist I've gotten from my own sources is sort of--

"Hoplites! Hoplites.. formed into 'phalanxes', of course not true phalanxes.. so ON TO THE MACEDONIANS! The Macedonian Phalanx, the one true Phalanx.. blah blah *five pages later*.. and that's the deal with the Macedonians.. on to the ROMAN Era!"

So the way it has been constructed with me pretty much ruled out other units that were *called* Phalanxes (but didn't operate in the Macedonian manner) as inferior and insignificant. I don't know much of anything about these other, early Greek "phalanxes", but I can guess that perhaps they were essentially hoplites packed together more closely and more densely than normal..

Anyway, the line of reasoning I base my perception of the disparity between a Legion and a Phalanx, is based on my knowledge of the Macedonian Phalanx, and goes about like this--

What defines a Phalanx?

-Long Spears
-Well-armoured
-VERY tightly packed
-VERY rigid formation
-16 ranks, first five point spears forward

Hence--

-Frontally impregnable (almost) wall of spears
-Difficult maneuvering, and severe flank vulnerability

Now lets do a more brief overview of Legion characteristics--

-Sword and Pilum
-Well-armoured
-Formation that was designed to be fluid and adaptable
-Emphasis on offense, feared for their charge (especially the more primitive forms, before Scipio Africanus et al)

So, let's see.. the only real similarities we can see here are the quality of the armor, their dominant nature, the fear they inspire and their lasting fame.

If a Phalanx in any way tries to be fluid or flexible, it dies. If it even *TRIED* to charge, you would basically end up with a whole lot of tripping and trampling, which would lead to more tripping, and more trampling, with probably some accidental stabbings and general chaos enough to pretty much rout the entire lot of them to halt their movement and make their emminent rout a foregone conclusion. Not that Phalanxes didn't advance or execute any offensive manuevers, but they certainly *did not* charge.

Plus the Phalanx doesn't have that nice Pilum..

A further analogy can be made thus-- take one legionaire out of a whole legion and you've got a guy with a Pilum to chuck, and good armor and a shield and sword, still ready to go kick some A. Take one Phalangite out of a Phalanx and you've just got a guy in nice Greek armor, standing there looking very stupid with a comically oversized spear.

So, a Phalanx wins by impregnable defensive qualities and sheer mass, whereas a Legion, though not overly vulnerable to an enemy charge even if caught flat-footed (they worked it out nicely with their shields), is most effective when trotting up to 50 yards of the enemy line, hurling their Pila, and charging into the resulting chaos.

Ehh.. me believes I have spoken perhaps too lengthily.. well anyways, hope that makes evident my reasoning here :-) Sorry if I hurt your feelings before, Catiline :-( hehe

Matt

[solypsist]

hey that's great. i guess the topic has changed from samurais vs. knights into samurais vs. roman legionnaires.
next question: samurai vs. mongols. no wait, that's been done. okay, what about samurai vs. samurai? ha! yes, against each other! oh no, that's been done, too. okay! i know! samurai vs. mother nature! haha! a tsunami against the superior sword craft of japanese masters! yes. that's it. um, well...not really. okay...so much for this. samurai vs. cartoon samurai? digital samurai vs. other digital soldiers from other games....?
nevermind.

[LordTed]

How about samurai v counter strike bots or something....

[Koga No Goshi]

Even individual skill level aside, just take a look at how efficiently and with what frequency even relatively small clans could put huge armies into the field versus the relatively small and poorly equipped armies of feudal European kingdoms. Even relatively "minor" clan battles in Japan involved armies of up to 20-30,000 on each side, not to mention the "major" ones.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Hokusai"
Now as a spirit
I shall roam
the summer fields.

[Red Peasant]

It is a common misconception, but the troops of the Macedonian Phalanx were not heavily armoured. However, the elite Hypaspist regiment of Alexander's army probably had more protection than the rest. The 'classic' Macedonian Phalanx relied more on its density, weight, cohesion and 'hedge' of very long pikes. Hence, when the better armoured Roman legionary got in amongst them with his superior armour, lethal short sword and body-shield he could wreak havoc. The Legion was more adaptable than the Phalanx as it could operate in dense formations OR in open order as the situation required. A big failing of Alexander's successors was that they generally neglected the more mobile aspects of Phillip/Alexander's tactics in the usage of light and heavy cavalry as well as competent auxiliaries.

------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[Khan7]

Hmm.. I suppose then the Phalangite would rely on the dense vertical hedge of spears over his head to protect him from missle fire?? Interesting point RP.

Yes, Alexanders successors did manage to bumble it up rather throgoughly, and not just for the reasons RP mentioned. By the time of the Roman conquest they also had scrapped the uniform 12-ft. Sarissa model. Now they were using an intruiguing but fundamentally flawed arrangement-- 9ft. Sarissas for the first rank, with gradually increasing lengths up to the fifth rank with their massive 23-footers, so that all the spearpoints came out and made one fearsome wall.

..which is all fine and good if everyone keeps in good order and gets attacked from the front. But the added rigidity in the Phalanx's 'evolution' in reality detracted from its overall effectivess..

Matt

[Tachikaze]

While a man can swing a sword without twisting the hips much, a samurai is reasonably agile in armor. The hips and legs are fairly free of encumberance. I would not call a knight in more than a chainmail hauberk (i.e. addition of a significant amount of plate) "agile". I'm not really thinking about the ability to use a weapon as much as to mobility.

The samurai is certainly not as well armored as the later European knights, especially for mounted fighting. But in a one-on-one confrontation, I think agility has advantages over protection, hence the development of the rapier and cuirassier by the 17th Century. By the 13th-14th Century knights were becoming increasingly specialized, in armor and weaponry, towards being mounted shock troops.

For all of you arguing for dismounted men-at-arms, a knight is either a baron or a cavalier (chevalier, horseman). A men-at-arms is not neceassarily either of those. In fact "men-at-arms" is often used to distinguish professional soldiers from noble knights.

I don't know what Mizilus had in mind with his original question, but I am comparing a medieval cavalier (lance, shield, full armor, sidearms) to a samurai (yari, tachi, bow, full armor).

[MIZILUS]

Yeah I was thinking along the lines of "knight in shining armour" vs. "Bushido Samurai".. I dont think Phalanxes or legions would fare very well against against either.

[solypsist]

you're also seeming to imply (most of you) that the definition of the word "knight" implies full field-plate. of course, there was no such thing as "standard-issue" armor for knights at any time, unlike samurai (which are more specific than "Japanese warrior circa 1530), so you'd really have to narrow your European counterpart down rather than using such a broad generalization.

[Tachikaze]

Maybe we're going on the assumption that it is "the epitome of a knight" vs. "the epitome of a samurai" (i.e. both in full regalia), since it's all hypothetical anyway.

I mean, they could face each other naked and and empty-handed and still be a knight and a samurai.

[MarkF]

Quote Originally posted by Idaho:
I think the Japanese would have been superior in skill to the Europeans - but I think they would have been cut to pieces by the English longbow, as so many others were.[/QUOTE]

Im sorry if someone has alreay replied to this... But Idaho I would doubt that the English longbow has a chance against composite longbow. Since the composite has much greater streanght so for the longbow to balance this it has to be much much longer. Wich makes the composite bow more flexibile and also it can be fired from horseback..

[jomni]

You guys talked about weaponry, armor, and tactics but you forgot about one very important thing... DISCIPLINE. The Japanese will surely win on this one. They just won't give up the fight as the Americans experienced during WW2 (a time when Bushido is already dying). What more during the era of the samurai.

[Catiline]

No I'm thicker skinned than htat Khan, you should've learnt that by now.

i htink we've got crossed wires, in many essential respects i agree with you, i'm not suggesting the legion was a phalanx formation, but that there were aspects of it that strongly reflected the phalanx.

My description of the legion as fighting as a loose phalanx was based on two things. Firstly it's evident development from hte Greek phalanx. Admittedly there were demographic peculiarities about the Roman system, but when it comes down to it the basis of early Roman legions were little different to greek phalangites. I should have made it clearere that this is based not on the Macedonian phalanx, as i said hte legion and macedonian phalanx were two different developments and evolutions, and clearly the Macedonian pike formation was a purer form, but the fact that the pike phalanx evolved does not preclude us from regarding the legion as fighting in a phalanx like manner.

Secondly I think it provides a more accurate description of Roman tactics than the idea that the were permanently formed into a testudo (the tortoise formation). It's a prevalent idea, only superceded perhaps by the wonders of gladiator in suggesting it was all charging in with swords waving in an undisciplined mass.

The legions fought in a closed formation, relying on focused weight of numbers and unit coherency and discipline. as for the charge that can't have been much more than a trot, those big shields would not have made running easy. Ferocious, and heavy, but the macedonian and Greek phalanxes were capable of something similar and a slow surge forward is going to do the job one way or the other.

as to equipment, it depends when we're looking at the legions which defeated Hannibal and the Successor states contained triarii as a rear line reserve, admittedly not expected to fight, but equipped with long spears who would have fought in phalanx formation if called upon to do so at all. THe idea of the legionary as some sort of uber warrior with a balanced range of equipment is inaccurate. There are of course differences, but during the Republic Rome's army was very much a citizen militia, equipping itselfand being raised only when needed.

As to succesor phalanx i know they extended the pike to upto 25ft and deepened formation, as RP suggested they lost the flexibility of the formation through neglection of the other arms, and using troops of lesser quality than the Macedonians. I've never seen isuggested that there was a range of lengths toi present one hedge, indeed i thought much of the point was that after you got past the first rank there were 4 or 5 more to go before thetroops themselves were reached. I'd be interested to know where you got that information, none of my reading has ever suggested that.

THe Roman legionary was not the uberwarrior we tend to think of him as either in terms of equipment of skill. The strength of the legion was in discipline and depth, much the same as the phalanx.

As to the legion against the medieval knight or the samurai there is no contest legions everytime. At it's height the legion would have defeated any force until the adoption of gunpowder as the main weapon. For one thing Legions generally operated grouped in 2 to 4 strong formations. add to this a roughly equal number of allied troops and we're looking at 20-40, 000 troops, bigger than most European armies of the middle ages. THe training and equipment was better, the command chain better. THey'd have thrashed anthing medieval could throw at them and anything japan could. Maybe there individual samurai or Knight was of greater skill and better equipped than a legionary, though after 25 years of training I'd expect a veteran imperial legionary to be able to hold his own, but no Roman would have fought individually. The legion was what one the battle, not the legionary.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Khan7]

Well, Cat, I must admit that about 60 or so percent of my knowledge of classical warfare comes from poring through the help files for the Great Battles series of computer games. Rather well done games, based on some great old board games. The help files are EXTENSIVE, and among other things have lengthy and detailed battle descrips, and are overall very well-written IMO, and I've never had reason to doubt their historical accuracy. Probably they even have a few useful bibliographical references in there too, I think..

Anyway, this is the quote which talks about the variable-length sarissas--

>>"A formation of shoulder-to-shoulder hoplites used in Greek warfare since around the 7th century BC and perfected by the Macedonians. By the era of Roman ascendancy, the phalanx had reached the zenith of its development. The front ranks now used a shortened, 9-foot spear, while the fifth rank used an immense 21-footer, with the length of the sarissa of intervening ranks of corresponding lengths. This allowed the phalanx to present an almost impenetrable wall of spears. Tangentially, as a Roman legionary needed room to swing his sword while the phalangite simply had to remain in place, the ratio of spears to legionary was often (and usually) 10-1!! The trick –and the catch – was the phalanx remaining “in place”! The make-up of a phalanx often varied form country to country, depending on weapon type and training. The ultimate decider, in game terms, was how they were trained tactically."

[Catiline]

Well the space for the sword is covered by the loosening of the formation I referred to, but it's probably not as great a space as you'd think, given that they were leading with the shield and the gladius was primarily a thrusting weapon, the idea being effectively to stamp fowards with the left foot, stabbing though and up into the belly with the blade., preferably whilst knocking hte enemy of balance with the shield barge. I don't know how much you get pictures of riot police on TV in the US, but here the shields they use are similar to the Roman Scutum, and they tend to keep in fairly tight formation, being better equipped and armoured than your French lorry drivers or communist students, but almost always outnumbered, they keep in tight formation even when adopting aggressive tactics, I suspect legion tactics were very similar, if rahter more refined (if that can be said of anything where the aim is to spill someone elses guts).

The Macedonian phalanx stuff is interesting, though as I said I've never seen anything else along htose lines, I'm guessing maybe there's been a confusion along the lines, some of the ancient sources where all this info is ultimately derived are ambiguous to say the least. Either they were looking back into history themselves when they were written, and hence contain inconsistencies, or were contewmporary to what they describe, and hence don't bother to cover minutiae that they consider to be common knowledge or plain obvious. 2000 years of plain obvious tends to be 2000 years absolutely no idea.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[jomni]

LOL! from a discussion of medieval combat, this thread turned into a discussion of classical combat. Talk about straying. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Tachikaze]

That's not too bad. Usually a topic on medieval combat strays to San Francisco's public transit system, or the Queen Mum's favorite TV show, or the merits of eating pork.

[jomni]

Wanna know who will win? Get a copy of Soul Calibur and play Mitsurugi against Sigfreid. =D

[RyuRatta Yamamoto]

Tachikaze, I would bet that you are thinking about one or several of the suits of Henry VIII's, with the articulated butt plates, etc, or something similar. Those suits were not really functional, more of a show-off thing: "look what MY armorers can do...". They are technology for the sake of technology. A real set of armor, plate legs, arms, a breast and back with faulds and tassets does not hinder one from using their hips. You can do somersaults in it.
the armor that you see that was designed STRICTLY for use on horseback is jousting armor. SPORT equipment, not tools of war.

[Tachikaze]

I'll take your word for it. I've only worn mail. I have more experience with Japanese armor, which is heavy, but very flexible.

A notable charateristic of Japanese armor is that it has no extraneous pieces. There are gaps in the mail and plate that allow greater movement (and circulation). These areas are covered with panels and pieces that are non-restrictive.

The European battle armor I'm familiar with (not full plate, mostly mail) isn't as efficient that way.

I saw Tony Curtis do somersaults in plate armor, but of course, it was movie costume.

[Catiline]

I've seen some acrobatic reinactors in full plate, cart wheels, somersaults and the like. Very impressive.

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[Tachikaze]

So, while the knight is doing gymnastics, the samurai will calmly run him through.

Victory: Japan

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[MIZILUS]

LOL

[Koga No Goshi]

Tachi's posts make me smile.



------------------
Koga no Goshi

"Hokusai"
Now as a spirit
I shall roam
the summer fields.

[Tachikaze]

It's not me, Koga, it's that silly cyan grinning smily. Gets me every time.
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Vanya]

Well... just between the Knight and the Sasmurai... the Knight wins. Here is why:

The Samurai looks forward to death in battle. Through meditation he seeks oneness with the earth and a metaphysical intercourse with Buddha. Thus, he will not fend off death, but welcome it. This suicidal nature will mean death is certain.

The Knight, on the other hand, has no such glorious aspirations -- just the bashing of the opponents skull into mush. Plus, as a envoy of The One True Faith, he will be spared defeat while in combat against a better soldier because the meek shall inherit the earth (if you're Jewish, that's 'Oith').

But arguably, the Knight is stronger, whereas the Samurai is more agile.

Now, if the Samurai is Christian, the Knight is SOL...

[BakaGaijin]

Enough with this silly Knight vs. Samurai stuff. Let's talk about something interesting, like Ninja vs. Marine Recon Sniper.

Obviously, the Sniper has the advantage of firepower and range. But the Ninja, having a mystical mastery of the dark arts, is able to run at full speed across a field in broad dayling wearing his black pajamas and still be perfectly invisible and silent. So I'd say it could go either way.

[Forward Observer]

Say, I've always wondered about this, and this thread is the perfect place to ask. How did one of those knights in full armor manage to relieve his bladder or his bowels?

Were there little hinged rear and front trap doors or "johnson" armor or what? Curious minds want to know.

------------------
Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl.

[Papewaio]

"You guys talked about weaponry, armor, and tactics but you forgot about one very important thing... DISCIPLINE. The Japanese will surely win on this one. They just won't give up the fight as the Americans experienced during WW2 (a time when Bushido is already dying). What more during the era of the samurai."

The British Red Coats discipline was very impressive and that was descended from their military traditions, which the knights formed part of. The japanese started trading with the brits because they found out about this martial valour... small island with solidiers who fight to the death for their leige.

------------------
Victory first, Battle last.

[Vanya]

Quote Originally posted by Forward Observer:
Say, I've always wondered about this, and this thread is the perfect place to ask. How did one of those knights in full armor manage to relieve his bladder or his bowels?

Were there little hinged rear and front trap doors or "johnson" armor or what? Curious minds want to know.

[/QUOTE]

I know the answer to this one, as I once was a master armor-maker in the jungles of Colombia for the death squads that run amok over there. (Yes, these madmen *DO* race around the country in full armor and chain-mail suits to protect them from snipers in the Colombian army or the Marxist guerillas...)

The knight has a tube stuck up his arse that leads to an escape 'vent' in the backside of the suit. Similarly, a catheter is inserted into the urethra, which conducts the urine to a similar exhaust mechanism.

Thus, when the knight 'feels the urge', he just 'lets it rip', for relief will 1. be immediate, 2. he will not soil himself because these artificially inserted evacuation mechanisms will ensure the waste is deposited outside the armor suit, and 3. the introduction of foul waste into a pitched battle can turn the tide to his favor when the opponent catches a whiff of the excrement.

Now, what the ingenious Colombians added to this was an optional nozzle to the buttocks area of the armor (attacheable). This way, a comrad can ignite an exhaust vent from the rear 'vent' that can produce modest propulsion to the wearer.

If you think this is all nonsense, then ask yourself this: HOW DO ASTRONAUTS RELIEVE THEMSELVES IN ORBIT? But relax, I now work for NASA and am improving the life of astronauts in space with these vital skills I learned in the coke-infested jungles of Colombia... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by Vanya (edited 10-17-2001).]

[Irving]

uhh... i think i'd rather part my kimono and loincloth to take a leak than have a tube.. ugh.. inserted into my uerethra.. however it is spelled

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Khan7]

I may not go for everything Vanya posts, but this one is good. LOFL! Very good. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------
-Matt

Visit the Center for the Enrichment of Shogun Total War here (http://www.shoguntw.artshost.com/index.html).

[NoFearWonton]

I have Soul Calibur, and after extensive testing i have conluded that due to the cheapness-factor of mitsurugi's run and upper-cut with sword move, that a samurai would win. but no, that is not the correct answer, because, if you all would choose to remember, european knights (at about the same time as samurai) wore like 90 LBS OF ARMOR!!!! they'd beat eachother to death for hours until one died of exhaustion!!!a samurai could hack away all day at one of those guys without drawing any blood! his sword would most likely break before he got a good hit in! though perhaps theyre swordsmanship was superior, a strong defense preceeds a strong offense (or something like that).

P.S. - perhaps someone already said this, i just am too lazy to read the whole thread.

[Tachikaze]

Now, this gets very theoretical. Let's see, we have a list of factors to consider:

Offensive Strength
Offensive Range
Static Defensive (eg. armor)
Speed
Agility/Maneuverability
Equipment (including horse)
Endurance
Drive/Resolve/Dedication
Bravery
Intelligence (ability to reason, think)
Knowledge
Emotional State (fear, hatred)
Susceptability to conditions (weather, terrain)

If we want to take into account all possible factors and conditions, we should precede with this debate while considering the list above (with anything I didn't think of).

For the purpose of this debate, we can chuck out intelligence, knowledge, and emotional state. Probably bravery and drive as well. Susceptability to conditions should only be addressed if such conditions are introduced to the hypothetical duel.

[BakaGaijin]

I've got a better idea. We'll collect all of the Dojo members, and suit them up. Half with European armour of their choosing and half with Japanese armour. The Japanese will be armed with either real katana or real tachi, depending on personal preference. The Europeans will get their choice of European sword.

Then, the two sides battle it out TO THE DEATH! Last side with a man alive wins!

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Tachikaze]

Well, I hope Mizilus is the last one, so he'll get his answer.

[Catiline]

i suspect he'll get an answer he considers conclusive enough whenever his battle comes to an end.

plus for amateurs I suspect the European meat cleavers would be the most effective

------------------
Oderint dum metuant

[BakaGaijin]

Never underestimate the power of one who believes that he is a martial arts master, even if he isn't. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[MIZILUS]

Heh...Miz has a nice katana http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Vanya]

Quote Originally posted by BakaGaijin:
Never underestimate the power of one who believes that he is a martial arts master, even if he isn't. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[/QUOTE]

ASOOOOO!

Christopher Reeves has announced in an interview on CNN that he has just recently obtained his blackbelt in Tae Kwon Do yesterday. He is in 'high spirits'. (ie, Stoly... me thinks...). He said in the interview he 'aspires to face Chuck Norris in the ring' soon.

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Chucky better watch out... the 'Man of Steel' is gunning for him! If you listen carefully, that faint pitter-patter of little feet just might be Chucky fleeing like a whipped dog already!

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[BakaGaijin]

Christopher Reeve could easily beat Chuck Norris any day. You think Chucky's ever fought a man in a wheelchair before? I think not! He would be so confused that Chris Reeve would have plenty of time to destroy him with his X-Ray vision!

------------------
Disappear into the Darkness!!

[Irving]

don't get me started on CHuck Norris and his damn freakin slow motion from every possible quick repeat moment of impact replays...

if anything makes ME reach for the remote it is this or i'l watch it if i want to mock someone

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Peter C]

Well, British archer was probably the best in Europe, Longbow's performance was better than the short hunting bow and crossbow at the time.

In European history, Huns, Turk, and Mongol archer also have successful record in battles that comparable to the British.

Turk archer and bow held the best record that witness and recognised by the British at the time. These records was held until the late 1950's. until a British bowyer uses modern composite material to construct recurve bows based on the Turk technique.
http://www.ericvance.addr.com/recurve_bows_main_page.htm http://www.utoronto.ca/archery/faqlist.htm

As for the jap bow itself, it is as long as the british longbow, it is a composite recurved bow. Japanese Kyudo archer generally uses 3' longer arrows as their draw style draws longer.

I doubt the british longbow archer would have any advantage over the japs

Quote Originally posted by Idaho:
I think the Japanese would have been superior in skill to the Europeans - but I think they would have been cut to pieces by the English longbow, as so many others were.[/QUOTE]

[Tac]

*BUMP*

The Japanese wouldve won if they had warred vs Europe in teh 1500's and up.

Why? Very simple reasons.

1) Superior weapons. Yes, the Japanese swords were made of VERY good metal. They rivaled, most were of even better quality than damascus steel.

2) Training. Europe only had mercenaries and filthy rich knights as anything remotely resembling a trained force.

3) NUMBERS. Tokugawa Ieyasu had, after the Taiko's death, more MEN AT ARMS than the entire POPULATION of France and Britain combined. And Ieyasu was ONE of the major leaders of the time after the taiko battling to become shogun.

The only, only field that the Japanese lacked was naval power and Cannon. FYI, the Japanese got guns and in less than 20 years after getting this new technology, they had SOLVED the MAJOR problem of the guns: Their refire rate in the battlefield. Oda Nobunaga is usually credited with solving the issue by making firing ranks (1st row shoots, steps back, 2nd row comes foward and shoots, etc., keeping a steady flow of lead at the enemy). Although he really learned of this technique when the Ikko-Ikki monks used it against him, and he just refined it.

The europeans only had cannon as an advantage in the field, but that was sure to be copied and perhaps even improved by the Japanese soon enough.

[Red Peasant]

Yeh right, you said it. Europeans are shite aren't we.....we should have stayed in the Iron Age!! Or Bronze Age!! Or Stone Age!! Or Whatever, As Long As It Isn't The Europeans' Age!! LOL!! Isn't history a bugger! GET OVER IT!

------------------
"Gutta cavat lapidem non vi sed saepe cadendo"
--Ovid
(The drop hollows the stone not by force but by dripping often)

[Tac]

Kindly post something on the topic, not some half assed rant.

[Catiline]

The problems I see with the argument are

1)Yes the swords were very good, but not every samurai was equipped with one so excellent, just as every knight was not equipped with damascus steel. Good weapons do not a warrior make, it's the training, the motivation, the will to win, and probably in this kind of combat the sheer blood lust. European swords weren't the refined weapons samurai one's were for the simple reason that they were'nt designed to do the same thing. They worked on the principle of being something longhard and heavy to hit someone much softer with. That they happened to have an edge is really a side issue. The european sword evidently worked very well, or they'd have developed something better, humans have a great propensity for developing new and more efficient ways of dispatching each other. The fact is whichever you get hit with it's going to be dangerous. You go for exposed areas and attacks that will incapacitate. European warfare didn't work on a system of ritualised one on one duels, it was all out brawling and hacking, combat was brief and bloody, and oneside lost it's nerve and ran. Our perceptions of both samurai and knights is polluted by hollywood, who extol all sorts of virtues that nenver existed, and give all it's actors the skills of uber swordsmen to allow for five minute sword fights whilst hanging off the walls. Most of it with lightweight aluminium swords that weigh nothing.

2)I'm not too crash hot on the organisation of much of Europe, but in England there was certainly a great deal of training. Itwas legal riquirement for everyone to practice archery on a Sunday, indeed IIRC it still on the statute book, so I should be out in the peeing rain with my 6ft of yew as we speak. Plus by the 14th century the feudal system had given rise to massive standing armies in the hands of the lords, not of the king. For politeness sake they were called retinues, but they wre armed and trained and took to the field with their lord, often against the King. They'd kill Frenchmen as a first choice, but failing that why not practice on each other. Mercenary troops arer less reliable, it's in their interests to protect their investment by staying alive.

3) were these all samurai? not by any stretch of the imagination. Just as Europe wasn't fielding armies entirely of knights.

Guns of course changed everything on the battle field, but not because they killed Knights and levelled masses with the nobles. That's bollocks propogated by people who want to see the common man get one up on the aristocrats. That fact is it's much easier to train someone to fire a gun than a bow, or to use a hand to hand combat weapon effectively. You loads, you point, you fire. You start over. The wounds caused by lead shot are horrendous and much harder to treat than many others. When lead shot impacts it flattens and rips through the body in a cone shape, small entry hole, big exit, if it gets that far. It's usually cited as the reason for the demise of the medieval knight. It's rubbish. heavily armed cavalry continued well into the 17th century. What did for the Knight was the changing political and social situation in Europe. feudalism was killed off as the modern state developed. Knights needed lords, and overmighty subjects such as these were precisely what the Kings of Europe were trying to eradicate.

Ultimately the two are incomparable, but I don't think there would hav been much difference. The samurai have a myth attatched to them suggesting they were all wise noble masters of the art of war who lived only for honour and battle. That's rubbish but it's a nice ideaIn theory the code of chivalry provided something similar here, but it certainly didn't have much impact on reality. And at it's root what did it mean. Simply someone who was rich enough to provide a horse. Wealth has never been a terribly good qualification for rectitude.

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur

[Sir Chauncy]

I have always been intriguiged myself about the things people believe they can achieve in the East. Even now people think that they are some sort of mystical masters that are wonderful in just about every respect. Well, they aren't. If the Japanese were so brilliant and great, why did they lose any battles at all? Sure they should have fought all day and all night until they got a bit tired and stopped for tea and then started up again. Combat is brief and over more quickly than that. One flash of that sword and it is all over. That's it, gone. There is nothing you can do about that. As someone already said, fighting is not like it is in the films, all of this stuff about sword saints is just ruubbish and I am sure that you all know it too. If you are very very good, you might be able to fight off two people, but that is about it.
he thing is that people seem to want to believe in the fantasy that the Far East is a place of unparalleled joys and discipline, unassailable and unrivalled in everything it does. It just isn't the case.
There are tales of how unkillable medieval knights were in full plate and I will not belive that they could jump around easily or could get up once they fell over, I will also not believe that a sword could actually get through that armour, that is why they made Axes and Warhammers to actually do some damage, swords just wouldn't get through. that is not to say that it didn't hurt if you were hit. Just that you wouldn't die. I believe that the Japanese almost thought it unsporting to defend yourself to such a degree. Maybe I'm wrong but to be honest, they never net up on the open field and shockingly, never will.

[Catiline]

They could get up quite easily, provided other people weren't ontp of them in which case they could suffocate. The weight is relatively evenly distributed, and even full harness isn't that restrictive for a fit man. Whilst fresh I've seen people turn cartwheels and somersaults in plate. The problem is you get knackered and overheat very quickly.

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur

[james]

i care very much about the topic you are talking about in fact i love the idea.well anyway,i do agree that samuria had better hand to hand weaponry e.g. naginata,but you have to remember that knights and kings had better castles and siege weapons.just imagine it a team of knights being ambushed be an army of fanatical warrior monks (kinda funny) .thanks for bringing up the idea!!

------------------
know yourself and you will never be defeated

smillie.james@btopenworld.com

[Leet Eriksson]

Full plate armor can be cut in half if you swing the sword with full force whilst when swung lightly it should only bend it.nonetheless full plate armour was tough at its time.until of course the cannon was introduced to europe.the idea of the knights being undefeatable is just plain crap look at what the saracens,british and lithuanians did they just kick the crap outta knights with spears and bows.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

OK, allow my 2 koku worth. This is an interesting question. The answer lies in the first 60 seconds of combat, and the balance of the knight. This theory is based on the "tricked out" versions of both experienced foes. During this 60 seconds of time, both combatants would be sizing up and probing their opponents. If the European knight did not get a kill in this period, it is doubtful he would be able to do so. After this time period, the samurai would have learned that his opponent wore superior protection, but was also less mobile (but not "lumbering"). Remember - the greatest weapon a warrior has is his mind - and this was stressed in the training of Samurai. When orthodox methods are not effective - use unothodox means. The samurai would have used this mobility advantage to penetrate the range of his opponent and unbalance him. The European knight would not reasonably expect this action, and thus would not be prepared for it. Now, before people start again debating whether or not an armored knight could rise on his own or not, lets assume for the sake of arguement that he could get back to his feet by himself. With that being stipulated - one must consider that a knight could not do a "sit-up" to rise, but would be forced to roll over, and "push" himself upward. Doing so exposes the back, unguarded. An experienced samurai, having taken the action to knock an opponent to the ground via unexpected action, is not going to allow that foe to reach his feet. European mail did not offer 100% protection, and upon endeavoring to rise, would expose numerous openings where his foe could strike. Specifically, the neck, underarm, elbow and waist "joints" and overlaps. Again, the samurai would be lookin FOR these vulnerabilities, and would take any opportunity to avail himself of them.

Once the initial period of "probing" is done, the knight will see his obvious superiority, in protection - which on the face of things gives him a huge advantage - near impregnability. The samurai will also note this, and will consider how to use that against the knight. Thus the knight will not be prepared for the unbalancing attack, and then will be forced to open the door for a killing or maiming stroke in his attempt to regain his feet.

Only if the knight is lucky in gaining a damaging stroke early in the contest will he win the encounter.

Again - this is hypothetical - tricked out warriors on foot with no ranged weapons.
Feedback?
Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Catiline]

It all depends on equipment but even for tolled up Knights in full plate the idea that they had any real restrictions in movement is nonsense. Full tournament plate, that used for jousting was heavy and difficult to wear, it was designed to protect the wearer participating in a dangerous sport, but has coloured our perceptions now as to what all medieval full plate was like. War plate was not. The stuff will wear you out over time, mainly from heat exhaustion, but combat is brief. It takes lunacy or desperation to fight for long.

Even if you were going into combat with armour you know would prevent you from being injured easily if it so restricted you that you couldn't stand up easily having fallen? I damn well wouldn't, and nor would our ancestors. The idea that people would invest the resources needed to get full harness in order to be kitted out in such a way that if they fell over they were sitting ducks is laughable.

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur

[Nelson]

Cat is absolutely right about the armor. Who indeed would wear it if you couldn't get up if you fell? That's absurd. Armor saved lives. It deflected missiles and all but direct heavy blows but a hammer smack to the helmet and out go the lights. Japanese armor and weapons reflected the enemies and technologies they faced which mostly were themselves. They were not equipped to deal with so well protected a foe. Nor were they all some sort of Zen warrior with spectacular skills who could easily strike a tiny opening. Besides, knights trained for combat too. Blows practiced to land on another similarly accoutered knight would surely badly injure a samurai in his yoroi. In this confrontation I believe the technically superior plate clad European would prevail.

Battles were not single combat but confused melees. In a samurai vs knight battle in the 16th century the samurai have a tough job IMO. If mounted, the knight rides in plate with armor on his likewise armored horse. He will charge stirrup to stirrup with a couched lance that will annihilate the samurai on impact. The knight then uses mace, hammer or sword. The samurai would have to make do with a yari that is too light for the armor he faces or his katana which he must use single handed.

On foot, the plate clad knights have a pole arm of some sort while the samurai again bring their yari. I don't see the Japanese doing well here either. Advancing side by side, I can't see samurai stopping the knights. Ashigaru drilled with the yari in formations but not samurai AFAIK.

Tokugawa Ieyasu himself owned a plate cuirass. Samurai were not to proud to protect themselves to the maximum degree possible. They were very pragmatic regarding combat. They were prepared to die but wanted to live.

[Leet Eriksson]

Remember the saracens kicked the crusaders outta the holy land so why can't the japanses kick them out too?considering japan is much more defensible than the holy land.

[andrewt]

Japan is not more defensible than the holy land against knights. The main defense against the crusaders are the fact that the Middle East is one big desert. A horse carrying such a big load on its back wouldn't survive long there and knights in full armor wouldn't either. Samurai would also lose there. The Saracens used camels, which were suited for that kind of environment.

Also, most of the skill of Japanese samurai were exagerrated. Some of the stuff they believed they can do, they simply cannot. Even up to World War2, they were conducting experiments on trying to deflect or stop bullets using their hands.

Remember that the typical European Knight was mostly a century or two earlier than the Sengoku period samurai. From the European Dark Ages to the Crusades, Europeans have a slight technological advantage in weaponry than the Japanese. After that, the gap widened. Contact with the Muslims gave the Europeans much, much more advanced technology than the Japanese.

Samurai from the Sengoku period would have easily beaten European Knights. However, the equivalent time frame in Europe was the Renaissance. In an all-out war, Europeans would be using artillery and explosives which they already have at that point.

The Philippines, the country where I was born, was conquered by Spain during the 1500s, same period as the Sengoku. They mostly used guns and a superior naval fleet. Also, the late British longbow had very thick arrows and were very big, allowing them to kill a fully-armored knight.

The Japanese during that time were also schooled by Korean guerilla tactics.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Cat, Nelson,

I agree that the knight could get up - in fact - I stipulated as much. However, its a question of HOW he would do so that is the issue. Look at modern (American type) football players - under most circumstances they rise after a hit by pushing upward, very few stand with a sitting up motion. Football pads are not as restrictive as armor. Having worn them many times, they don't weigh as much as an armor set either.

I totally agree that a knight could get up on his own - the point is that once losing his feet, his ability to defend himself and avoid being slaughtered while on his arse is severly limited. In regaining his feet, he will give the samurai small window's of opportunity to strike that cannot be defended against due to the knights position and posture. The samurai - being swifter than the knight, would be able to take advantage of these temporary vulnerabilities to weaken, cripple or kill the knight, any of which actions end up in the end giving victory to the samuria.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Cheetah]

Quote Remember the saracens kicked the crusaders outta the holy land so why can't the japanses kick them out too?[/QUOTE]

Yes, they do kicked out the crusaders but not becasue they were able to beat them in a pithced battle. It was more a war of attrition style victory. Even Hattim was not a "fair" pitched battle (if there is such thing at all), it was a trap, a result of foolish leadership on the part of the crusaders. As far as I remember Saladin's trick to beat the crusaders was to awoid HTH combat with the mounted knights. Instead they tried to separate them from the rest of the army and ambush them or shoot them down.

[Cheetah]

BTW, to answer the original question, I think that the knights would win the FIRST battle. Why? Not because of the superior armour or the superior longbow but because of the cavalry charge. The charge of the mounted knights was utterly devastating esp. againts an unprepared opponent. The reason why the knights were not invincible is that most of their opponents were very well aware of the deadly nature of the cav. charge and thus were well prepared. Just think of the english vs. french knights at Agincuort. So, the only question is whether we assume the japanese to be prepared for the charge or not. If not they lose, that is why the knights would win the first battle. If yes, they might win but then it is a pure guesswork.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Actually - that logic makes sense, but has a glaring flaw. The samurai were used to facing mounted, armored charges - thus the widespread use of Yari troops. a mounted contingent of European knights charging into a group of samurai would be roughly the same as the samurai facing a heavy cav or nagi cav charge. Horseman vs Spearman 9 times out of 10 = dead horseman.

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Leet Eriksson]

mind yo hattin was a pitched battle its simply the crusaders were very dumb to charge through a wall of spears.other than mounted knights the crusaders were utterly crap when on foot.

[Cheetah]

hmmm... as far as I know they were out in the desert for two days without water in full armour. You might call it a as pitched battle but ... hmmm

btw, if they indeed charged into a wall of sprears this shows
a) that the leaders of the crusaders were either stupid, or arrogant, or in a desperate situation.
b) that their opponents were prepared to receive the cavalry charge.

[Cheetah]

Quote Actually - that logic makes sense, but has a glaring flaw. The samurai were used to facing mounted, armored charges - thus the widespread use of Yari troops. a mounted contingent of European knights charging into a group of samurai would be roughly the same as the samurai facing a heavy cav or nagi cav charge. Horseman vs Spearman 9 times out of 10 = dead horseman.
Qapla![/QUOTE]

I don't know the exact detail but as far as I can tell a european knight in armour were more heavier, more robust, more well protected then its japanese counterpart. So, I not sure whether a japanese cavalary charge (even Takeda!) could be equated with the charge of the mounted knights. As a consequence, I am not sure whether the yari used in japansese armies was long enough and the formations they used were deep enough to stop such a charge. For example, think of the swiss pikemen. They used a very long pike (5 or 6 meter long) and deployed in a very deep formation. Now, THIS IS the formation that was designed to withstand a cavalry charge. Did the japanese have the equivalent of it? If so they might win, if not I maintain my prediction.

[the Count of Flanders]

Quote Originally posted by Cheetah:
I don't know the exact detail but as far as I can tell a european knight in armour were more heavier, more robust, more well protected then its japanese counterpart. So, I not sure whether a japanese cavalary charge (even Takeda!) could be equated with the charge of the mounted knights. As a consequence, I am not sure whether the yari used in japansese armies was long enough and the formations they used were deep enough to stop such a charge. For example, think of the swiss pikemen. They used a very long pike (5 or 6 meter long) and deployed in a very deep formation. Now, THIS IS the formation that was designed to withstand a cavalry charge. Did the japanese have the equivalent of it? If so they might win, if not I maintain my prediction.[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt that any Japanese unit can stand up to european heavy cavalry charge. The japanese had nu such thing as purely yari units: some samurai used a yari some katana some something else. The whole point is: Japanese samurai warfare is individual. They spent no time on training how to operate as a unit. And this is essential in stopping a cavalry charge and the Flemish and Swiss were the first (after the Romans) to use unit-based (as to individual based tactics) tactics.

[Cheetah]

thx the Count of Flanders! So, the first win goes for the Knights! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[the Count of Flanders]

Japanese samurai fought individually, there is no way they could stop a european heavy cavalry charge. Only the Flemish and Swiss worked out a system to stop such a charge, and these were tactics based upon the entire unit working as one. Japanese samurai never trained on unit tactics only on individual combat. You need to have an organised, tight formation to stop such a charge, samurai just couldn't do that. They would go splat if the knights smashed into them.

[Nelson]

I agree with the Count. Japanese yari varied in length and could be very long but AFAIK only ashigaru were sometimes trained to fight in formation with them. Samurai were not big on rigid formtions at all despite what the game portrays. In fact, mounted samurai often had attendants on foot near them as they fought which would preclude any sort of formation at all. Regardless, the yari was the dominant weapon in 16th century Japan, at least according to Turnbull.

[Catiline]

Mixed foot and cavalry units can fight very effectively in formation actually, as a side note. In the C4th BC the Greeks used hammipoi, which were cavarly units with light armed infantry who either rode into combat with them or ran along clinging to tails and mains, dismounting to fight whilst the cavalry engaged. effective against other cavalry units, they did a good line in slicing open horces bellies and slashing hamstrings whilst the enemy was occupied fighting the opposing cav.

The Romans carried on the idea with important mixed cavalry infantry auxiliary units - cohors equitatae I think,

------------------
Et sceleratis sol oritur

[Nelson]

Yes Catiline you're right. I should have said rigid close formations a la pike blocks were precluded by mixing horse and foot. Egyptian chariot units seem to have had indigenous light troops attached at Kadesh. Hybrid units like you mentioned would be good to see in a game some day. Rome has got to be next.

[vapd]

well I havnt read thru every reply but deffinitly think there is a bit of euro bashing going on here and a lot of belief based on the fact that we all see a lot of movies involving wonderful swift kensai type swordsmen and hack hack medival knights.

European swords were quite good really and the training was exellent. Its not all fat kings chucking chicken bones over there shoulders. In those days the nobels often led from the front, you think there not gonna train like xxxxxx's to make sure they dont get killed?? You think that your average man at arm's (professional soldier) wants to die?? You think somones gonna employ him if he cant fight well??

I'm not saying that Japenese Samurai wernt trained well but surly mans greatest instinct is to survive and give us Europeans some credit for that. NOONE is going to not develop serious training techniques/arms/armour if there life depends upon it!!

Now, on about the 6th post on this site is a link to an intereesting SA, go check it out.

[Leet Eriksson]

Let me say some few words IT ALL DEPENDS ON TERRAIN so no one will win its either the knights getting smeared in japan or samurai creamed in europe.

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Ah Faisal, i can finally say that i agree with one of your statements http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

The whole situation, season, number and quality of troops, who is defending and who is attacking, wich side is rested and well fed, the terrain, all of these can make yesterday's looser , today's winner and vice-versa

------------------
Yes the camel sprites do look good, hope they sound good also...

[St Stephen]

In our history it is always good to play with a thought "what if". This is certainly one of those "what if " question.However to try to anticipate the outcome of such a encounter we must categorized the problem.There are couple of categories I can think of such as(we are taking two equally fit ,trained and discipline master swordsman of the Middle Ages 15 century):

-Single combat,unmounted,without armor
-Single combat,unmounted,in full battle armor
-Single combat,mounted with full battle armor( I don't list mounted without armor because usually they used full battle armor on horseback on both side)
-Group battle in full armor on horseback.

Before I start guessing I must state that unfortunately we can ONLY imagine the mind set of a warrior in the Middle Ages where life and honor dependent on a steel blade.We can hardly imagine today how was it feel like living by the physical power and technical knowledge of a sword.We are also talking about two completely different approach to the same situation which is the survivability on and off the battlefield.Sadly there are very few and limited sources left to us about the training and fighting style of the Medieval Knight so we are ONLY guessing about them.Luckily the combat style and training of the Medieval Japanese warrior class still with us today even if it is not the actual and exact way therefore we don't have to guess about them.

The Western approach to the survival on the battlefield was to build up a superior defensive armor therefor the fighting style of a knight was reflected on that.The Eastern(Japanese) approach was to stay very mobile and build on the superior training and technical knowledge of the weapons use by the samurai.

This is why in single combat, unmounted the Japanese Samurai would come out the winner of the two,I can even add to this He had a far superior sword in his hand.However in any mounted confrontation between this two type of warrior the European Knight would come out victorious because His superior armor and specialized mounted fighting style would be too much for the smaller and least protected mounted Samurai.

[vapd]

Darn, what do I have to say!! There is nothing superior about oriental training compared to Euro training. Mobility isnt the bee all. Euro armour wasnt that restrictive and no man who


oh forget it. I call it a draw.

[Whitey]

wasn't there a thread with a link here somewhere that said the knight easily had the edge one on one on foot, sword and shield vs katana?

------------------
"Situation excellente. J'attaque!"

[Leet Eriksson]

everyone has his prespective,the japanese will tell you the samurai easily busted the knight and the europeans will say the knight will easily kill the samurai and so on its a long war and no one will prevail unless they actually bring 2 poeple trained in the arts of sword fighting and fight it out until one of them is killed.AT that time you can boast who is superior but for know CASE CLOSED(keep this thread from becoming complicated)

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Again, the original question was 1 on 1, "fully decked out" warriors facing each other in the open, on flat terrain. With this being the case, and the predominance of the Yari usage by samurai, it is likely the samurai in question would have a spear available to him, while the knight would have longsword and shield.

The way the question was posed, terrain would not be a major factor. Nor would # of men, as its a 1v1 battle.

Now - lets address this - would a yari have been useful against dismounted knight? This is one area I can not speak in - as I have never messed with a Yari. For those who have, and have some knowledge of the pierce resistance of European armor, what say you all?

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Irving]

BSM,
have you ever 'messed' with a gatana, tachi, wakizashi etc?

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Whitey]

Faisal - you are probably right...but we will see - I'll go search....


[This message has been edited by Whitey (edited 03-07-2002).]

[Whitey]

http://www.thehaca.com/essays/knightvs.htm

ok - this is what I found - I think its been posted here before, but it is the closest we can get to a conclusion...

[Cheetah]

Very interesting essay Whitey, but the original question was both about individual and group battles:

Quote I always wondered what combat would have been like between the medieval knights of Europe and Japanese Samurai, both single combat and large battles. [/QUOTE]

And about large battles I still maintain my prediction. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

i say none will win unless somehow seomeone actually saw it.what happens if there was a japanese forumer here?he would say the samurai is this and that etc etc etc so aside from whose gonna win this European Vs. Japanese is totally fiction no one can prove it by using plain logic or thinking http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[Cheetah]

It is not pure logic. It is about combining our historical knowledge of the given periods in a meaningful way. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[Whitey]

hell - if we can't come up with at least a theory then what use is history at all?

leave us our theories faisal...its all we have http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Leet Eriksson]

even if you keep combining historical knowledge for hundreds of years it will never be 100% correct it must be seen to be proven.

[Whitey]

hmm...I don't think we are looking for proof, just the 'weight of historical evidence'

If we search history and attempt to find facts, truth, proof, or laws, then we will be dissapointed - it is more subtle than that IMHO...

------------------
"Situation excellente. J'attaque!"

[Leet Eriksson]

then anyone could say the knight can easily defeat the samurai and vice versa.actually judging from what i have read i think the Samurai could defeat the knight on one on one combat since samurai were more agile than the lumbering knight but when going on a big battle(5000vs5000)the knight could probably win since the japs did'nt fight in any particular order.

[Irving]

you obviously speak of PRE sengoku jidai years.

an average european army vs an average Japanese army wouldn't be fair at all because the Japanese would outnumber the europeans so badly it wouldn't be funny.


------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Cheetah]

The french outnumbered the english army at Agincourt roughly by 4 to 1. Indeed, it was not a funny battle at all!!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

BTW, the assumption http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif is that they have equal numbers.

[james]

dont fink so

[Cheetah]

What do you don't think so?

[Whitey]

he just don't fink...

[Leet Eriksson]

HEy who said it was funny i said that if 2 armies clashed the japs would lose becuase of their figthing formations if they ever had one...ANYWAY talking about a pre sengoku jidai era the samurai would lose becuase the katana was not yet refined to be the ultimate sword history ever known but i can still say a knight could still be defeated by a saracen anytime HAHA or vice versa http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[Irving]

it isn't only formations that comes into play when forming an opinion about who would win.

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Cheetah]

Quote Originally posted by Irving:

it isn't only formations that comes into play when forming an opinion about who would win.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but my understanding of the problem is that we assume that they fight a fair battle, i.e. they have equal numbers, both army well fed, well rested, etc. Generalship is a major factor as well, but again the meaningful thing is to assume equal skills on the part of both general. Armour and weaponry can be important too, but the situation seems to be balanced or at least closely balanced. Most of us would agree that the europeans had the better armour but the japanese had the better offensive weapons (tough, obviously this depends on the given period, so you might disagree). Overall, I think that the difference is not so great that it could be decesive in itself. I think that the only major difference, and this could be decesive, is that the japanese were not trained to fight as a unit. Oda Nobugana was the first to train his ashigaru to fight as a unit. However, to stop a european style cavalry charge the infantry have to fight as a unit, or the battlefield have to be prepared (stakes, dicthes, etc), or you have to be extremely lucky (heavy rain, snow-storm, hurricane, etc http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif . Since we assume good weather and no preparation of the battlefield (or at least this was my original question, i.e. whether we assume the japanese to be prepared) the only chance the japanese have is to act as a unit. But we know that they were not trained to do so. Thus, they lose.

[Irving]

not so! Toyotomi Hideyoshi favoured the use of massed groups of spearmen. This is a group. I, disagree with the fact that the Europeans had better armour. The o-yoroi was excellent all around armour. I had good stopping power for arrow (many ukiyo-e scrolls picture samurai with many many arrows sticking out of their armour)

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Samurai - while not usually outfitted exactly alike, MOST used Yari as their primary weapon.

Now - samurai were NOT stupid - tactically they were not all genius caliber, but you expect us to believe that a bunch of samurai, looking out across a plain - seeing an equal number of horseman, are just gonna hang out and wait for the horsemen to charge and then attempt to initiate 1 on 1 combat??? C'mon - common sense shows they would gather together, set their spears and send a lot of horses to the glue factory when the knights charged. The idea that a Euro cav charge into samurai would decimate the japanese army is just ludicrous even at face value.

With the predominance of the Yari in the Japanese army, cav action becomes a lot more risky. And while there has been the statement that Euro knights in armor were quite mobile, its still kind of hard to fight after you fall from your horse. Many knoghts would be pinned under their dying mount, or injured/killed in the fall. The number of knights surviving the charge would be much diminished - and if it was a fight to the "last man standing", they would then be heavily outnumbered by the enemy.

I agree that a sam with a katana would be at a disadvantage against a euro knight on horseback. But, historically - the katana was not the main weapon of the majority of the samurai - the yari was...
spear vs cav = 9/10 of the time - spear wins.

now - 1 vs 1 on foot - how useful would a yari be? I posed the question previously - and got no response. So I ask it again.

Could a Yari be reasonably effective against a man-at-arms (dismounted knight)?

Q!
Skkz

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[the Count of Flanders]

Quote Originally posted by BSM_Skkzarg:
Samurai - while not usually outfitted exactly alike, MOST used Yari as their primary weapon.

Now - samurai were NOT stupid - tactically they were not all genius caliber, but you expect us to believe that a bunch of samurai, looking out across a plain - seeing an equal number of horseman, are just gonna hang out and wait for the horsemen to charge and then attempt to initiate 1 on 1 combat??? C'mon - common sense shows they would gather together, set their spears and send a lot of horses to the glue factory when the knights charged. The idea that a Euro cav charge into samurai would decimate the japanese army is just ludicrous even at face value.

[/QUOTE]

In Europe they also tried to stop knights charges with pikes, it wasn't very effective. The earliest pikemen still got hacked to pieces. So it's not just a matter of "all aiming your yari towards the enemy". Most important thing of all is manouevering while keeping formation intact. The Swiss were the first to be able to do this, and on flat territory they still had a good chance of being slaughtered. They also used exceptionally thick pikes so they wouldn't break so easily under the force of the charge. And I've read somewhere their spears had varying length (back rows had longer pikes), effectively fighting like a greek phalanx. I am very sure the samurai can't do this, sure the first row of knights will fall to the yaris but rest will cut through them like a hot knife through butter. The samurai's best bet is fighting like the turks: mounted with bows and trying to avoid the charge while wearing them down. But they wouldn't know this in advance so...

[Cheetah]

Quote Originally posted by Irving:

not so! Toyotomi Hideyoshi favoured the use of massed groups of spearmen. This is a group.[/QUOTE]

To have a massed group of spearmen is one thing, to train these mass to behave as a unit is another. BTW, either Toyotomi or Oda it is not a big difference. In any case japanese were not trained to fight as a unit before the late 16th century. BTW, my source was Stephen Turnbull, who writes in his Samurai Sourcebook (SSB) that "Oda Nobugana, who was probably the first to introduce disciplined ashigaru spear units".


Quote Originally posted by Irving:

I, disagree with the fact that the Europeans had better armour. The o-yoroi was excellent all around armour. I had good stopping power for arrow (many ukiyo-e scrolls picture samurai with many many arrows sticking out of their armour) [/QUOTE]

I am not an armour expert, so I do not want to argue about the quality of o-yoroi. However, different armours were designed to withstand different attacks, I doubt that an armour designed to withstand arrow fire is the best armour to withstand the charge of a mounted knight (in fact I think that no armour can give protection against such an attack).

Quote Originally posted by BSM:

Samurai - while not usually outfitted exactly alike, MOST used Yari as their primary weapon.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but these were designed for 1v1 combat and not as an anti cavalry-charge weapons. The yari of the samurai were 3/4 m long (SSB), only ashigaru had longer yari cc. 4.8 metres, the ashigaru of Oda had the longest of all some 5.6 m. That is, the spears of the samurai were too short to be effective against an en masse cavalry charge. The ashigaru spears were fine, however, I think that even these ashigaru formations were flimsy and vulnerable to the charge of the monted knights. Turnbull writes about ashigaru spear fighting:

"Unlike samurai spearmen, where spears are thought of as only for single combat, here many are of one mind, with spear points moving together, keeping a rythm. When one or two meet it is fine to fight individually, but when spear are used en masse there must be co-oridination and timing, with no exeption. ... Line up in one rank three shaku apart, not thrusting yet, but at the ready in a large rwo to hit the enemy. when facing an attack by horsemen line up in one rank kneeling, lie the spear down and wait. when contact is imminent lift up the spear head into the area of the horse's breast. When the point pierces the skin hold on to it!"

There are three things to note. (1) As emphasisied earlier these thechniques were introduced in the late 16th century, so any samuari army before this date did not posses them. (2) Spears were aimed at the horse's breast. However, european horses had armour! (3)Most important of all is that the fomation was only one rank deep! Which is a fine formation against individual horsemen, i.e. it makes impossible for the horsemen to flank the individual ashigaru but I think it is far too thin to withstand the impulse of an en masse cavalry charge.
To sum up, I think that samurai armies before the late 16th had no chance against an european army, and even the army of Oda had very little chance to survive (assuming equal numbers, etc.).


Quote Originally posted by BSM:

Now - samurai were NOT stupid - tactically they were not all genius caliber, but you expect us to believe that a bunch of samurai, looking out across a plain - seeing an equal number of horseman, are just gonna hang out and wait for the horsemen to charge and then attempt to initiate 1 on 1 combat??? [/QUOTE]

Well, I am not assuming dumb samurai, I am sure that they would have done something, but I am not sure that this "something" would have been enough to save their lives. Especially, when they did not have the weapons and the training required for the efficient counter move. Moreover, as I said earlier I am only arguing about the first battle, so I very much assume that they can improve in the second, third, etc. battles.


Finally, I think that to predict the outcome of a 1v1 encounter is more difficult than that of a group battle. It very much depends on the personal abilities of the fighters.

[This message has been edited by Cheetah (edited 03-11-2002).]

[james]

now thats a big post,how long did that take ya?

[Cheetah]

James, are you interested in big posts?!? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif

Well, definitely it took longer than this one http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/tongue.gif

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Ok... a samurai Yari is 3/4m long? No way - thats roughly 28 INCHES. You may have meant 3.4 meters long. If so, that is more acceptable. Now whats amazing here is that your saying that the front line would die, but the rest would "smash thru" and slaughter the samurai.... Well - ever studied cav charges? If the front line falters or is held, the rest of the unit overruns itself. Horses trip and fall over the dying mounts of the front line, knights are unseated due to their horses falling, or by attemting to pull up short and getting struck from the rear accidentally by following units. Cav units are effective because they CAN overrun their enemy. But, if you hold the front line, and pin it (with pincushions if you will), then the rest of the unit loses its ability to fight effectively. Cavalry suffers when pinned - only when mobile does it succeed and survive. This is WHY cav suffered tremendously at places like Agincourt. Being held, or even severly slowed, created the vulnerability that allowed cav to be defeated.

Now, as to the "mass" equating a "group". This one is easy - again samurai were not dyslexic morons. Those with Yari were going to MASS together, point their spears at the charging enemy, and do their utmost to hold. Call it what you want - but a wall of spears is a wall of spears - in a mass or in a group.

Remember, we are talking equal groups here - and in equal groups - spears beat horses historically.

Now - 2 further points. You state that the Sam Yari was "too short" to be useful against a horse. While the "wall" of spears would not be vertical, the "wall" can be made at an angle, and still be useful. Drive nails into a board, the longest nails sticking out at the bottom. Every layer going up, allow the nails to recede about 1/8th of an inch. Now, with about 4 layers of nails - slam your palm into the nails. Bet you have 4 rows of holes in your hand. Shorter does not necessarily mean ineffective. (Note - dont really do this - its an illustration...)

And lastly, someone keeps mentioning Pikes. Pikes are a Polearm - Yari are not. A yari is comparable to the European Footman's lance (Which WAS used quite successfully against horsemen) - NOT a pike. A Pike is more comparable to a Naginata than a Yari.

Q!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[the Count of Flanders]

I agree on you with stopping the first row of horses would be sufficient but if a yari is only 4 meters they would get pinned since a lance could be up to 6 meters long. Actually pikes are no polearms: they are very long and very thick spears (at least every time I read about them) designed specifically for stopping cavalry. Furthermore I can't recall one battle before the Swiss in which spear/pikemen beated a cavalry charge on a battle field in good shape: Crecy,Courtrai,Poitiers,... all on muddy field. And even the Swiss needed the terrain (mountains/hills) to be efficient.
Finally if you think you can bring a norman warhorse of up to 1000 kilos running at 50 km/h to a full stop with a few 4m yaris, I think you are mistaken. But, of course, we can never be sure of that unless we try it ourselves (any volunteers?).

[Irving]

1000kg? what kind of horse are you talking about?

------------------
Chaos is born from order.
Cowardice is born from bravery.
Weakness is born from strength.
-Sun Tzu

[Cheetah]

First of all, lets clear up a misunderstanding. The 3/4 was intended to mean 3 or 4 and not 0.75. Sorry, if it was not clear.

Second, I never said that the first line of horsemen would die. I think that some may die, but not enough. Moreover, even a falling dead horse can break the line of the infanry!

Quote Originally posted by BSM:

Now, as to the "mass" equating a "group". This one is easy - again samurai were not dyslexic morons. Those with Yari were going to MASS together, point their spears at the charging enemy, and do their utmost to hold. [/QUOTE]

I agree, however, I think that here the "outmost" is not enough.

Quote Originally posted by BSM:

Remember, we are talking equal groups here - and in equal groups - spears beat horses historically. [/QUOTE]

Yes, the appropriate spears in the hands of the appropriate spearmen. Remember that most of the battles you refer (or you have in mind) were between opponents that knew each other very well (english vs french, ect), that is, they were prepared. However, here I am arguing about the first battle, assuming that none of opposing forces are prepared from the tatics of the enemy.

Quote Originally posted by BSM:

Now - 2 further points. You state that the Sam Yari was "too short" to be useful against a horse. While the "wall" of spears would not be vertical, the "wall" can be made at an angle, and still be useful. Drive nails into a board, the longest nails sticking out at the bottom. Every layer going up, allow the nails to recede about 1/8th of an inch. Now, with about 4 layers of nails - slam your palm into the nails. Bet you have 4 rows of holes in your hand. Shorter does not necessarily mean ineffective. (Note - dont really do this - its an illustration...)[/QUOTE]

Nice illustration, but try to use hammer instead of your palm http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif To stop a hammer you have to place the nails very close to each other. Now, how does it relates to length? The spears of the first row are not placed close enough to stop the "hammer" of a charging knight. So, you need the second and third row to fill the gaps. However, with spears of 3 or 4 metres long not even the second row can reach forward enough to fill the gaps. Why do you think the macedone phalanx, the swiss pikemen (they are called pikemen, so I suppose they used pikes http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif ) used spears/pikes 5 or 6 metre long? Because a 3 or 4 metre long spear is not long enough.

Quote Originally posted by Irving:

1000kg? what kind of horse are you talking about?[/QUOTE]

OK, Irving, I have an easier task for you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Try to stop a 500kg car moving at 40 km/h with a 3 metre long spear. After you tried, please report in the nearest hospital. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Cheetah (edited 03-11-2002).]

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by Irving:

1000kg? what kind of horse are you talking about?

[/QUOTE]

Count, please allow me to take this one for ya!

The weight of a Arab horse is 400-500 kg.The weight of a large WAR horse used in Medieval Times is 700-800 kg.The weight the War horse carried (knight,armor,weapons,etc) is 200 kg.After you add this two together you come up with a nice 1000 kg,which is a lethal combination if it's running at you 40 km/h, we all must admit it. This is why they ruled the battlefield for hundreds of years.

[the Count of Flanders]

thx Stephen, we must watch each others back you know http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
And I've looked it up: there are 2 horse races that are considered to be the modern offspring of the medieval warhorse. These two races are the Frisian (Holland) and the Brabander (Belgium), a Brabander can easily weigh up to 1800 pounds and a Frisian even up to 2000 pounds (I've read about one particulary large Frisian weighing 2300 pounds). If you've ever seen a Frisian stallion standing before you'd be impressed, believe me!


[This message has been edited by the Count of Flanders (edited 03-12-2002).]

[Cheetah]

Nice post, St Stephen!

[Nelson]

Ah, it's good to know people are hitting the books! The Lipizzaners are descended from war horses. They are spectacular to behold.

[Peter C]

Just wondering,

Where could this Knights vs Samurais fight take place? Japan or Europe?

Bare in mind the terrain that samurais and knights were adopted to fight on.

I don't think the knight would like to fight in the woods very much, neither did the Japanese has any sufficient siege engine to get themself through the European castles walls(Ninjas?)

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Again - terrain is not an issue as it was stated that it is all flat, clear ground. As for "appropriate spears in the hands of appropriate spearmen..." - now look here. A japanese Yari WOULD be effective against a bloody horse. A Samurai TRAINED to use a yari (and thus equipped) WOULD be an appropriate spearman! Remember - Samurai were used to facing cavalry! While it was NOT European cav, yari equipped samurai would know that their best shot at survival was proper usage of spears. Thus, a cav charge into a samurai army would be met with the appropriate and deadly response - set spears. And, as history has proven, spears beat horses 9 times out of 10.....

No one answered my question however - would a yari be a substantial and useful weapon against the "decked out", armored man at arms (unmounted knight)? Or would the yari fail to have the substantial pierce ability required to be useful?

Qapla!

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[Gothmog]

Maybe I am missing something here.

But to me, this question is like:

If you place a light tank against a ground infantry who is armed to the teeth, who will win?

[Peter C]

Samurai didn't use the spear the way the lancers did. More often samurai used their weapon to block the attack. Yari is lighter and shorter than lance, I've neither seen them carried shields, nor seen they covered themself with so much steel like the knights. All this is because they need to move in the Japanese terrain. I don't think samurai on foot are well equiped enough to stand there against the knights.

Read the real medieval warfare history, you will find that polearm footman may be the better foot unit against the knight but not sufficient to win the fight alone, they need numbers.

If Terrain is not an issue, then what would happen if a Yari up against a war elephant? or a war chariot? How would it like if a knight is charged by an elephant?

The success of the swiss lancer to the knight was mainly due to their hilly terrain.
but, records shown that the swiss lancer were better organised and they attacted the knights from their flank and back positions.

Knights and their horses are both protected heavily at their frontal position, they are most powerful when charge in the open to a steady targets at full speed.
http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Medi0000.htm

Btw, Those called "Samurais" usually carried and trained with both swords and a polearm. many accient war painting shown that one on one sword fighting happened mostly on foot, One on One Polearm fight were common on horse back in sorta martial art style(using two hand swinging). They never bumped into each other like the knights did. but, Executes multiple attack and defence movement in each pass. The samurai will not have any advantage if the samurai fight the way the knight did. but if the samuria manage to block the knight first strike and they could attack the knights side and back where lightly armored. but, all these need very good skills.

Quote Originally posted by BSM_Skkzarg:
Again - terrain is not an issue as it was stated that it is all flat, clear ground. As for "appropriate spears in the hands of appropriate spearmen..." - now look here. A japanese Yari WOULD be effective against a bloody horse. A Samurai TRAINED to use a yari (and thus equipped) WOULD be an appropriate spearman! Remember - Samurai were used to facing cavalry! While it was NOT European cav, yari equipped samurai would know that their best shot at survival was proper usage of spears. Thus, a cav charge into a samurai army would be met with the appropriate and deadly response - set spears. And, as history has proven, spears beat horses 9 times out of 10.....

No one answered my question however - would a yari be a substantial and useful weapon against the "decked out", armored man at arms (unmounted knight)? Or would the yari fail to have the substantial pierce ability required to be useful?

Qapla!

[/QUOTE]

[the Count of Flanders]

You keep saying that spearman beat horses 9 out of 10 but that just wasn't true in medieval europe. I think it would be more correct at 7 times out of 10 the knights beated the spearmen. Only if the terrain was muddy or hilly so that the knights couldn't build up enough speed to break through the wall of spears did the spearmen stand a decent chance of beating the knights.

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by Cheetah:
Nice post, St Stephen![/QUOTE]

Koszonom szepen!

[pdoan8]

I am enjoying reading all of these posts. However, are we arguing about a topic that only consider as "what if"? You can keep on arguing for another 100 years and I bet noone could make a conclusion. Why? We are comparing two completely diferent styles of warfare which are based on two completely diferent cultures. All I have to say is it is all depend on the tactic. What if the Samurai has firgured out the way to defend against heavy horse knights? What if the Knight has learned the way to dodge the skillful sword attack from the Samurai?

Quote Originally posted by Gothmog:
If you place a light tank against a ground infantry who is armed to the teeth, who will win?[/QUOTE]

Again, it depend on tactic and the situation. If the tank spot the guy first, it shoot first and it hit then the tank win. If the infantry, who is armed to the teeth, spot the tank first, shot his Anti-Tank weapon first and hit then he win. The tank deploy in the forrest will get cooked soon, but the infantry deploy in the forrest gain defensive and even offensive advantage over the tank. On the other hand, infantry would be wipe out quickly if against tank on the open field. Heavy horse knight would be the king of the battle field if they are deployed on a flat field. However, put them in the forrest, light infantry would wipe them out easily.

[Peter C]

[QUOTE].. We are comparing two completely diferent styles of warfare which are based on two completely diferent cultures. All I have to say is it is all depend on the tactic.....

Exactly, Tactics,

Why don't we look at the Arabic horse archers, their equipement were similar to those Mongolic and Turk horse archers. Arabs even had the legendary Damascus steel blade.

European knights managed to beat them but not the mongols and the turks.

[the Count of Flanders]

European Knights beat the Turks in the first crusade in a really big battle at Dorylaem. This was the first battle against Muslems in the first crusade. At first the Turks avoided the knight's charges and everthing went fine for them but in the end the crusaders did manage to place one succesfull charge and this would be the end for the Turks in that particular battle.

[Bushi]

To Red Peasant:
That series was called 'Arms in Action'. You can probably get it on video from the bbc's website., I thought it was very interesting, although some of the 'experts' weren't all that knowledgable. Hope that helps.

------------------
Sitting silently
Doing nothing
Spring comes
And the grass grows by itself

[Outlawstar15a2]

Actually the Samurai had better armor due to the extreme amounts of craftsmanship and effort put into the items a good example is that european swords are made of 1 layer of steel while samurai weapons may be made of millions of them they had a secret process of strengthining the sword by adding multiple layers onto the sword (read your MI or WE way of the daimyo manuals and you'll understand what I mean)while euro weapons didn't thats why if you use one to block a strike it'll most likely break where as a Samurai sword is very strong and can be used as a shield.

------------------
I turned to the lord and asked why and he said,"We lived to die."

[Peter C]

Yup, Japanese and Arabic blades are both using a technology called metal laminating, which high carbon steel layered with low carbon steel, these kinda steel have some very unique patterns on the surface, the advantage is the high carbon steel provides the cutting hardeness with the soft low carbon steel gives the support and flexibility.

European sword was forged using mono mid carbon steel. There were records of European sword chipped when impacted with the arabic darmascus steel blade.

Japanese sword uses high carbon steel rapped around a low carbon steel core, Japanese swordsmith also developed a unique annilling technique which allows the sword cutting edge to be cooled down faster, while the mid and back section cooled slower, these method further enhanced the hardeness of the blade, while the body of the sword not becoming very brittle.

Quote Originally posted by Outlawstar15a2:
Actually the Samurai had better armor due to the extreme amounts of craftsmanship and effort put into the items a good example is that european swords are made of 1 layer of steel while samurai weapons may be made of millions of them they had a secret process of strengthining the sword by adding multiple layers onto the sword (read your MI or WE way of the daimyo manuals and you'll understand what I mean)while euro weapons didn't thats why if you use one to block a strike it'll most likely break where as a Samurai sword is very strong and can be used as a shield.

[/QUOTE]

[Nelson]

All of which is purely academic when, even if it connects, the very fine but rare blade merely creases plate and mail armor as a prelude to a hammer/axe blow that crushes the samurai's arm or head, yoroi not with standing. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[Peter C]

Take a look at the Japanese ancient paintings, Heavy pole-arms like axes and hammer were also used.

btw, During the middle age, The Arabs and Japs did developed some quite sophisticated metallogy due to their lack of iron resource and they have to used them more efficiently, Darmarcus steel was produced in high volumn by the Arabs, layered laminating technique was a standard process to made weapons like average samurai swords, yoris, and even Axes during that time. There are many modern study of ancient samurai weaponary which did confirmed these technology were applied widely.
http://japanesesword.homestead.com/files/laminate.htm

Those rare blades were not made of pure steels, most of them have some sort of natural alloy contents.

Quote Originally posted by Nelson:
All of which is purely academic when, even if it connects, the very fine but rare blade merely creases plate and mail armor as a prelude to a hammer/axe blow that crushes the samurai's arm or head, yoroi not with standing. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif[/QUOTE]

[William The Conqueror]

I was surfing along when I noticed this site, and this topic. Unfortunately there is a wealth of myth and misinformation around on the topic of Knights and Samurai.

BE WARNED! This a very long post, but only because I think this detail needs to be given, so that a clearer, more realistic comparison can be made. I myself am only mortal, so I apoligize in advance for any errors I may have made.

First of all, you must have all the relevant, RELIABLE facts about the respective warriors and cultures at hand. For my part if I may, I will present a fairly detailed "rundown" on the much underrated and misunderstood European knight.

On the Japanese side, suffice it is to say that Japanese swords, armor and martial arts were developed by mere mortals, just as Middle Eastern and European ones were. They are fallible.

With regard to the fighting prowess of the medieval knight, there is a whole heap of nonsense that needs to be dispelled off the bat. The first is the fallacy that European medieval swords were heavy or cumbersome. Not so.

EUROPEAN SWORDS


European swords were no heavier, generally, than any Japanese ones. The vast majority of medieval single handed swords, at around 3 foot in length or so, weighed in between 2 lbs to 3 lbs maximum.

This includes the earlier light, broad bladed and flexible types used by the Vikings and Normans (designed to deliver fast, powerful shearing cuts against maille armored opponents), as well as the narrower, stiffer thrusting versions that developed during the 14th and 15th centuries, in response to the challenge of plate armor.

European long-swords (Also known as "Bastard swords", "Hand and a half swords" or "Warswords"), which began to develop around the 13th century, generally came in around 4 foot in length, and between 2.5 lbs and 4 lbs for the heaviest. These were swords that could be used 1-handed (by a mounted knight for eg) or because of their longer hilts, 2-handed by a dismounted knight or footman.

These longswords/ bastard swords are probably the type of European sword most analogous to the Japanese tachi or katana (at around 3 foot in length and weighing between 2.5 lbs and 3.5 lbs).

Hence it is a myth that the katana is lighter, or faster than most medieval swords. Infact, there is great variation, with European swords often being lighter, inch for inch, to their Japanese counterparts.

True great-swords of the 14th and 15th centuries ranged up to around 5 foot in length, and weighed in between 4 lbs and 6 lbs. Their size made them strictly 2-handed weapons for use by a footman.

The true 6 foot long "2-handed swords" (weighing between 5 lbs and 8 lbs), such as the German zwiehander, didn't come into use until the 16th century or so, and are therefore a product of the Renaissance.

There were heavier, ceremonial zwiehanders (often known as "bearing swords") made to be carried in parades, but NOT intended for use in battle, that weighed up to 15 lbs, and it is often these "show use only" swords that give people the false impression that medieval swords were heavy or cumbersome.

Incidentally, if anyone wishes to challenge the dimensions or weights I have listed, rest assured that I own, and have used authentic reproductions of these swords in Historical European swordsmanship training. This information has been verified by scholars and bladesmiths who have closely examined original swords in museums and other arms collections around Europe and the world.

These weights are also easily verified by requesting the information from arms collections, such as that of Wallace Collection or the Royal Armory at Leeds.

I only mention this as sometimes the myth of heavy or slow European swords is sometimes so deeply ingrained in folks minds (thanks largely to inaccurate "Hollywood" movie myths), that they simply refuse to believe otherwise.

ARMOR

The myth of the shining knight in head to toe plate armor dominating the medieval battlefield is just that. A myth.

For starters, maille armor (sometimes called chain mail, which is a modern, contrived term) was the dominant form of defense for the knightly class for most of the Middle Ages. Full plate armors only came into use in the closing stages of the Late Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance around the 15th century.

MAILLE (OR MAIL) ARMOR


Maille was, along with padded and textile armors, the dominant form of Western European armor from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 14th century. During the late 13th, and especially the 14th century, plate pieces began to augment the traditional maille armor, starting with items like 'coats of plates' and knee cops.

A typical maille hauberk, covering the torso, and the arm to the elbow and the leg to the knee, as used by the Normans of the 11th and 12th centuries, could typically weigh as little as 25 to 40 lbs (more or less depending on the size of the wearer, the skill of the armorer, the thickness of the wire links, and the style and length of the hauberk).

Importantly, maille armor offers a quite comfortable, light and VERY flexible defense (lighter and much more flexible than comparable Middle Eastern lamellar or Samurai armors) that hinders basic fighting actions little if at all.

Indeed, The excellent flexibility of maille is it's major drawback in comparison to plate or lamellar: It doesn't stop the concussive (crushing) force of attacks with either swords or maces as well, hence the need for a padded undergarment such as an aketon.

Maille does however concentrate alot of it's weight on the shoulders (unlike plate which is more evenly distributed over the body) and so can grow uncomfortable when worn for long periods.


SHIELDS


It should also be noted that a shield was probably the single most common and important item carried by both high born and low born warriors alike through most of the Early and High middle ages.

Medium sized round shields, as well as the occasional large oval (remnant designs from the Romans and Celts?) were the norm during the Viking age, with the large, long Norman or "kite" shaped shield gaining widespread use from the 11th century.

The round shield (around 3 foot in diameter, and weighing around 5 to 7 lbs) was predominately an infantry shield, while the kite shield (around 4 to 5 foot in vertical length, weighing around 7 to 10 lbs) was widely popular by both cavalry and infantry for the generous cover (often from "chin to shin") it provided in battle.

Shields were often faced in leather, with either leather or steel re-enforcement strips tacked around their edges, to prevent splitting (something that any sword edge, even a katana, could be damaged by).

The kite shield eventually developed a flat top during the 12th century, and by the 13th and 14th centuries had begun to grow smaller into what is thought of as the classic medium sized knightly "Heater" shield.

It's likely no co-incidence that as the armor began to be augmented with plate pieces, the shields grew smaller, possibly reflecting the knights acceptance of less shield cover counterbalanced by better armor resilience.

Indeed, this is borne out by the fact that less well armed infantry (the rabble http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif) continued to use the older style long shields at the same time that the better armored knights shields were getting smaller.

All extent European maille by the way, has each individual iron link riveted shut (as opposed to the quicker "butted" types often made today to save time and effort), making it much stronger and resilient to both thrusts and cuts than many people realize.


REASONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PLATE ARMOR


The reasons for the development and adoption of plate armor during the 14th and 15th centuries are still ripe for debate. One myth is that previously the Europeans lacked the metallurgical skills to craft such armors.

Since European armorers had been making fine conical nasal helms and mono-steel swords of outstanding quality from single billets of steel from the 11th century onwards, the theory above makes little sense.

More convincing is the adoption of increasing amounts of plate armor due to the increased threat of well drilled crossbowmen and longbowmen in European warfare, as well as the more powerful "armor defeating" weapons coming into use by ranks of disciplined infantry, such as maces, war hammers and polearms (glaives, halberds, pollaxes etc).

Battles like Courtrai and Morgarten in the early 14th century, where poorly armored infantry with proto-halberds and similar polearms defeated predominately maille armored knightly cavalry, were something of a turning point in the escalation of plate armor development. The devastating longbow tactics of the English only hastened developments.

KNIGHTS FIGHTING ON FOOT


The knights themselves, despite being thought of as proud horsemen who disdained foot combat, never really abandoned the strategy.

Many of the Norman knights fought on foot with the other Norman infantry at the battle of Hastings in 1066, and there are periodic accounts for the next few centuries of knights routinely fighting on foot when the occasion called for it, in some cases "stiffening up" an unreliable infantry contingent, or fighting in difficult terrain, often with corresponding victories over mounted opponents.

Infact, it was mainly the French knights, the creme de la Chevaliers, that held any real disdain for fighting on foot, and this was relatively short-lived in the context of the timespan of the Middle Ages.

In stark contrast, the pragmatic German knights were as happy to fight on foot as on horseback, and were considered by a Byzantine chronicler during the crusades to be much finer and dangerous warriors on foot (i.e. heavy infantry) than mounted chevaliers (or reitors).

The English obviously made famous their tactic of dismounting their knights to fight as heavy infantry during the Hundred Years War. In this situation, the knights fought defensively, guarding a fixed strategic position as well as their archers, who so protected could keep up a withering rate of fire with their longbows, decimating the lightly armored footmen and the war-horses of the opposing knights both.

FULL PLATE HARNESS


The full plate armors that did develop arguably achieved their heights as practical battlefield items in the 15th century. This is when distinct styles emerged, such as the spikey, fluted "Gothic" style often associated with Germany, or the rounded, smooth style known as "Milanese" (in reality there was much cross influence and pollination of styles). Both styles, with variations were popular all throughout Europe.

An average full plate harness would weigh in the vacinity of 50 to 80 lbs, depending on the style, the armorer and the size of the wearer. Plate was designed and articulated to give maximum mobility and freedom of movement to the wearer, and while obviously an encumbrance, it was nowhere near that so often depicted in movies or Victorian age literature.

A fit knight could perform all the basic functions required in battle (running, fighting, mounting, riding, dismounting, getting up off the ground etc) perfectly well in "harness" (i.e. in armor). Indeed, one was prone to ridicule by his knightly peers if he could not do so.

A bonus over maille armor, apart from increased protection against all manner of blows, is that the weight of plate armor is more evenly distributed over the body, each piece being supported by the limb it was attached to.

Possibly the biggest single disadvantage of plate armor was the very real danger of overheating once the body was warm, as plate armor tended to trap heat like an oven, and a body in the crush of battle generated alot of heat.

TOURNAMENT ARMOR


Significantly heavier and more elaborate armors developed during the 15th and 16th centuries, to address the particular demands of the by now highly ritualized tournament scene.

These harness (armors) were much heavier than war (battlefield) harness, due largely to the desire for maximum safety. Knights were simply less inclined to risk life and limb in tournament engagements. In real war however, the increased mobility and flexibility of a war harness was still a more positive tradeoff against the maximum protection provided by tournament suits.

Unfortunately, as with the aforementioned bearing swords, it seems these significantly heavier armors mislead many (starting with some Victorian authors) into believing that knightly armors were heavy and cumbersome. Relatively speaking, some of the heaviest tournament suits designed for the joust were cumbersome, but were another beast entirely to the much lighter harness a knight would wear in battle.

THE DECLINE OF THE ARMORED KNIGHT


It was the rise and eventual dominance, during the 16th and 17th centuries, of disciplined pike formations, firearms and lightly armored "reitors" or riders, armed primarily with a brace of flintlock pistols, that spelled the end of the knight.

If armor was made thick enough to be "proof" (i.e. capable of resisting bullets) it usually became too heavy to fight effectively in. Thus the mounted, plate armored lancer (the knight) with the exuberant cost of his wargear (armor, war-horse, weapons, followers etc) was effectively out of business, and so ended the reign of the knight in battle.

KNIGHTLY MARTIAL ARTS


Quite unknown to most people today, the skills of hand to hand warfare, with weapons and without, in armor and without, were highly developed during the middle ages and Renaissance.

Indeed, the art of "fencing" (i.e. "defending" oneself with a weapon) was well developed from an early period, with references as early as the 12th century to "teachers" of fencing. This fencing was true battlefield swordsmanship by the way, not to be confused with the modern 3-weapon type. Medieval swordsmanship or "fencing" was quite literally a true "Martial Art" ("Martial" comes from "Mars" the god of war), as attested to by the as yet earliest known manual of swordsmanship entitled MS 1.33.

MS 1.33 is an anonymous medieval German manuscript from the 13th century, featuring a priest (many priests were former knights or soldiers) instructing a scholar (student) in the skilled use of the sword and buckler.

1.33 details a sophisticated method of swordsmanship, including footwork and parrying techniques with both the sword and buckler that bear an (unsurprising) resemblance to techniques practiced centuries later by the more famous Renaissance Masters of Defence. Also of particular note is the prominence of thrusting technique in this 13th century manual, when Renaissance Masters have long been (falsely) credited with the systematic introduction of the thrust in fencing.

Moving forward, we have reference to a famous 14th century German Grand Fechtmeister (fight master/ master of fighting/ swordsmanship) named Johannes Liechtenauer.

Master Liechtenauer, who traveled widely in the development of his skills (not unlike the Japanese swordsmen who traveled around Japan trying to perfect their swordsmanship) taught a sophisticated martial art around the basis of the hand and a half longsword, or "langenschwert".

His system including grappling and sophisticated weapon binding techniques, and his teachings were highly influential in the German martial arts (Kunst des Fechtens) for the next 2 centuries. As was typical of medieval martial arts, the long-sword taught the basic mechanics required to fight with any of the knightly weapons of the day, including swords, spear, axes and daggers.

From 1410 we have the "Flos Duellatorum in Armis" from the Italian master Fiore Dei Liberi. Dei Liberi, like Liechtenauer in his day, purports to have traveled widely and studied the arts or war and swordsmanship under several masters, but notably he singles out a German master as the most worthy of note. Fiore’s system is again, a sophisticated, integrated martial art, the principles of which cover everything from unarmed combat and grappling, to dagger fighting, to single handed sword, to the longsword or greatsword.

Returning to the German tradition again, we have the 15th century master Hans Talhoffer, who published several versions of his fechtbuch (fight book, martial arts manual) starting in 1443. Talhoffer is a student of the German Liechtenauer tradition, and not surprisingly, the 2 handed longsword features prominently in his work, but dagger play, pollaxe, sword and buckler, spear, dueling shield and judicial combat as well as mounted combat are all covered. As with most fechtbuch, both armored combat (harnessfechten) and unarmored combat (blossfechten) are covered, with distinct tactics and techniques for both.

Other masters of note who published manuals or manuscripts in the 15th century include Peter Von Danzig, Sigmund Ringeck, Paulus Kal and Filippo Vadi. There are dozens more known (and likely many more as yet unknown) fencing/ fighting manuals from the middle ages and Renaissance yet to be uncovered. There was therefore, already well developed martial arts being taught and practiced in medieval Europe before the Renaissance. Contrary to yet more Victorian era and Hollywood myths about unskilled, brutish hacking, we now know that medieval swordsmanship was a sophisticated, systematic martial art in it’s own right, one to arguably rival anything from the east.

KNIGHT VS SAMURAI

This is largely an unanswerable question, Both were well armored and armed, well trained professional warriors in their respective cultures. The tactics, arms and armor of both developed in response to the challenges met in their respective environments, taking into account the influence of fashion and foreign influence.

For the sake of simplicity, I’m going to assume a fight on foot, since mounted combat is a whole different ball game, and involves the issue of group tactics even more.

Whenever such comparisons are made, you have to define the period, nationality and so on of your prospective combatants. A Norman knight from 1100, in a maille hauberk, armed with a light, cutting sword and a large kite shield is a different kettle of fish to a German knight from 1300, in maille and partial plate, with a mace and medium heater shield, just as both are a different kettle of fish to a French knight from 1500, in full plate armor with a 2-handed pollaxe or greatsword.

Which one is the better warrior? Which one do you pit against the Samurai? Skill wise, they would all be well trained in their respective weapons. Armor wise, the knight in full plate is much harder to kill, but he may not have the stamina or mobility of the earlier warriors, and a shield can be a pretty big advantage.

As I hope I have helped to disprove, the knight was not a dumb, unskilled, lumbering hulk compared to the Samurai. Infact, a well-trained knight is, IMHO, a match in skill and arms to a comparable Samurai, at least in the common foot combat/ duel we all think off when discussing a swordfight.

Plate armor presents unique challenges to edged weapons, especially swords. In short, they just aren’t any good at cutting through it (and I doubt that the finest katana would be any better at it than a longsword). This is why swords focused more and more on thrusting developed in conjunction with plate, and why the weapon of choice against a man in full white harness (i.e. shiny plate armor) was a mace, hammer, halberd or pollaxe. Of course, a cutting sword was still useful even on late medieval battlefields, since perhaps only 5 percent or much less of the combatants on any field would be wearing anything approaching full plate armor, due to it’s prohibitive expense.

With regard to the earlier warriors, although their armor is more susceptible to cutting blows, especially to powerful 2-handed cuts, their shields are very big mitigating factors. Until you’ve faced a swordsman with a shield, it is hard to understand just what a great defensive advantage it is over a single sword.

A large shield like the kite type is especially difficult to get around. It automatically provides cover to most of the swordsman’s body (usually leaving only the foot or head exposed), before it even moves an inch. Then, with a small movement the swordsman can effectively defend every part of his body against attack with the shield, while simultaneously countercutting/ counterattacking against his adversary, who may well be unable of defending with his weapon because it is stuck at (or even into) the face or rim of the shield. I’m speaking from first hand experience here, on both the giving and receiving end!

Another factor is that one handed swords, such as those used in Europe, while lacking the full power of a 2 handed cut, can generally reach further out with a cut (since the whole body can extend, with no need for the left hand to hold the hilt) and especially a thrust. One-handed swords are generally very fast too, and certainly wouldn’t be outdone by the katana.

These are all things the Samurai likely has no experience combating. Shields never really took hold in Japan (except for sieges IIRC) likely for a number of cultural and environmental factors, not the least being the fact that the Samurai was primarily a mounted archer.

With regard to them, the way of the Samurai was the "Way of Horse and Bow". Swordsmanship, along with spearmanship was a valued tool needed for when the archery had done as much work as possible, and the HTH clean up started, as it usually did to end a battle anywhere in the world at that time.

The "Cult of the Sword" that arose around the katana, takes route in the peaceful years of the Tokugawa Shogunate established after the battle of Sekigihara in 1600. From then up until the mid 19th century, when Commodore Perry’s black ships blew the Japanese consciousness into the modern world, swordsmanship had flourished as a means of spiritual and moral training and control, as well as a useful skill for self defense in the bustling streets of Edo, or the long, lonely roads leading to it, or around the residence of the local lord.

It was this, along with the desire to enshrine the Samurai status, which led to the Japanese outlawing firearms after their introduction to Japanese warfare in the 16th century. The power of Firearms had been amply demonstrated to the Samurai when Oda Nobunaga used them to such great effect against the mighty Takeda cavalry.

Japan was finally unified in the 16th century, thanks largely to Portuguese firearms. But because firearms endangered the noble Samurai class (just as the had endangered the knights back in Europe), and because in the hands of commoners they could lend power to rebellions or revolts, Tokugawa chose to ban them (along with contact with gaijin), their importation and native manufacture, thereby artificially extending Japan’s middle ages into the 19th century.

The fact that on a battlefield, a bow, spear or naginata might have been more useful was irrelevant to the largely urbanized Samurai of the Edo period, who would be unlikely to be carrying any of these instruments with them when attacked, but who always wore the badge of their office as "Bushi", the Daisho (katana and wakizashi in their obi). These then became the tools they trained with after the great wars of the past had been fought and firearms banned, and so the sword rose to a cult status it had not held in the Sengoku Jidai, and certainly not the Gempai War.

At the same time in Europe, military science had rapidly evolved, and the gun now dominated the battlefield. The old skills of HTH warfare had largely degenerated or in some cases been lost, with only the highly refined Science of Defence or "fencing" remaining, teaching the art of civilian defence with weapons such as rapiers and sideswords.

Some martially relevant weapons, such as bills, quarterstaffs and so on were still practiced by certain individuals or groups, but armored HTH skills were no longer as central to the battlefield as they had been, and so now the lineage to many of the skills is lost, with modern practitioners studying the surviving fighting manuals of the period in order to try to reconstruct these skills (see the links below).

Thus we know far more about Feudal Japanese swordsmanship today than we do about Feudal European swordsmanship. It is very difficult therefore, to make strong comparisons or draw strong conclusions either way.

For myself, I’d put my bet on the luckiest warrior. Lady luck has decided more than a few combats in the past. Not a very satisfactory answer, but probably the most realistic.

For those who are interested, I humbly submit the following links:
http://www.thearma.org
http://www.aemma.org
http://www.swordforum.com

That's my long-winded 2c. I hope some folks find something of value in it.

Cheers

[This message has been edited by William The Conqueror (edited 04-12-2002).]

[This message has been edited by William The Conqueror (edited 04-13-2002).]

[Cheetah]

WOW!

[Nelson]

Bravo William!

That was an excellent read.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

William,

Excellent post. Especially when your final conclusion is so accurate. Combat, whether modern, primitive, or anytime in between, ultimately is dealt a heady push by luck. As I have said on a few occasions, its not the bullet with my name on it that worries me, its the ones marked "To whom it may concern" that I am concerned about.

One question, and it is one I have asked a few times here. Given that during the period in question, samurai were primarily spearmen, and an equally outfighted knight would have been in the "chain" type mail, would a spear been an effective weapon against such an outfitted warrior?

Q!
Skkz

------------------
BSM_Skkzarg
"ARG when I'm Happy, ARG when I'm Sad, ARG when I'm good or bad. ARG!"
"ARG to port! ARG to starboard! Arg from stem to stern! ARG!"

[William The Conqueror]

Quote Originally posted by BSM_Skkzarg:
William,

One question, and it is one I have asked a few times here. Given that during the period in question, samurai were primarily spearmen, and an equally outfighted knight would have been in the "chain" type mail, would a spear been an effective weapon against such an outfitted warrior?

Q!
Skkz

[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Spears and axes are very effective against maille armor. Swords are less effective, but a good cut can still cause serious contussive damage (with the possibility of a perpendicular cut of sufficient force cleaving through the maille), and a thrust that lands square has a chance of penetrating the maille into the juicy bits underneath.

Thanks everyone for the compliments on my post. I know it was very long and wordy, so I wasn't sure if it would hold folks's interest.

For those who are interested in all kinds of swords and swordsmanship, I highly recommend taking a trip over to Sword Forum International. The forums are very friendly, there's some very knowledgeable people on them (far more knowledgeable than me http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif), and there's a forum to suite everyone's taste (i.e. European swords, Japanese swords, Middle Eastern swords, Ancient swords, Antique swords etc):
http://www.swordforum.com

Cheers,

[St Stephen]

Good post William however luck has nothing to do with it because we must ask our self; what is luck?! Combination of circumstances operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person. Therefore those "circumstances" would give victory to the better swordsman that's all, not luck!

Here and generally everywhere we like to talk about equal situations and opportunities but we all know there is no such a thing that two equal swordsman would meet under equal circumstances.

Oh one more thing I like to add here is that you all talking about armor weights, weapon types etc. those all make no difference between winning or losing a mortal combat. We all should concentrate all our effort about this issue on the training types and styles of the participants. We know little about the medieval knights fighting arts so we are just guessing about them (perhaps there wasn't a lot,this is why it disappeared in history)however on the other end we know a lot about the Japanese bushi fighting arts and to conclude here I think the bushido gave better preparedness to those "circumstances" in a fight against any opponent than the European style did!

Well this is my humble opinion.



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-13-2002).]

[Lorenz Helmschmied]

"Oh one more thing I like to add here is that you all talking about armor weights, weapon types etc. those all make no difference between winning or losing a mortal combat. We all should concentrate all our effort about this issue on the training types and styles of the participants. We know little about the medieval knights fighting arts so we are just guessing about them (perhaps there wasn't a lot,this is why it disappeared in history)however on the other end we know a lot about the Japanese bushi fighting arts and to conclude here I think the bushido gave better preparedness to those "circumstances" in a fight against any opponent than the European style did!"

So basically, you admit you don't know anything about European training, and then confidently presume that Japanese training was superior? This is just logically laughable. BTW it's a speculation (possibly incorrect too) and not an opinion, as it concerns a question of fact and not a value judgment. AS William's post made perfectly clear, there exist DOZENS or Western training manuals. Certainly, not as much is known about Western Martial Arts as Asian, but ppl are learning more all the time. Don't judge something if you are ignorant of it.

"Actually the Samurai had better armor due to the extreme amounts of craftsmanship and effort put into the items"

Have you ever SEEN a real suit of Gothic plate? This assertion is ludicrous.

As far as the idea that horsemen needed helpers to get into saddles etc... this is garbage. In point of fact, the average field kit for a British doughboy in WWI weighed more than a good suit of "battlefield" plate. More to the point, the plate armor was better distributed than the field kit.

No doubt, the Japanese samurai had a wonderful martial tradition. It is quite impressive enough in its own right without the belittling other traditions or the exaggerated claims made by it's modern devotees.



------------------
As Above,
So Below

[Papewaio]

William that has to be the most impressive first post I have ever seen.

Not long winded as it was well thought out and was easy to read with very interesting information.

I always thought the Renaissance sword masters couldn't have sprung out of thin air and had to have had some sort of tradition that they came from. As during that period the sword was one of the lesser martial weapons, so it was hardly likely that the fencing had just materialised without the knights having developed something prior to that.

I suppose we should have figured out from Hollywoods portrayal of modern warfare how wrong they must have been about knights. BTW check out the history forum as they are very scared of Hollywood doing a remake of the Seven Samurai as they know how much it will be butchered.

In short thankyou for your most excellent post.

------------------
Victory First, Battle Last

[Sir Kuma of The Org]

Yep an post to include in an archive, not to be deleted. The links are interesting also.

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by Lorenz Helmschmied:
"

So basically, you admit you don't know anything about European training, and then confidently presume that Japanese training was superior? This is just logically laughable. BTW it's a speculation (possibly incorrect too) and not an opinion, as it concerns a question of fact and not a value judgment. AS William's post made perfectly clear, there exist DOZENS or Western training manuals. Certainly, not as much is known about Western Martial Arts as Asian, but ppl are learning more all the time. Don't judge something if you are ignorant of it.

"Actually the Samurai had better armor due to the extreme amounts of craftsmanship and effort put into the items"

Have you ever SEEN a real suit of Gothic plate? This assertion is ludicrous.

As far as the idea that horsemen needed helpers to get into saddles etc... this is garbage. In point of fact, the average field kit for a British doughboy in WWI weighed more than a good suit of "battlefield" plate. More to the point, the plate armor was better distributed than the field kit.

No doubt, the Japanese samurai had a wonderful martial tradition. It is quite impressive enough in its own right without the belittling other traditions or the exaggerated claims made by it's modern devotees.

[/QUOTE]

Well you see this is exactly what I meant. You start talking about armor etc. and being mad just because someone else have a different opinion. However please allow me to take on your challenge here. I feel from your post that you have never study martial art of any kind beside reading it from a book. I'm also sure that you have never handheld a real sword or train with it to "kill a person" therefore you have no idea how fast, precise and devastating a single katana with a superior training can be.

Do you know what makes a master swordsman a "master", not the knowledge how to cut someone head off because that everyone could do. To be a master swordsman you must understand a way of the sword therefore as long as we have two arm and two leg there are limited amount of movement you could do with ANY sword so a master could "read " ANYbody to get the advantage he would need to get the "kill" with ANY opponent regardless of the protection they are wearing (I'm talking single combat only here). Now in this kind of training we all must admit that the Japanese have the advantage over the European and please don't "throw" me books tell me instead how much experienced you have as a swordsman thanks! I'm myself studying eastern martial arts ( unfortunately there isn't many western martial art out there beside boxing and fencing)for 16 year and involved with Shinkendo for the last 4 year so for me it is a beginning only. However I know persons who's been studying the sword for over 20 year and still don't understand it , to do so takes a special talent only very few people have; that's why they had very few masters in Japan even in the Edo era.

[Skogul]

Hi everyone, this topic was brought to my attention via a forum post and i decided to toss in my two cents.

I see a lot of misconceptions about both European and Japanese martial arts. William has already covered a lot of information. (Great post William) so I wont rehash what he said, instead I am going to address some of the glaring problems.
First of all, I'd like to give you a bit of back ground on myself, Although it might not show from what I am about to post, my favorite sword is the Japanese Katana, and the Samurai are my favorite warrior class. I have studied Japanese martial arts since i was twelve years old, and I have been covering European martial arts myself using some of the many historical texts for about a year or more now. So I have a fair bit of understanding about both of them. I am no "master" but I feel confident that i could hold my own in the event of it becoming neccessary for me to defend myself with a sword against another swordsman.
Since St Stephen is checking for credientials..... I have fought, with blunted swords, wooden training swords (bokken, or waster in European Martial arts terms) and shinia and "boffer". I have kept my training as true to the martial side as possible without killing with a sharp sword.

I have fought in both limited plate and (chain)maille on the Euro side, but I readily admit I have never fought in Japanese armour. However I know people who have.

I also have handled, trained, and cut with both decent Japanese style swords (not the stainless steel crap here folks...) as well as decent European swords, and i've mentally amassed a fair deal of understanding about both swords from hours and hours of reading about both mettalurgy, edge geometry, distal taper, and many many other factors that go into a swords preformance, both modern copys and antiques.

Since most of the misconceptions are based on the Japanese katana, i will start there. I'm going to assume we're talking about antique and more or less historically correct modern made katanas, so this excludes super swords like Mr Howard Clarks L6 bainite katana, which is MUCH MUCH more durable then any antique could ever hope to be

First off, the japanese katana is obviously a complex, beautiful, and functional sword. They're the stuff of legends, no doubt about that, Unfortunetly these legends have become accepted as truth. I too was prey to this mentality when i first began learning about swords, I too was convinced the Katana was the most durable, best cutting, and superior handling sword out there. As i said, I still hold a great love for these swords, they are indeed my favorite.

However, it was not a super sword made of super steel. They would bend, they would break, and they would do it often. obviously, there are many tiers of sword quality, But even great swords are made of steel, and steel, no matter how tough will bend and break under duress eventually.
In fact, the katana is highly prone to bending. The katana is designed, as many of you know, with a hard edge and a softer spine. The reason being, the hard edge will hold an edge and cut better then softer steel, and the soft spine of the katana keeps it from breaking, as a through hardened katana (or any sword) at a very high RC (rockwell hardness) would snap on impact, rather then flexing.

The soft steel is not nice and springy, it would tend to bend, and stay bent. The katana is made the way it is so that on the event of a bend ( which happens even to master swordsmen sometimes) it can be easily straightend. Obviously this is much more desireable then having your sword snap in combat! But eventually if you bend your sword frequenlty, no matter how well made, it will fatigue and snap.
This is why the japanese sword arts are so hell bent on good technique and practice tamishigiri (test cutting) often, anything less and you run the risk of bending your sword.
Now that we've covered the durabilty issue on the japanese side, lets cover it on the european sword and then compare the two.

As many of you probably know, the european sword was constantly changing due to cultural issues, new armor to face, as well as just changing tastes. Since we're talking about knights, we'll assume the sword in question is your basic hand and a half (a sword that can be weilded effectively with one or two hands on the hilt), and since we're talking about the katana ( a predominatly cutting sword) we'll assume the knights sword is of the predominat cutting type as well, this would be a type XIIIa, which had a broad blade with very little profile taper for maximum cutting power, with the tradeoff of loosing some thrusting power.

However, the Europeans were not dumb brutes with big heavy swords that were poorly made. In fact, the vikings were doing sword construction by layering their swords at about the same time japan started doing it, if not a hundred years or so before them. They did it for the same reason the Japanese did it, the japanese sword smiths had poor quality iron, and limited quanititys of it to boot. As did many cultures in europe till the middle ages. They would layer steels of differant qualitys and fold it many times, to get a more homogenous quality to the steel. Rather then having some parts be of good steel while others were made of poor steel, the "mixing" of the two qualitys would create one middle quality bar of steel. As i said, both the vikings (and later Europeans) as well as the Japanese did this. This is called "pattern welding" and results in patterns in
the sword blade when it is properly polished. Frequently the pattern is called "damascus" ( a misnonmener) or in Japanese, it's called "hada".

But the europeans would also make swords by "stock removal' which is basically grinding a bar of steel into the shape you want. This became more common when steel in europe was becoming very well refined and the "pattern welding" was no longer needed to make a good sword. In Japan, their steel quality remained poor, so they still had to use (and do to this current day) the old method of forge folding a blade.
So you see, this process made a mixture of poor steel, and good steel, into decent steel, rather then making decent steel better. In fact, if you had two swords made of the same steel, one forge folded mostly to shape, the other ground into shape, with the exact same dimensions and heat treatment, both of them would be equal, or the preformance differance is so small that it is undetectable even to modern people with science, let alone our ancestors who didnt have the same benefits we do when testing swords.
In fact, when the Japanese did begin trading with Europe, and got some of their higher quality steel the smiths would often mark their swords with something along the lines of "made from barbarian steel". Because the Euro steel was just better
Sorry got off subject there http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif anyways, we will assume that the knights sword is made via stock removal of the best available steel given the normal european "through" heat treatment, which results in a sword of about 50 or so RC all the way through. And we shall assume the samurai's katana is of given their normal heat treatment. Resulting in the hard edge, and softer spine.
The trade off for both swords is, the knightly sword would not hold an edge quite as well as the katana (arguable, considering that the type of steel used has as much to do with it as the hardness) and the katana is more prone to bending, whereas the knightly sword is made to flex and then spring back to shape, but the katana has that nice hard edge...


Another common misconception about katana's and "broadswords/longswords" is that the longsword is very heavy and clumsy, made for crushing through armor.

This also is not true. In fact, no sword is made for crushing through armour, Much like the samurai would attack gaps in the armour and try to get the soft parts underneath, so too would the knight, either thrusting through gaps, or using a technique called "half swording" (more on that later). As opposed to bashing away fruitlessly at an opponents armour.

Actually the sword was reserved for fighting either unarmoured or lesser armoured opponents in both cultures but both cultures would try and get around the armor if a sword was all they had at their disposal.

Therefore the knightly sword had to be just as manuverable and light as it's japanese counter part, in fact as William said, inch for inch, the average longsword was lighter then the average katana. Often the longsword is several inches longer, therefore they weighed about the same, and the handling ability is similar as well. (Remember, like i said I've trained extensivly with both).

One thing the japanese katana is legendary for is it's sharpness, it could cut, and it could cut very well. On the other hand, European swords are often seen as being dull. Many people back up this "fact" by pointing out the fact that European fetchbuchs. (fight books) often show combatants gripping their blade (halfsword again) Once again, this is simply not so.

For one thing, although gloves are ussually not pictured in fetchbuchs, they were ussually worn regardless, in fact, many of the books show unarmoured combatants doing techniques meant for amoured combat, this is for clarity and simplicity of illustrating the books. This made gripping the blade much safer, even when sharp, also, it is possible to grip a sharp sword even with a bare hand and as long as your hand does not slide on the blade and you keep a firm grip on the flat of it, you can safely grip the sword, The added protection of gloves make this even more safe.

Also, many europeans used a technique called "differantial sharpening". Rather then a razor edge all the way down the blade (you rarely cut with the lower half of the blade, there is no reason for it to be razor sharp) they would often have the last few inches or so be "razor" sharp, while the lower parts of the blade were given a "chisel" edge, one fetchbook put it like this. "The top part of the blade should be equivelant sharpness to a knife, while the lower part should be more like an axe". This allows a Euro sword to block edge on edge and sustain less damage then an edge on edge block with a katana would. (Two modern iaido instructors took traditionally (well)made katana and did a fast kata with lots of edge on edge blocking and the end result was two saw toothed katana and about 6 thousand dollars per sword tossed down the drain)

Blocking is avoided in both arts, with deflections and "voids" (dodging) being the preferred method of defense, but a European sword is capable of blocking with edge or flat (although it will take edge damage in the block) without breaking, as someone said earlier. Whereas a block with the katana on the edge will sustain more damage, and a block on the flat will likely result in a bent or broken sword. Therefore voids are even more heavily emphasised in Japanese sword arts.
One smith and martial artist on swordforum used two differantially heat treated wakizashi type blades on eachother and was able to cut through the differantially hardened sword when striking on the flat and spine, while sustaining only dings in the edge with edge on edge blocking. So you can see the importance of avoiding blocking with a japanese sword, especially with the flat.
Also note: An "axe" edge would still sheer your arm, head, leg, or even your torso, right in half disturbingly easily. But the three tiered system of gloves, grip, and differantail sharpening made it possible to halfsword safely, as well as letting a sword remain sharp enough to be a sword, rather then a crowbar.

As you can see, as far as manuverabilty, sharpness, durabilty, and use, the European sword is more or less on par with the Japanese sword, and possibly even better in some catagorys. (Such as durabilty, with the tradeof being slightly less sharp)

So where do all these legends of the katana's power come from? Well, in japan, the katana and it's kin are about the only swords that were used, therefore the katana is just as much symbolic to Japan as it is a weapon, and symbols are often given immense power. At least in legends. japan was a very cut off society, they rarely warred with anyone but themselves. In fact, when the mongols invaded Japan many katanas were snapping on the mongolian armour, this came as a shock to the japanese, the only thing that saved their keisters was the kamikaze (divine wind). A monsoon blew in and destroyed most of the mongolian force. Immedietly afterwords swordsmiths started working dilligently on the design of the katana so that it wouldnt break so easily on armour.
So other then a very few skirmishes with the "outside" it was Japan vs Japan, Samurai against Samurai, Katana against Katana. Hence the katana became symbollic and therefore legends were woven around it. In Europe, new armor and new enemys to fight resulted in the sword rapidly evolving and changing, and thus no one sword type became "symbolic" and had so many legends woven around it.
Europeans have always been a very practical people. If something doesnt work it is tossed out and replaced. In japan they just sought to improve what they had, Neither approach is better or worse, they're just differant. Although the katana did change over time, it didnt come anywhere near the differant phases of evolution the European swords did.
Also, the longsword is much more versitile then the katana, With halfswording, trapping and hooking with the qullions (guard) using them to trip your opponent etc. The japanese sword arts have none of this, and therefore the samurai wouldnt expect these things. But the European sword arts have plenty of cutting and thrusting, and this more or less covers the Japanese side of things.
Now that we've covered swords, lets breifly cover armor, this isnt my strong point(i have far more knowledge of swords then i do of armor), so I will be brief.
Many people have pointed out that European harness (full plate armor) is not as clumsy as commonly bealived, this is true, as are the facts that is not an extreme encoumberance, and that the weight isnt so bad, due to it being only 60 or so pounds and it's distributed all over the body (modern soldiers carry about 90 pounds just on their backs!)
So while the japanese armour may be extremely complicated to make as well as very beautiful and manuverable, so too is European plate armour, and the European plate offers superior protection as well, a katana would very likly bend or break on European plate. While a longsword would dole out a good bit of damage to the laminated armour of the samurai.
European armour offers more protection, with only a minor trade off in manuverabilty. Also, remember, armour was worn in both cultures on the battlefield ONLY. you did not stomp around in full harness in Europe, just like you didnt in Japan, and on our ancestors battlefields individual manuverability is not that important, as all fighting is probably taking place in very crowded confines most of the time, therefore the superior protecition of european armour is more then worth the trade off in manuverabilty. As much as hollywood would like you to bealive that running around in minimal armour and cutting through your heavily armored and much slower foes is the way to go about war on a medevil battlefield, this is not the case, otherwise everyone would have ran around in minimal armour rather then suiting up in as much as they could find.

In the end it is protection that would save your life, otherwise the peasents that had no armour at all would wipe the floor with an armoured knight or samurai, clearly this is not the case, and the higher classes of both cultures developed armour that impedes movement no matter how well made, but provides protection in it's stead.
That covers the plate mail that most people think of when you say "knight"
Likely, the only reason the Japanese didnt develop plate is their lack of steel in the first place.
As for chainmail which i fought in many many times, accompanied with a gambeson (padded garment under the maille) provides great protection against cuts, with decent protection against thrusts. (properly made maille with rivited links at least) but with only minimal protection against blunt trauma. (Although it disperses the impact over a wider area therefore you might havea bruise or even a broken arm, but you'll still have your arm at least)

Someone asked about thrusts against chain in this thread, to answer him, I have seen a video of a proper maille/gambeson combination stop a spear thrown at full force against a dummy. The spear didnt penetrate, at least not enough to where it would have injured the person in the armor other then knocking the wind out of him. Obviously however, the chain really shines against the cut, with the thrust being much more dangerous to the wearer, although some protection is provided against both. Now that i think about it, the rounded curving point of the katana (kissagi) coupled with the curve in the blade makes it likely that a katana thrust against chainmaille would skate off the armour on an off thrust.
Also, make a note that Japanese armour was mostly designed to protect against arrows. NOT swords and other weapons.
With what i know from cutting tests and my own experiance with armour, coupled with what i've read in numerous places, i would NOT want to be the guy with the katana against any form of common european armour, Lets say, a chainmail shirt and gambeson with a curassis (breast and back plate) over it with a decent helm, a fair sizedsheild and a hand and a half sword. With knee and elbow cops and other little "trinket" armour. (What an early knight would likely wear) Let alone against full plate armour. Your chances of winning, even if you're armoured in full samurai kit, is relativly less, and remember, I love katanas and japanese culture,(enough to be getting ready to drop about 12 grand on a daisho when i get the money) so i'm not just saying that because i am some kind of japan hater.

Since this is getting long winded I am going to paraphrase what i would like to say. Evidence from European fetchbuchs contains information on both armoured and unarmoured combat, as well as a variety of weapon and weapon combinations, as well as unarmed fighting. In fact many students of asian martial arts when they first look at a european Fetchbuch declare with surprise "but we do that in karate/jiujitsu/etc!" I too thought the same thing when i first came into contact with a European fighting manual.

It is safe to assume that both cultures had martial arts on more or less equal levels as far as swordsmanship and unarmed fighting. Including the more versatile longsword. This is discounting all the hubub about "ki" and other semi-mystical things that are likely little more then legends with no proof, and before you point out GrandMaster SoandSo that can use his ki to make him able to smash bricks with his barehands, i wish to point out that there is an american gentleman who can do the same thing, but only because he's been punching a steel plate 1000x's a day at full strength for 30+ years and his body is conditioned to take it. No ki, no "force" nothing but pure physical conditioning.
Anyways, onwards...
A few small points here before we get down to the actual comparison. Just as samurai were trained in their martial arts from a young age, so too were the European knights.
Neither culture was neccessarily "braver" then the other. I can assure you that samurai were not the die hard death mongering no fear warriors we see on TV. A brave man is a brave man regardless of his country of orgin, so any mental advantages the samurai would supposedly have by being ready for death are just myths. Any man who goes into combat against another knows he may die, but accepts it as a part of the risk.
I doubt a knight is going to piss his armour once the samurai draws his sword http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Assuming that both men (single combat here) are master warriors (yes a European can be a "sword master" too Stephen, when you train to fight with something to save your life it doesnt matter if your European Japanese or Martian you can be a "master" and be just as good as any other culture ) from their respective cultures, with great deals of experiance, and with top notch weaponry and armour from the epitomy of their cultures (Fullplate for a knight and the highest caliber armour for the samurai etc). And assuming that they are both equipped with a single sword, katana and longsword. I would have to say that the knight would likely win being that the samurai cant really get to him through the armour, while the knight has dealt with armor of the samurai type before (although it might not look just like what the knight is familiar with, it is less protective and more mobile, hence the knight has likely dealt with similar armour protection before)
I would have to say that the fully armoured knight would have a better chance. Remember, the knight has fought many many people in many many differant configurations of armour, while the samurai has been pitted against mostly other samurai or "lesser" warriors, foot soldiers, etc.
Now, for the gentleman that pointed out that a samurai would just close and knock the knight down and attack him when he gets back up...well...heh...thats just silly, and this is why.
Balance is key to all fighting. The japanese are not by nature better balanced then Europeans, even with the armour a knight is going to be able to hold his balance even if a samurai rams into him. Remember, Europeans are ussually larger then japanese, and the combination of heavier (is it really though?) armour and a larger body mass on average is going to make the knight a little harder to knock down then you might think.
Also if the samurai attempted to close the distance he would of course have to get through the knights lognsword first (probably by sweeping it off to the side of course) in which case the knight would probably let the blade be swept off to the side and then slam his pommel into the samurai's face.
Plus we must remember, both men are master warriors, I find it hard to bealive that a samurai has that much better perception then a knight, a samurai in armour knocked to his back (and there is a lot of groundfighting in European martial arts as this is the best place to kill armored opponents) would have to get up the same way a knight would, Anything less flexible then chainmaille requires one to roll over and get to their feet. Unless the armour is exceptionally well tailored. This too, i know from experiance.
Therefore in full armour at the apex of hand to hand combat in both cultures i would have to give the knight about a 75% or greater chance of sucess.
Much as I'd like to see my "pet culture"(japan) win, and i'd surely root for the Samurai, you can be sure I secretly would have placed a 500 dollar bet on the knight http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
His armour is an advantage, not a disadvantage, or he wouldnt be wearing it. Also, his sword is longer, more versitile and ussually more durable provided they are both well made. Sharpness and edge retention in one on one combat that would likely last less then 60 seconds would not matter a lick. While while flexability would, a bent katana over the knights armour would be disastorous, a katana never faced full plate armour in history, it would be at a loss.

Now lets say the knight has a one handed sword and a shield. (very common) I dont even have to say then. Go fight someone who has a shield while you only have a katana or longsword and you'll see who has the advantage., and it wont be you! Also, samurai never faced a true shield, he would once again likely be at a loss for a tactic. (Experiance makes up about 60% of your combat effectiveness, with 20% being firmly planted in intangible unpredictable things, luck/ enviornment/ etc. and the other 20% is in your equipment this is just my opnion and applys mostly to hand to hand combat only) if you've never fought against a shield, you're not going to know what to do or what to expect, nor would you have a trained counter to it.

If we really want to get intresting, then lets strip away the armour and have the two fight unarmoured with longsword against katana, and nothing but your light clothing to protect you. ( A shield would still be to much of an advantage to be fair i think)

Here is where it gets hard to say and I am at a loss for an answer, it would be a much fairer match thats for sure. Here the sharpness of the katana could make a differance and durabilty is not so much an issue unless there is a hard sword on sword blow. On the other hand, the knight still has the more versatile weapon although he would be less likely to use halfsword and such when not facing armour. He also has a couple inches in reach (which might not seem like much but can make a tremendous differance in gaining as fetchmaster George Silver calls it "the true place" a place where you can strike your opponent but he cant get you.
Unarmoured combat is where the feces hits the fan and things are much more dangerous. I wont even hazard a guess at who would win here. I'd still lean towards the knight if i had to pick one. But it would still be a risky pick.
Truth is, we'll probably never know unless we can go back in time, snatch about 100 typical knights, and 100 typical samurai, and throw them at eachother one at a time and count up the averages. This is impossible and immoral however http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

I still think the typical knight has a slightly better chance in armoured or group combat, just like i think the longsword is a down and dirty superiour weapon that just isnt as mysterious or legendary, Or look as nice in my opnion, and the truth is i dont care that it's likely superiour, as i said, I like katana's better. If practicallity was the only issue in my preferance then i would say the guy with the M16 would win. But that might bring up a "who would win, the guy with the M16 or the guy with the AK47?" topic.
I could be wrong, but all of the samurai's supposed advantages (super sword, super armour and ku-ratty!) are easily disproven or have a european counterpart, Other then that, the only remaining advantages on the samurai side are intangible things like ki, increased perception, the ablity to jump 20 feet in the air, and shoot fireballs out of his hands (ok no one said that, but i'm sure someone was thinking it) and other anime bull$hit "facts".

We'll never know who would win, and it doesnt really matter. Both cultures evolved differant types of warriors and weapons that were top of the line in their time period and place. Neither one of them are substantially better then the other although both have advantages and disadvantages, many people say threads like this are pointless. I dont think that's so, as it can help clear up misconceptions about both cultures and warrior classes.
Sorry for the long winded post, but i hope someone learned something they didnt know and found it informative.

[William The Conqueror]

Quote Originally posted by St Stephen:
Well you see this is exactly what I meant. You start talking about armor etc. and being mad just because someone else have a different opinion. However please allow me to take on your challenge here. I feel from your post that you have never study martial art of any kind beside reading it from a book. I'm also sure that you have never handheld a real sword or train with it to "kill a person" therefore you have no idea how fast, precise and devastating a single katana with a superior training can be.

Do you know what makes a master swordsman a "master", not the knowledge how to cut someone head off because that everyone could do. To be a master swordsman you must understand a way of the sword therefore as long as we have two arm and two leg there are limited amount of movement you could do with ANY sword so a master could "read " ANYbody to get the advantage he would need to get the "kill" with ANY opponent regardless of the protection they are wearing (I'm talking single combat only here). Now in this kind of training we all must admit that the Japanese have the advantage over the European and please don't "throw" me books tell me instead how much experienced you have as a swordsman thanks! I'm myself studying eastern martial arts ( unfortunately there isn't many western martial art out there beside boxing and fencing)for 16 year and involved with Shinkendo for the last 4 year so for me it is a beginning only. However I know persons who's been studying the sword for over 20 year and still don't understand it , to do so takes a special talent only very few people have; that's why they had very few masters in Japan even in the Edo era.



[/QUOTE]

Well, I HAVE held a real sword, both nihonto (Japanese sword) and European, and I've been actively training in European swordsmanship for a couple of years now (and reading about it for longer), so while I'm no master, perhaps you will allow me to address the issue.

I find it baffling that you think your credentials in Japanese Swordsmanship somehow makes you an authority on European Swordsmanship and it's history. I beg your pardon, but that is NONSENSE! Just because you are ignorant of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Trying to claim otherwise in the face of hard evidence just makes you look silly.

BTW, if my experience is too slim for your exaltedness, please do follow the links to the ARMA and Sword Forum International, where you will find many very experienced Western swordsmen practicing the very European Martial Arts you claim don't exist. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

With all due respect St Stephen, I know and have conversed with alot of Shinkendo folk over the years, inclduing Mr Nathan Scott on various forums and the Shinkendo list itself, and, although I can't claim to speak for them, I have a sneaking suspician that he and most senior Shinkendoka would not agree with you at all. May I ask, btw, who your teacher is? I know some of the Shinkendo instructors from various forums.

I also suspect that you may not have read my post in it's entirety. In particular, it seems as though you have chosen to ignore the issures I raised about the very real European medieval masters who learned, practised and taught the arts of war to the European military class for centuries.

These Medieval masters were men who had trained for, fought and bled in real wars and duels for decades, and left details of their arts to us in the fighting manuals they published. I'm sure you'll agree, I should weigh their words more heavily over that of any modern Cyber-Bushi.

All the modern scholars and martial artists who have had a chance to study the surviving European manuals have concurred that they represent a sophisticated, complete system of martial arts to equal anything from Japan. Aan excellent overview of late medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts can be found in Dr Sydney Anglo's book "The Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe":
http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/MAoREpreview.htm

There are distinguised teachers of Japanese martial arts, such as Mr Dale Seago, chief instructor in the Bujinkan (under Hatsumi), who attended a European longsword seminar a while ago, who would also disagree with you. The seminar was headed by John Clements of the ARMA (Association for Renaissance Martial Arts). Suffice it is to say that Mr Seago came away well impressed, and made the direct assertion that there was no doubt in his mind that the European martial arts were, in their day, every bit as effective as anything developed in Japan.

Mr Guy Power, high ranking instructor of Toyama Ryu batto do, who has studied the recently published edition of Talhoffer's 1467 fechtbuch (available as "Medieval Combat: A fifteenth century illustrated manual of swordfighting and close quarters combat" translated by Mark Rector), compared the medieval German longsword tradition favourably to kenjutsu and batto do, recognizing many of the techniques in Talhoffer's manual as having direct counterparts in Japanese swordsmanship (an example of parallel development: very common when two seperate cultures face similar challenges). Mr Power found the German tradition so interesting, I believe he bought and sent a copy to his Sensei, Mr Nakaumura.

Suffice it is to say that both of these gentleman have decades worth of experience, much of it studying directly in Japan, in the Japanese martial arts. You'll undertsand my beef with you then, when they, and others, see a comparable martial tradition between the martial arts of Europe and Japan, and make none of the inferiority claims you have made. Their opinions are all the more weighty for the fact that they have, unlike your good self, studied some of the manuals concerned and actually tried some of the techniques for themselves. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Quite frankly, let me emphasize the fact that it is absurd for you to dismiss the fighting arts of Europe without having any knowledge of them.

My experience may not be sufficient enough to impress one such as yourself, but allow me to humbly submitt that I find neither cultural martial tradition superior. They are both very impressive and worthy of study. I also fail to see the need to insult and exalt one over the other. What purpose does it serve, especially when one clearly doesn't have all the requisite knowledge to make such assertions?

Please, do us a courtsey and study up on the subject before further asserting the lack of Medieval or Renaissance European martial arts or their inferiority. When in the face of indisputable evidence you assert otherwise, it makes you look rather silly to those of us who study this field, and KNOW better.

I think you really should follow the earlier links I provided. And before you fire off another pithy claim that there was no martial arts in Europe, take a look here for a small and incomplete selection:
http://www.thearma.org/manuals.htm

Cheers

[St Stephen]

Well Gentlemen!

I apologize if you misunderstand me about the effectiveness and existence of the European Martial Arts, that wasn't my attention. Now you made me the "silly" one here by ignoring the real point of my post which is first: there is no such a thing is "luck" for a warrior if were any than non of them would train hours( 6-8 for the Samurai) per day to survive the next encounter; second: between the two fighting style I thing the Japanese ( without disrespecting the European)have the potential to make a exceptional swordsman out from anybody.That's all Gentlemen! No offence and disrespect were meant! I'm really not a master swordsman and probably never be one. Unfortunately the only way to find out the issue here is illegal this day's.

I was studied from the founder of Shinkendo Obata Toshishiro, Shinkendo Kaiso at Honbu and I personally knew Sensei Nathan Scott.

Please don't send me links what our "community" well known for a long time. Your not the only one who read Jonh Clement's essays, beside I do have all his books and I deeply recpect him as a real swordsman of our time! Just because you have the time to write pages on the issue does not mean you have the truth on your site does it!?



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[Skogul]

Luck-
I beg to differ, you train to increase your chances at survival the better your training, the better your chances, if however, to be silly, a bird flying overhead were to poop and it was to land in your eye thereby blinding you and allowing your opponent the opportunity to cleave your skull. Then i think we can call it a stroke of bad luck, and on a slightly more serious note. If a stray arrow was to find it's way into your forehead, it's bad luck that no ammount of training can prevent. You may get more and more effective with more and more training, but sh!t happens, especially in the bird example http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif and sometimes no ammount of conditioning can prevent it. Luck will always factor into combat, there is no preventing it.


And no offense was taken, at least on my part, I only singled you out because of some things you said that struck me as silly assumptions.
and i hope none was taken on your part as well, but i am truly curious as to why you think the samurai arts are superior?
I have given my reasons for bealiving the way I do, and tried to back them up with what I "know" to be facts, and I would like to hear the "opposing" side. Not really opposing though as i think it could go either way with no real deffinite for sure winner. Thus is the nature of combat, murphys laws while funny to read often turn out to be all too accurate http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[St Stephen]

Ok, I understand you guys frustration about the armor and weapon differences of the cultures and you are right I never denial it if you read all my post here however I think the bushido training was superior to the European medieval training which was putting main important of the survivability on the battlefield and not single combat unlike the Japanese which developed a truly full spiritual and physical training method for both world. Actually my Sensei always said it that the old (Sengoku) training was completely different from a later (Edo) type, it don't take a brain surgeon to understand why!

Look it is my humble opinion that in single combat without armor the Japanese Master would have the better chance!

One more thing which you all ignored and I'd mentioned before that there is no way that in real life two equally good opponent would meet under equal conditions. The real question is how many master swordsman the European style produced and how many were in Japan in the same time. I have no doubt in my mind that Europe had great warriors however they mainly trained to be effective on the battlefield as I mentioned before. This is why they developed a superior armor which was second to non however this didn't mean they are good swordsman, on the other end well we all know the other end so I wont go there! I think you guys taking this issue a little bit to personal! I born in Europe so I have the same pride of my own history also but again that is only me and my two cent on the issue. Take it or leave it, it is up to you because we will never find the answer to our question here! Trust me when I say this that I would be the first to volunteer for the real life tryout if we ever could.



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[St Stephen]

Skogul

Did you use any of Clark's L6 katana. I'm intrested of your thoughts about them because I'm about to get one of those "super" blades myself. Let me know what you think or know about them, please! Thank you.

I need a stong blade for cutting( Tameshi-Giri).

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[Skogul]

Stephen, I've never personally gotten to handle a Clark L6 katana. That will be remedied soon enough, as that would be the 12k daisho i mentioned http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Just need to save a bit....
At any rate, i did have one of Mr Clarks 900 layer blades, fantastic worksmanship. I see no reason why his L6 would be differant, the trade off as you might know, is in the asthetics.
L6 doesnt have the subtle activities in the steel that collectors crave. But for martial artist, a Clark L6 under any semblance of normal use, including warfare I'd wager, is practically indestructable. There is a review on Mr Clark's L6 katana's in the backissues of swordforum magazine, not sure if you've read it, but it's an intresting read.
If you're looking for a tough sword for tamishigiri then an L6 katana would deffinitly be the way to go. Unfortunetly it's going to cost you about six grand unless you can find a used one for cheaper.

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Luck - the deciding force in combat. Even today in modern warfare, luck is still critical to success. As I have said time and again, and posted a few times as well, its not the bullet with my name on it that worries me, its the one marked "To whom it may concern" that I am concerned with...

This discussion has turned into a very interesting one indeed. Now, in reading the posts I have missed, I must address a couple of points. First, to St. Stephen, you state that armor weight and weapon types have nothing to do with the outcome of battle. OK.... tell ya what - you put on "chain" mail, that by the way is not overly "light" given that it puts its weight on your shoulders, grab your large kite shield, and your "hand and a half" (sometimes known as a bastard) sword, and meet me on a nice field big enough for a major battle. To that battle I show up with no shield, no armor, and 3 weapons. A mace, a gunpowder weapon (with charges, wadding etc.) and a polearm of some sort. We will start combat at 25 yards - with my weapon unloaded. Think you can win? Consider it - I have the advantage of maneuverability. I don't have to just stand there and try to load my weapon, and I would not. I will "head for the hills" - and move away from you. Remember - its a very large area - and I can easily increase my distance over you given your armor and shield. Move you can, but not as well as I can. Once I have sufficient distance, I load my firearm, and take my shot. Repeat as necessary. Remember - you have the advantage of armor, I have the advantage of firepower.
Once you are wounded once or twice, then I can calmly walk up to your tired and bleeding self and, with my polearm, ensure that your no longer a danger to me, before I close in and blunt force trauma you to death with the mace.

Ok granted - this is a fanciful scenario - but its point is simple, armor weight and protection, weapon choice and other factors, all contribute to the outcome of battle. Just as luck does. You take a horse and lance, I will take a Patton tank. Unless lady luck decides to guide your lance just perfect and your able to slide the lance in thru my eye slits and into my head, or makes my main gun blow up in my face, my choice of weapons is likely going to determine the victor.

Skogal, the bit on the geometry of the European sword edge were fascinating - I learned much. Thank you.

As for the ability of a swordsman to knock an armored opponent to the ground, as you stated - groundfighting was much practiced as it was the best way to kill an armored opponent - so obviously it is possible that an armored knight could be knocked off his feet. As to the idea that a samuria would eat his teeth if he tried - well, no one knows, it was a hypothetical as I stated.

I think it should be noted, the mystical katana was not the only weapon used by samuria. While its a fine weapon, history shows that samurai were trained in a number of weapons, and often used them. In fact, the use of multiple blades in combat was not unknown in Japan, although ambidextrous weapons use is more commonly recognized as a European type of style.

One last thing, why is it that very few Japanese weapons are of the heavy crushing or heavy edged type, such as the european war hammer or mace, and "battle" axe? Was it a lack of resources? The reason behind the question is simple - from all I know of Japanese armor, it would provide very little protection from such weapons. Thus, a natural evolution to weapons suited to use against such armor would normally occur, but to my knowledge, it did not. Anyone have any thoughts as to why it didn't, or is my knowledge just too limited?

Q!
Skkz

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by BSM_Skkzarg:


This discussion has turned into a very interesting one indeed. Now, in reading the posts I have missed, I must address a couple of points. First, to St. Stephen, you state that armor weight and weapon types have nothing to do with the outcome of battle. OK.... tell ya what - you put on "chain" mail, that by the way is not overly "light" given that it puts its weight on your shoulders, grab your large kite shield, and your "hand and a half" (sometimes known as a bastard) sword, and meet me on a nice field big enough for a major battle. To that battle I show up with no shield, no armor, and 3 weapons. A mace, a gunpowder weapon (with charges, wadding etc.) and a polearm of some sort. We will start combat at 25 yards - with my weapon unloaded. Think you can win? Consider it - I have the advantage of maneuverability. I don't have to just stand there and try to load my weapon, and I would not. I will "head for the hills" - and move away from you. Remember - its a very large area - and I can easily increase my distance over you given your armor and shield. Move you can, but not as well as I can. Once I have sufficient distance, I load my firearm, and take my shot. Repeat as necessary. Remember - you have the advantage of armor, I have the advantage of firepower.
Once you are wounded once or twice, then I can calmly walk up to your tired and bleeding self and, with my polearm, ensure that your no longer a danger to me, before I close in and blunt force trauma you to death with the mace.

Q!
Skkz[/QUOTE]

Already, now you bring the gun in to the picture that is just wonderful why don't we talking about longbow against M-16 then.

Any of you who love to pick on me please read through my posts so you save me the time to repeat myself . I said it in my last post that in single combat without amore the Bushi have the better chance to win because of his training.

Finally I will say this for the last time that any of you ( I don't care how much you can write on the issue) who deny that training is primary to the amore and a weapon, is a fool. Without a training regardless of the weapon you holding and armor you wearing you are not a warrior. The knowledge to use those steel make you a effective fighting man. Thus there was a big difference in the training methods of the two culture therefore I strongly believe that the Japanese style of training have the advantage over the other. That's all please don't try to twist my words and send it back to me . Put your opinion here without disrespecting others. Nobody really knows the truth doesn't care how long your been swinging bastard sword over your head. I'm done here because I don't want to repeat myself again and I think I put my thoughts in to understandable English. Happy reading.

SKOGUL thank you very much for you thought about the L6 katana, I appreciated.



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[Skogul]

Yes, a knight could be knocked off his feet, no doubt about that. But it wouldnt be as easy as just stepping right up and tipping him over was what i meant http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif , it would be just as easy for the samurai to get knocked off his feet as well, so that theory doesnt really hold.
Much like the japanese, the europeans had an advanced system of throws, grapples, and sweeps at their disposal, and therefore would be expecting something like that and by no means be caught by surprise like you reasoned they would.
If the samurai did manage to close and attempt a take down then it's reasonable to assume that both men will wind up on the ground, at which point both men will go for their shorter side arms.
But if you were to take an armoured knight, and an armoured samurai, and knock them both down, you can bet they'ed get up much quicker then you think.
It is unlikely, even if one of them were to loose footing, that they would land flat on their backs, they would more then likely land more on their sides and immedietly roll to a partial kneeling position (easily defendable here) and stand, in the space of about half a second. There wouldnt be much of a window of opportunity either way.

Re-reading this thread i found this gem posted by faisil-
"Full plate armor can be cut in half if you swing the sword with full force whilst when swung lightly it should only bend it"

To which i say, try it! Plate armour was defeatable by getting around it (going for joints, ect, which was protected by chainmail so it's not completely unarmoured) or by puncturing it with a spike from a warhammer or similar weapon, or by mass weapons which crushed it (including pole-axes and normal axes).
You cannot, with any sword, even modern ones cut through properly made plate armour, you might, MIGHT, (and i know from experiance here test cutting on steel that isnt even as thick, nor hardened and tempered like true armour) Make a half inch gash at most (that was my best cut in the steel that like i said, wasnt anywhere near the quivilent of true armour)

Armor was made of steel, just like swords, more to the point, good armour was made of hardened steel, just like swords, while it was not exceptionally thick, it was more then enough to defeat any sword.


A quote from BSM_Skkzarg
"Again, the original question was 1 on 1, "fully decked out" warriors facing each other in the open, on flat terrain. With this being the case, and the predominance of the Yari usage by samurai, it is likely the samurai in question would have a spear available to him, while the knight would have longsword and shield.
The way the question was posed, terrain would not be a major factor. Nor would # of men, as its a 1v1 battle.

Now - lets address this - would a yari have been useful against dismounted knight? This is one area I can not speak in - as I have never messed with a Yari. For those who have, and have some knowledge of the pierce resistance of European armor, what say you all?"


My orginal assumption based on sword combat, as this is what i have the most experiance with. But, The knight also would likely have a polearm. In allmost all warring cultures all over the world, the tiers of war is thus
First you have your missle weapons, arrows, early guns, slings and stones, etc. From there it's your pole arms, spears, halbreds, naginata, etc. Then and only then do the close range weapons come into play, this includes most swords (with the only sword exception being things like maybe a nodachi (rarely if ever used in battle), or a true Great-Sword, which could reach lengths of up to 6 feet, however it's use is more akin to a pole weapon then a sword.

I cannot say who would win if both men had spears or halbreds (naginata is basically a halbred), I have never seen a yari or naginata in use, however in the fetchbuchs poleaxes are often used for trapping grapling and tripping, i can see the same thing being the case with naginata, but am not for sure.

As for the peirce resistence of plate armour. It's pretty good, plate tended to be rounded so that spear and lance points would tend to skate off to the side. The spikes on warhammers and pole arms got around that by having a massive amount of force behind them so that they didnt really skate off so easily.

Poleweapons are extremely dangerous, even when just training, because they're part thruster, part cutting, part chopper, and part massweapon (spears being the exception of course). Therefore they're unpredictable really and it cannot be said who would win with any real certainty at all. (once again assuming both warriors are in full harness)
That does include spears.

It would be diffacult for both to get a nice thrust in with their spears due to armour (although i am inclined to bealive the the laminated construction of samurai armour would actually tend to catch spear points rather then allowing them to skate off) it would probably turn into using the poles more like staffs (a staff is a mass weapon of course, and all armour is vulnerable to mass weapons) so it would be very even match at that point. with the poles being used to trip, smash, and try and knock the other guy down before running the point into the soft stuff under the armour

Anyways, i'm almost done here...as for "light chainmail" chainmail typically weighed in the range of about 20 pounds or less, they used thin rings that were riveted and tempered, that were much stronger then todays butted mail construction which is made of thicker rings to compensate, thus adding more weight, but still offering no where near the durabilty, fighting with blunt steel in butted mail often tears your armour up and busted links litter the floor afterwards.
But anyways, even with all the weight on the shoulders it's not that bad.
I had a shirt that weighed just under 50 pounds (about 47 pounds) and i could fight in it (i actually got it for "weight" training) it did hurt the shoulders a bit, but it was tolerable for a period, however when you belted it much of the weight was supported by the belt, making it MUCH easier to wear. Belting 20 pounds of mail would make it like wearing almost no armour at all.

Too many things factor into combat to really go either way. training is good, but it cant prepare you for everything. But it does give you the "experiance" simulated at least, that I prize very highly. (At least 50% of your combat effectiveness in my opnion)

Grins, as for long bow against M16..both have their advantages. Of course the M16 has more firepower, but assuming both combatants have kevlar armour on, the longbow would shred through it. doesnt help much against headshots though http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif Obviously the gun has the advantage. I give victory to the guy with better aim (training) and better luck, if your M16 jams thats one of those things training cant prevent, you might find an arrow through your lung, or if your bow string snaps...
grins... it all depends, train hard though, it increases the odd's at least http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[This message has been edited by Skogul (edited 04-14-2002).]

[William The Conqueror]

Quote Originally posted by St Stephen:
Well Gentlemen!

I apologize if you misunderstand me about the effectiveness and existence of the European Martial Arts, that wasn't my attention. Now you made me the "silly" one here by ignoring the real point of my post which is first: there is no such a thing is "luck" for a warrior if were any than non of them would train hours( 6-8 for the Samurai) per day to survive the next encounter; second: between the two fighting style I thing the Japanese ( without disrespecting the European)have the potential to make a exceptional swordsman out from anybody. [/QUOTE]

But what is the basis of this assertion? Why are the very real European martial arts less capable of making an exceptional swordsman out of anyone than the Japanese?

I'm not sure whether or not this is perhaps a linguistic mis-understanding, but you seem to keep ignoring EVERYTHING I write about or link to the sophisticated martial arts practiced in medieval and Renaissance Europe.

Please, until you have studied all the surviving historical fencing manuals AND seen authentic medieval swordsmanship by skilled practioners in person (as I have), would you please hold off the superiority claims for the Samurai? How can you possibly compare them and declare the Japanese superior, when you haven't enough experience of the European side to make a balanced, accurate comparison?

If you are going to insist on claiming that the training and martial arts of the Samurai were somehow inately superior to those of the Knight, would you PLEASE provide some evidence for your assertion, or at least admitt that it is an unfounded and unproven assumption?

Quote
Please don't send me links what our "community" well known for a long time. Your not the only one who read Jonh Clement's essays, beside I do have all his books and I deeply recpect him as a real swordsman of our time! Just because you have the time to write pages on the issue does not mean you have the truth on your site does it!?



[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).]

[This message has been edited by St Stephen (edited 04-14-2002).][/QUOTE]

Now now. I never sent you any links, I posted them for everyone (including yourself)to see on a public forum. And I haven't just read John Clements books, my instructor Craig Gemeiner has trained directly under John in Houston.

John Clements is the Director of the ARMA (formerly the HACA), so the links I provided are in essence his, and you said yourself that you respect him. I assume therefore, that you respect the information contained on the links. That information is easily verified in most cases by following some of the other, independent links I provided.

That's not to say that every opinion on the site (or any site) is gospel. Opinions are opinions. But the existence and sophistication of European martial arts and the survivng period manuals is a matter of FACT, not opinion. They exist and they refute your assertions, and nothing you or I say can change the facts as they are.

FYI I don't have a personal site (although I do frequent the linked sites, as do many others) and I didn't write the information on any of the links. I provided the links I did for the benefit of ANYONE else who might be interested, not just yourself. We are not talking in isolation, the rest of this community is reading (and I hope gaining something worthwhile from it).

I have tried to keep my posts here centred on the verifiable facts, and the facts are that European arms and armor were not demonstratably inferior to those of Japan, and the facts are that sophisticated martial arts existed and were practiced by the knightly classes in Europe, for both open war and personal and judicial duels. I have given links (and a couple of book recommendations) to just some of my evidence. The burden of disproving these, if you wish to publically disagree, now rests with you.

Anyway, we are getting a little off topic. I have said my piece, provided what information I can, and given my opinion about who would win in such an encounter. In any event, any conclusions drawn are speculation, since the protagonists in question are long dead and beyond the means to face off in a scientifically observable face off.

Cheers,


[This message has been edited by William The Conqueror (edited 04-15-2002).]

[St Stephen]

Quote Originally posted by William The Conqueror:
Now now. I never sent you any links, I posted them for everyone (including yourself)to see on a public forum. And I haven't just read John Clements books, my instructor Craig Gemeiner has trained directly under John in Houston.

John Clements is the Director of the ARMA (formerly the HACA), so the links I provided are in essence his, and you said yourself that you respect him. I assume therefore, that you respect the information contained on the links. That information is easily verified in most cases by following some of the other, independent links I provided.

That's not to say that every opinion on the site (or any site) is gospel. Opinions are opinions. But the existence and sophistication of European martial arts and the survivng period manuals is a matter of FACT, not opinion. They exist and they refute your assertions, and nothing you or I say can change the facts as they are.

FYI I don't have a personal site (although I do frequent the linked sites, as do many others) and I didn't write the information on any of the links. I provided the links I did for the benefit of ANYONE else who might be interested, not just yourself. We are not talking in isolation, the rest of this community is reading (and I hope gaining something worthwhile from it).

I have tried to keep my posts here centred on the verifiable facts, and the facts are that European arms and armor were not demonstratably inferior to those of Japan, and the facts are that sophisticated martial arts existed and were practiced by the knightly classes in Europe, for both open war and personal and judicial duels. I have given links (and a couple of book recommendations) to just some of my evidence. The burden of disproving these, if you wish to publically disagree, now rests with you.

Anyway, we are getting a little off topic. I have said my piece, provided what information I can, and given my opinion about who would win in such an encounter. In any event, any conclusions drawn are speculation, since the protagonists in question are long dead and beyond the means to face off in a scientifically observable face off.

Cheers,


[This message has been edited by William The Conqueror (edited 04-15-2002).][/QUOTE]

"While there is today an active subculture promoting and preserving historical Japanese bujutsu (war skills) or practicing modern budo and a great deal is also known about their practice, the equivalent can not yet be said for "lost" medieval fighting arts."John Clement

I rest my case your honor! Let's call it even! I have nothing to prove to you or anybody else here! Take it easy, please!

[Papewaio]

Some little interesting ancedotes that I have come across over time about the so called non martial arts of Europe.

'To put your best foot forward' apparently comes from european sword fighting. It is to advance and kick your opponent.

French Kick Boxing (Savante) is apparently as deadly as Thai Kick Boxing. Which was proven in several tournaments.

The idea that using English boxing rules that it is unsportsman to kick comes about because the French used to and would beat the English, the French would be Kick boxing against fist boxers (possible where the phrase to have ones arse kicked). Hence instead of learning to counter it they made it against their rules.

----------

Onto what our two newest members have said about swords being not so good against armour and more of a weapon against lightly armoured troops. In most samurai paintings they are depicted in battle as being armed with polearms primarily and when sitting around just with their pair of swords, so it seems they to used polearms against other armoured opponents.

That comes to my point... swords seem to be of use against unarmoured peasants or for duels.

----------

And there is a history of knights fighting duels. So it would seem fair to believe they trained for such occasions. As to them not training very often that would seem false as the longbowmen trained quite regularly and they did not train anywhere as much as the knights. And as for starting age the knights might have been knights from about age 16 or so (depending on era, locality and other factors) but they did train as squires for quite awhile beforehand.

So their martial traditions would seem to point to have training for a length of time as boys to young men. Exstensively in a lot of weapons and armour.

Also as a lord you are not going to be too impressed by some knight turning up who isn't very good at combat. Just to point out one of the ways they tested this; was when orginally knighting a squire it was not by gently placing the sword on each shoulder, it was by ringing the helmet on his head with the sword. Also the various tourneys and duels, you didn't win fame and fortune from an absence of training.

Anyhow amongst us there must be some sort of linguistic and historical specialist on such matters who cam correct my vague claims http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

I'm off back to the Off-Topic forum to indulge in my hobby specialty, sarcasm http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Victory First, Battle Last

[BSM_Skkzarg]

Hmm... nobody jumped on the evolution state of weapons - gee - and i thought it had lots of promise.
Q!
Skkz

[Wavesword]

The introduction of the Kensai seems to suggest that CA believe in the enhancing the Japanese mystique -as in the Legendary Swordsman video- Anyone think that there will be an equivalent unit in MTW. I think a 'teacher' event is more likely.

[Nelson]

Another giant superman? I hope not.

God save us from Sigfrieds, Lancelots and Robin Hoods.

[Wavesword]

SHHH, you're giving their marketing department ideas, a weetabix theme for MTW anyone?